Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on Today at 02:58:36 PM

Quote from: neowenyuan on Today at 01:33:27 PM

On the long run, paid voting will not be feasible for most, when fact-checkers are introduced.

What's to prevent an individual or company from either ranking up enough of their own accounts to be "fact-checkers", or buying off existing "fact-checkers"?

Quote from: neowenyuan on Today at 01:33:27 PM

If fact checkers debunk it as a fake news in future, even if the community gets paid to vote for certain outcome, in this case, real, or fake news, it is what fact checkers conclude, which counts.

Then what is the point in the voters at all then? If fact checkers can overrule them completely, then they serve no purpose.

I also agree with examplens points above. Whether an article is factual or fictitious is not down to a consensus agreement. It is down to facts. A fact is a fact regardless of whether people like it or whether people vote for it. The majority of people at the time thought slavery was fine. The majority of people at the time thought blood letting with leeches was an effective treatment for most medical issues. The majority of people at the moment think that USD is both safe and stable. The majority can't be trusted, and consensus doesn't make something true or false.

Within the fact-checkers platform, fact-checkers require the support of other fellow fact-checkers with their response. The possibility is there, where somebody manage to buy off enough 'fact-checkers' to keep quiet, or to behave manipulated. I don't think there is a way to stop this completely, or to prevent this from happening, even though it'll take a long time for tracking 'enough' fact checkers.

Another way fact-checkers can be supported, is by the existing community(non-verifiers/non fact-checkers), as they get to stake their RNT on fact-checkers. If somebody do manage to 'buy off' most or all fact-checkers, and the existing community does not sense the 'buy off', there really isn't much that any of us can do. But, given current social media and online environment, such as platforms and forums like this, everyone have their own opinion on many different topics. I can buy off more than half of bitcointalk users to post good things here, including legendary and hero members like yourself, but it doesn't necessary mean, all users will follow suit and post good things here. So long as there is a voice, and the voice reaches the people, it doesn't really matter what the crowd say sometimes. So, to answer your question, if the unlikely event where fact-checkers are all bought out, I'm confident, somebody will do the right thing, be it fact checkers, or even members who stake their RNT on the fact-checkers, and we can only hope, the minority can make enough noise to change things. One very good example is what we see in Steemit on January and February, and that's why a community is very important, which I'm sure all of us agree here. I think we still have plenty of work to do here in this department.

I do agree that, consensus agreement is not effective, as what people feel in general, may not depict the truth. That is why, we need to have a community of fact-checkers, to debunk news articles which is simply not true. If somehow, this platform appeared a few hundred years earlier, we would be able to study about human thoughts at the point, such as allowing leeches to suck off your 'toxins' as an effective treatment, and thinking slavery was fine. There might also be a chance where, 20% of the population thought it was fine, but not the remaining, and they just kept quiet without voicing any concerns and follow through with their life. Things might have turned out differently then, or at least now when we're puzzled by people in the past.

A current example would be, social media users debating on these platforms. Sometimes, we read them without commenting, because there is no winning over keyboard battles sometimes, and you have better things to do. But when you look at the comments, it is mostly filled with unconstructive comments, does that mean everyone is stupid just because too little people said something smart over there? However, with this platform, the more 'informed' users can make their votes count, and they have a group of fact-checkers that they can count on, and if that is not the case, they can be a fact-checker themselves to make a difference. But ultimately, it shows numbers in votes, facts and evidence provided by different fact checkers, things can become more transparent in future I believe by showing 2-3 general opinions backed by other fact checkers in an article that was voted in future.

Honestly, I'd like to see someone post an article saying, USD is both safe and stable, fact-checkers from this platform like yourself, putting up evidence and facts stating its a 'fake news', and the general consensus get a jaw drop when they learn of it as a fake news, and more would wake up from their sleep. Even though this period might be a start of a wake-up call as well.

Ultimately, what I want to achieve with this MVP is, for a community to start voting on news article. Without a community who can agree with this act of initial voting, there is no way to effectively introduce fact-checkers within a fair/decentralised environment, and no way for the general public to learn about why certain article is fake or misinformed news.

Thanks for bringing up the flaws here, I believe I have more to work on for the whitepaper moving forward. Have a great day, and keep yourself safe!