Snowden on fake news, Twitter features, and the rule of law

Originally published at:


“We talk and we share and we point out what is true.”

As if we ourselves are free from biases and the people who need convincing are actually listening to “us”…?

Well, we objective people are. Any of you who disagree are simply wrong.


You’re absolutely right.

Except where you disagree with me, there I’m right and you’re wrong.


Ha! A good start would be to all agree on how to identify and define a “fact”.


I keep envisioning a “news tagging” site where you can read news, evaluate news, or submit articles for evaluation. While reading news posted on the site, you can indicate whether you trust the authenticity of that news, and perhaps in what ways you trust it (annointing parts of it as fitting your definition of opinion/doctrine vs fact, designating likelihoods of various parts of it as true, etc). What this site does is hook you up with the trust network of people who have the same instincts as you about what’s to be trusted, and in your perspective of that customized/invidivualized network of trust, you begin accumulating reputation points. (There are various algorithms one can bring to bear on such a trust network, involving factors like “hops away from someone I trust highly” and “consistency over time”.)

The charter of such a site might not per se be to promote a particular point of view so much as to hook up subnets of like minded people. Which is a fine outcome in and of itself. However, I can’t help but wonder further if over time there’d be a natural distilling of highly trustable objectively factual news, due to glaring inconsistencies of non-factual lines of thinking.

this sounds like wikinews, but this project mostly failed

1 Like



I ripped the audio out of the video interview and put it on Soundcloud.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.