>>16022147

>>16022146

Open source platform. Anon or public profiles. Credibility gained over time by validity of claims. Obv this is subjective so you build profiles of viewpoints by reactions, agree/disagree buttons, other input like this. Site pushes both content that you agree with the most, and the least to the highest visibility. When people you agree with on a number of issues posts something you disagree with, this is also pushed to you as a form of alert or notification. This forces you to reconsider and sharpen your positions, and uses social proof to make the adaption of your viewpoints a tad bit easier. Think Twitter replies but organized in a useful hierarchy. Also, predictions would be prioritized. Think the gay agenda would lead to wide acceptance of trans movement? When you posted that in 2005 it would have been captured and recalled later, methodically. Just one example but expand your thinking. Tags are heavily used and organized in a manner referenced above. Fact checkers? Fine. But their accuracy will be scrutinized over time by the source. Journalist writes an article? How is it sourced? What is the ENTIRE history of the articles written and positions taken publicly by this journalist? His financial ties? Family? Etc.

Easily accessible and accurate enough information disables this whole fuckin shit show from being able to go on. The technology already exists and is used every day by ordinary people, like Evernote and other organizational platforms. Just expand this in a social context and nobody can hide.

Problem is, this will quickly become a snitch site, and every power broker in the world would throw everything they had at this problem to stop it. Where do you draw the line? Who is entitled to be protected from doxxing and who isn’t?

The system could weed out random false claim until it is proven to be true. Then, the account that alleged Enron was a scam the earliest would have credibility and their other posts would be examined more carefully. Also, you can withdraw your opinions or change your mind, like we all do, and can be noted on the site as well. All parties would be able to personally respond to accusations or defend their past positions if they are tagged in some way. AI would help to push this info to all relative posts so people get the ability to clarify anything about themselves they want to.

Duplicate posts also get grouped and the highest voted version of said duplicate is the one shown, but all are available at a click.

Brain dump of something I’ve been thinking about for quite a while. Much more to it but this is the gist.

>>16022149

Another tidbit is a collection of everything anyone has ever voted for, against, and championed in government. Timelines, quotes, etc. Somehow, all bills are read and noted, and every detail anyone has ever signed onto is recorded and compared between candidates. All donations taken, associations had, events attended, etc are logged and compared with other candidates. Groups they are a member of, neighborhoods they live in, etc are also logged. Basically we can crowdsource all the work we do here and none of it would be lost over time.

>>16022270

Thanks anon! This is relevant. Like an ever-expanding search for information instead of a concretized approach to information. The opposite of the “this blah blah happened in the news, here’s what you need to know.”

Will continue to learn about this thanks again.

>>16022291

Bots wouldn’t have much visibility in this platform if done correctly. You need credibility, which is only achieved by other accounts with credibility. That just means legitimate, non-bot like activity. Circle jerk bots wouldn’t last in a system like this if done correctly. You would need real active users to interact with your viewpoints. Basically, the primary visibility would be reserved for the accounts least likely to be bots, although the bot info would exist on the site still, it wouldn’t be visible.

I’m not a computer engineer but if a platform ever prioritized truth, regardless of how salacious it may be, I think they could have pulled this off already.

>>16022276

Tonight, me.

>>16022316

I question whether you should be able to delete your works as well. We live in this fantasy world that people are perfect and never wrong. I prefer one where we accept that we all get shit wrong and are able to grow. If we normalize this, there wouldn’t be a need to delete posts, just note the state of mind you were in or why you changed your viewpoint.

>>16022321

Yeah but 750 posts later, your post is almost irrelevant. Need to log this info and organize it in order to more efficiently grow as a society.

But yeah, I hear you. Socials have all but neutered my reach.

>>16022338

Good question. Votes aren’t equal is the answer. There are tiers of rebranded. One tier is your own trusted sources and “lookalike” profiles, and how they voted. Another is the opposite. How people vote that most disagree with you. Total number of votes are almost irrelevant to what shows up for you in the UI. The interesting thing is what happens when someone you agree with on most things votes differently than you. That prompts you to think more deeply.

Also, each users experience is a bit different. Basically, the app pushes you up and down, left and right, around your current set of beliefs. Instead of the echo chamber effect we see so much of. Also, the information is available for research parallel to the claims you see. Is the issue voter fraud? Here is everything you could possibly want to see about voter fraud, from both sources you trust and disagree with. Also, responses are logged on both sides, so you can alternate between viewpoints.

Bots get ignored in this setting, it is much too complicated for them to be relevant.

>>16022368

*responses not rebranded

>>16022391

Your missing a key point. Bots can’t maintain an audience. Maybe I’m missing something but I do envision a system that can kind of sidestep the bots by ignoring votes without a level of social proof. You are right, most or a lot of people aren’t critical. These people will form their own mobs, these mobs will be faced with dissenting opinions on the site, as well as linked research material. Mobs don’t form around bots, they are only good for splash in the pan stuff and numbers. The site will only prioritize real users by recognizing users that other users follow. Then this information will be challenged by their most disagreed with opinions.

I understand your point though. I guess I’ll pose the question to you. Is there a possible solution to rating social posts that can avoid the bot farming? I think there is, even if my solution is inaccurate.