[uniqueid]

I applaud your effort, but, while there may actually be a single version of truth in the universe, there is effectively no good way to prove it.

I don't think a show of hands is helpful. I regularly encounter Reddit threads with 95% of the comments agreeing on something that elsewhere in the thread is clearly shown to be dis- or mis- information.

Cutting out political bias also fails to solve problems, because there are plenty of gullible, but "unbiased", fools out there, whose fact-checking isn't valuable. In fact, fools on the internet unwittingly do plenty of legwork for clever propagandists.

In my opinion, what would be useful is to allow the user to choose other users whom he or she trusts, and get a truth score based on their opinions. Create that and I'll be the first to join.

[aantthony]

Thanks for your feedback.

Just to be clear, its more than a show of hands because you choose how many tokens you want to stake. So in the Reddit example, if those 5% were willing to stake more, they’d have majority.

I chose to not go with a choose your trust model because I think the truthfulness information is a ‘what’ question, and checking ‘who’ only goes so far. But once those trustworthy users earn more tokens, they should have a larger influence on the system. Perhaps that would interest you?

[uniqueid]

Apologies if I sold your work short. I was sincere in my appreciation for your efforts. The world badly needs more people to tackle issues like these.

Okay, that said. I still think the approach will prove not to satisfy your goals...

   > I think the truthfulness information is a 
   > ‘what’ question, and checking ‘who’ only goes so far.

As a thought experiment, how often would a vote-based system, if our prevailing moral code today were that of the Antebellum South or Nazi Germany, clear up slander and lies against minorities? My guess is pretty much never (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism).

Under a system where the user instead defers to authorities of their own choice, one could easily choose more forward-thinking judges, and consistently get answers akin to those we have today.

[aantthony]

> My guess is pretty much never

I'm not able to know how often it could prevent such slander in those times, but we can look at the incentives. In those times, the authorities (church, newspapers) had central control over the main narrative, which is still mostly true today, but is beginning to fall. Back then, it seems you could slander minorities and there was pretty much no way for minorities to defend against it. In contrast, the upper classes had a means (duelling as an example) as an incentive against slander, and that imposes a cost on it. On social media there is no cost to publish lies. Verifact seeks to impose a cost on lies because you need to have something at stake. So I think if it existed at the time, Verifact would make it more costly to slander minorities, and it would be more profitable to disprove all kinds of pseudoscientific beliefs such as racial superiority and Nazi eugenics. Of course though, Verifact requires access to communication channels and tokens and that wouldn't be viable in those times.

> authorities of their own choice, one could easily choose more forward-thinking judges

Yeah could be interesting. I'd just want to make sure people don't create echo-chambers or follow others based on political opinions rather than facts. Perhaps letting people 'invest' in the judgment decisions of others would help, and you'd get notified when they stake.

[uniqueid]

I want to avoid discussing "echo-chambers" as my views on that topic make me sound like a knee-jerk contrarian. So I'll wish you success here, and thank you for your efforts :)