Interesting writeup by Vint Cerf on a theoretical cognitive fact checker. Vague ideas, with some clear benefits if it could exist, but also some real questions: who controls it? How can we make sure it can become free from "corruption", in many senses of that word?
@cwebber@identi.ca I had thought of something simpler that might help. People are more likely to reshare things that make them angry. That means retractions don't travel as fast and as far. Perhaps it would help if we tracked provenance of the source of a story then if there are retractions or corrections those could automatically propagate. (Support for claim that anger travels further came from discussion about this paper http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110184 )
Charles Stanhope at 2017-02-21T15:12:23Z
Christopher Allan Webber likes this.
Charles Stanhope at 2017-02-21T15:17:47Z
clacke@libranet.de ❌, Christopher Allan Webber likes this.
@Charles ☕ Stanhope Yes, I worry about that too. Like other well-intentioned anti-abuse tooling, under actually good governance probably it's fine, but in the wrong hands (and it seems like such an ideal target for corruption), I think it could be used to control dialogue in a dangerous way.
Christopher Allan Webber at 2017-02-21T15:53:57Z
clacke@libranet.de ❌ likes this.