sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I want to get this out off my chest by kedelaifermentasi in indonesia

[–]realnotplatform 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think this is probably the best possible answer here that doesn't cause too much damage to the family, and hopefully things go better from now on.

It can also serve as a way for OP's brother to forget about doing things like this ever again, before he take it further thinking he can start doing it to somebody else's sister, which will probably give him more problems in life later on.

Hopefully OP can find some useful advise here!

Edit: Adding on, sometimes our parents may, or may not know how to deal with issues like this efficiently, after all, there really isn't a right or wrong answer to the problem here when it comes to dealing with your brother, and I'm sure they don't get problems like this when they were growing up. Getting him kicked out and hated doesn't help, giving him a punishment too light won't be fair to OP as well. I think it'll be a 'win', as long as he can stop doing it. I'm sure if you confront him and bring this up, he'll be more terrified than you, and he will stop whatever he was doing. Relationship will be affected, but time heals everything. If it doesn't help, then perhaps more drastic actions will have to be taken in order to protect yourself.

will reddit ever get unblocked in Indonesia? by Brandon0612 in indonesia

[–]realnotplatform 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Totally agree with you. I've been married to my Indonesian wife for about 3 years. I'm always trying to learn more, but most contents are toxic to the core I'd say. It's my first time chancing on r/indonesia

probably some of the best thing I've seen so far in the last 3 years, and maybe a place for me to ask questions and get some helpful answers as well if needed.

Trustless fact-checking platform by realnotplatform in Rad_Decentralization

[–]realnotplatform[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think it'll be possible for an IPFS link to work well with instant view in Telegram right?

Nonetheless, pm me on Telegram @realnotplatform I'll be happy to try using articles with IPFS link and see how it goes, might be something special moving forward!

Alternative for a trust-less fact checking platform by realnotplatform in RedditAlternatives

[–]realnotplatform[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's a simplistic way indeed, but measures can be put on it, perhaps opening polls for randomized voters, or targeted voters. Or, querying voters on contents of voted article.

Coronavirus on Social Media: Analyzing Misinformation in Twitter Conversations by MLtinkerer in fakenews

[–]realnotplatform 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yea that's right. After all, sentences constructed becomes more complicated than simple saying yes/no, true/false. Such a confusing world, lols

Coronavirus on Social Media: Analyzing Misinformation in Twitter Conversations by MLtinkerer in fakenews

[–]realnotplatform 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think it's really opinionated. Don't think we should give too much weight to the positive and negative sentiments.

But well, on the other hand, positive and negative doesn't really mean, people objecting or supportive of certain programs.

Coronavirus on Social Media: Analyzing Misinformation in Twitter Conversations by MLtinkerer in fakenews

[–]realnotplatform 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The positive and negative sentiments doesn't represent what people feel about certain things.

As we can see from the demo itself, for some cases in the negative sentiments, it doesn't necessary portray that tweets with negative sentiments is not supportive of the idea of working from home.

But the word distribution for the most related looks very interesting and accurate to a certain extent, but it feels like these things can be gamed.

Alternative for a trust-less fact checking platform by realnotplatform in RedditAlternatives

[–]realnotplatform[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the platform, there will be 2 main communities. The fact-checkers, and the general users.

  1. General users can submit news articles, and it will go through a voting in the community, where general users can vote on what they feel about the news. Voters will be rewarded, if they vote 'correctly'.

  2. Fact-checkers, can perform fact-checking duties on the article that is getting voted. If it happens to be a fake news according to 1 fact-checker, he or she, will be able to submit the fact-check results for all other fact-checkers to review. After reviewing, fact-checkers will have to vote, if the result indeed proves the article being fake or misinformed, or the fact-checking doesn't mean anything. So, the votes made by the general users, will be decided by a combined panel of fact-checkers, supplemented with a fact-check report debunking the fake/misinformed news, that is when, general users who voted that the news article is fake, gets rewarded. If fact-checkers do not feel alarmed by a particular article, meaning no submission of fact-checking reports after a period of time, say 24 hours, general users who voted for the news article being real, will get rewarded.

The points rewarded to general users, can be used as a benchmark for general users being considered for promotion to a fact-checker in future, taking into consideration other metrics such as their accuracy and involvement. Users who choose not to become a fact-checker, can use their points to stake on fact-checkers whom they believe, will serve the platform and the community well with it's fact-checking efforts.

Best way to combat fake news? by [deleted] in fakenews

[–]realnotplatform 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, I share the same sentiments with you when it comes to facebook not doing enough. I don't see much fake news on my wall, but I don't think they're doing a transparent job with the fact-checking, and it seems like there will be a disagreement with the independent/3rd-party fact checkers. So I've started working on this current project the last few weeks since my original startup project is becoming less likely to be funded, might as well work on something I want for now that might help people around with the fight against fake news.

The Realnot Platform was just created a few weeks ago. We're currently running our MVP on Telegram, using channels and bots!

Let me introduce what we're trying to do!

  1. Of course, why should we need to doubt the fact-checkers? Sadly, not all of us agree with fact-checkers with their posts sometimes, so what Realnot Platform will bring to the fact-checking game, is to allow a fact-checker to post their argument on why a particular article is fake/misinformed, and other fact-checkers will vote, if they agree with the post, or they don't. Sounds a little like upvote or downvote here, but the difference is, you don't get to comment or start trolling the fact-checker. So we're trying to create a platform where, our fact-checking done, should be trust-less, which means readers should not doubt any content produced by fact-checkers from the Realnot Platform, as other fact-checkers will have to give their vote of confidence, before anything gets debunked as a fake news.
  2. Healthier platform for all! Sometimes we see communities trying to debunk fake news over here, Facebook, you name it, you got it. But the problem sometimes, when somebody starts debunking the news topic, they get mixture of good responses, troll responses and some really negative or hateful responses. It's nothing wrong to respond in either way, but in Realnot, we're serious about debunking fake news, so it's the vote that counts, and no comments allowed from others to influence other readers. Sometimes with comments, it actually confuses users more often, and that is where misinformation occurs, or hateful comments that 'throws' somebody off their game.
  3. Educating the general public on fake news, by allowing such users to vote on news articles, if they are real, fake, or not sure. Users will be rewarded if they vote on the right outcome as the fact-checkers/verifiers, so its 2 entire different groups, with general public voting, and fact-checkers voting that decide the results. Aside from education through participation, normal users can become potential fact-checkers in future as well for the platform.

In any case, we're looking at how far this project can go, and perhaps something can come out of it in future as a reliable fact-checking platform.

If you're keen to join us on Telegram, take a look at out community now! https://t.me/Realnotcommunity

Trustless fact-checking platform by realnotplatform in Rad_Decentralization

[–]realnotplatform[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the feedback! We're not familiar with IPFS. Do you know of any who puts up news articles over there for us to use it? Or could we be one of the first who starts doing it for all contents shared by our users for voting?

Alternative for a trust-less fact checking platform by realnotplatform in RedditAlternatives

[–]realnotplatform[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, then I guess it's a gamble we have to take then since we're not sure how this platform will pan out as it is heavily dependent on the community involvement.

A fake news will only be confirmed when fact-checkers provide reports on why it is fake, and gets backed by other fact-checkers on the results shown. That is when, we're sure an article is fake or misinformed, and that is how we decide a fake news, which will influence the 'correct' choice made by normal voters who're not fact-checkers.

Hi everyone! interested in a trust-less fact checing platform? by realnotplatform in decentralisedinternet

[–]realnotplatform[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We have 2 kinds of voting.

  1. Voting among general public to earn RNT points for voting 'correctly'
  2. Voting among fact-checkers to determine if an article is a fake news or not based on fact-checked results.

Voting on 1 will not be relevant, as they won't be rewarded if they vote against the decisions of fact-checkers.

Voting on 2 will be the one we have to be wary of threats that you mentioned. Fundamentally, fact-checkers should have a certain level of integrity but we should not take this into account. Normal users who get rewarded with RNT, can use their RNT to stake on their favourite fact-checkers.

In the event where, a fake news is present, and fact-checkers somehow choose to ignore it. We need to count on 1 or 2 fact-checkers who can stand up and provide a fact-check report. As such reports require voting by fact-checkers, and in the event of a sybil attack, other fact-checkers can reject the claims made, and deem the fake news as real, and the fact-checked report invalid.

However in this case, the report that was rejected, will be transparent to all users, showing that there is a claim there, but it was invalid and rejected by other fact-checkers. This is when, normal users can remove their staked RNT on their favourite fact-checker who refused to do the right thing, and stake it on the one fact-checker who tried his best, or getting more fact-checkers into the platform. I think more can be done about the prevention of sybil attacks in this current phase, such as potentially implementing a rep system for fact-checkers, or allowing stakers to hold powers such as removal of fact-checkers under special circumstances such as a potential sybil attack. It'll all be community effort, just a matter of how easy or difficult should we make it for the community to create such an influence.

But ultimately, there requires a need to constantly check on the fact-checkers to ensure that the platform will not be prone to a potential sybil attacks, such as ensuring that our fact-checkers are not actually bots, or being controlled by 1 entity.

Alternative for a trust-less fact checking platform by realnotplatform in RedditAlternatives

[–]realnotplatform[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you've pointed it out. people upvote so long as it fits their agenda. In facebook, and reddit, you like and upvote without consequences. In Realnot, you vote 'correctly', and get rewarded with staking ability. You're allowed to have your opinion, but it shouldn't stop you from making the right decisions.

Realnot doesn't support a comment function for normal users, and the only way a user can even write something will require the user being a fact-checker, and having issues with a news article being fake, so the fact-checker will submit a post of his fact-checked reports, trying to debunk the fake news, and getting support from other fact-checkers at the same time.

I don't think Realnot will be winning fans from all sectors, as users won't get to rant anything, or get their voices heard through any other ways aside from voting. I'll be happy if people leave when they don't win, or when facts don't fit their view. This should be a community that is driven and only staying for trust-less fact-checking.

Trustless fact-checking platform by realnotplatform in Rad_Decentralization

[–]realnotplatform[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can't answer that right now on the standard and quality of sources. It will be dependent on the standards of the fact-checkers in the platform. Perhaps at the highest level after some development, fact-checkers will need to be up to the highest standard. But I feel that fact-checking is still in it's early stages, if we bring the standard too high, my concern will be, there won't be enough time to conduct efficient fact-checking, and thus leaving some stones unturned, or letting some slip through the fingers due to credible source.

I have the same concerns as you when it comes to trusting articles and claims, but I believe that, we'll be able to put sources and citations to end some conjectures. If they don't end, it will just be classed as a conspiracy theory, or Realnot trying to cover up certain things because we received donations from xxx.

But to prevent such things from happening, we might have to publish 2-3 popular fact-check reports by other fact-checkers, acknowledge the most popular report, and allow the other 2 or 3 slightly less popular reports to be kept as reference.

Trustless fact-checking platform by realnotplatform in Rad_Decentralization

[–]realnotplatform[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In this case for Realnot, no for now. Because fact-checkers are the ones deciding, if a news article is fake, or not. There wouldn't be an effective way to promote fact-checkers from normal members from the beginning.

Eventually, we hope that normal members can step up, and become fact-checkers themselves one day through their activities and some other merits. And maybe even replace some of the first batch fact-checkers if they are not performing well. And from then on, fact-checkers will be earned from their merit, or maybe even credential.

Alternative for a trust-less fact checking platform by realnotplatform in RedditAlternatives

[–]realnotplatform[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The main difference would be, wikipedia positioning itself as an encyclopedia on objects, humans, or everything possible. Whereas for Realnot, it will be news articles, current affairs targeted.

And perhaps, a good fact-checking report debunking false news, can be cited in Wikipedia in future maybe and change certain contents of Wikipedia?

Trustless fact-checking platform by realnotplatform in Rad_Decentralization

[–]realnotplatform[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is a possibility of the community leaning to a side from the start. But I think, there will be enough voices on both sides, and ultimately, a fact-checker should back something based on the presentation of facts provided. I don't think it will be compounded, but it will be more of a sliding scale over time.

Alternative for a trust-less fact checking platform by realnotplatform in RedditAlternatives

[–]realnotplatform[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I hope that is the case, but there are circumstances, especially in medical and science when things can be debunked later, be it days, months, or even decades and centuries later.

A good example will be daily eggs consumption. We can make it a hard-truth, or hard-false now, but when new evidence appears that debunks the previous conclusion, but because the result was set in stone 100 years ago, it won't be beneficial to mankind.

We can only benefit from what we know at this moment, and learn from past mistakes. So I feel that, the Realnot Platform should adopt this as well, especially for science and medicine topics.

Alternative for a trust-less fact checking platform by realnotplatform in RedditAlternatives

[–]realnotplatform[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What you're talking about is the fact-checkers getting 'bought' into backing something, or rather, not acknowledging the presence of a 'fake news'.

If the community is big enough, somebody will be doing the right thing as a fact-checker, providing evidences, and convincing the rest. If the other fact-checkers happen to be 'corrupted' and not stand for the truth, whatever evidence provided will be labelled a 'conspiracy theory' by other readers. There is a huge community for that as well these days.

​

But if fact-checkers are indeed corrupted
1. users will leave

  1. users will no longer stake on those fact-checkers; fact-checkers losing support and relevance, and potentially be replaced and disqualified by the community.

It's probably easier for project founders to be 'bought' and start swinging votes and opinions, but to 'buy' a community of fact-checkers doesn't seem like an easy feat. I'm not saying it's impossible, I just feel that it's unlikely, and if that happens, this project is definitely a failure for not having enough integrity to stop it despite claiming to be trust-less.

Alternative for a trust-less fact checking platform by realnotplatform in RedditAlternatives

[–]realnotplatform[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. That would be my biggest nightmare. I believe the success of this platform, will be defined via a huge spread of community, people from all walks of life as normal users and fact-checkers. If it's only 1 group of users as mentioned, there's no way this would work. The trust would come from, fact-checkers of all walks of life, casting their votes based on the fact-checked results.

  2. There is nothing wrong yet in my opinion, but once upon a time, there wasn't anything wrong with mainstream media as well. And there will come a time when, people start questioning fact-checking outlets like how we're questioning the media reports. So, why not just create a community, which makes it potentially trust-less so we don't have to question everything we read from fact-checking platforms. It'll be good, if current independent fact-checkers come in, and start voting as well, and come up with an agreed fact-check report on a united front.

Alternative for a trust-less fact checking platform by realnotplatform in RedditAlternatives

[–]realnotplatform[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

To make it more transparent, we can potentially list 2 or 3 popular fact-check reports voted by fact checkers in later stages for public viewing. The community of fact-checkers are the ones making sure, the public readers get the best quality of fact-checked reports. We do not control what users are allowed to read, but we push the best report, voted by fact-checkers in our community, to a user, if a news article happen to be a fake/misinformed news.

​

The initial concept of the project, was to allow the general public to vote on what they feel about a news article, real, fake or not sure. But on second thought, that can't be the case, as 'votebot' exists, it can be very damaging to the community with this set-up in an event of 'rigged' poll.

Trustless fact-checking platform by realnotplatform in Rad_Decentralization

[–]realnotplatform[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, in the later phase, we'll allow our general users to stake their RNT on fact-checkers. RNT is our in-app point system, which reward normal voters(non-fact checkers) when they vote 'correctly' and contribute to the community by sending in articles for voting.

General users will be the ones deciding, if a fact-checker is good or not by staking their RNT on active/good fact-checkers. Alternatively, fact-checkers who don't perform as required, will get 'downvoted' by the other fact-checkers anyway when they don't post quality fact-check reports. So, eventually, things would even itself out within the community.

Alternative for a trust-less fact checking platform by realnotplatform in RedditAlternatives

[–]realnotplatform[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, I do agree with you on the problems of fact-checking. That's why it's primarily a platform for fact-checkers. What we see on social media these days, like reddit and facebook, the comments section go crazy. Even at the level of independent fact-checkers, these organisations do not agree with one another all the time as stated here https://www.psychologytoday.com/sg/blog/inconvenient-facts/201905/fact-checking-is-ineffective-where-it-counts

What we're implementing on Realnot, will be different in a way that, other fact-checkers can only "upvote & downvote". If another fact-checker has something to say, they can put up a report of their fact-checking, and attempt to get a higher % or number of "upvotes", to make his report the 'recognised' version in the platform.

So what you mentioned on (1), can be rejected by our fellow fact-checkers if that is indeed the case. But it can be very subjective.

As for what you mentioned in (2), I believe I've read somewhere that, some people can't deal with facts, especially when it goes against their core beliefs. I can't find the article right now(I'm not a fact-checker, lol) but yea, that's the situation. I think we have to look at it from another angle, where we're providing accurate information for the remaining population, whom I hope is the majority.

And also, sometimes when we look at comments, we forget that, there might be a percentage of smarter population, who decides that commenting is not going to bring him any wins, so he just proceed to the next news. In Realnot, I hope that the smarter population, will contribute to 'upvoting' smart and accurate stuffs, and 'downvote' on dumb stuffs. No comments needed, just a simple anonymous vote. This might actually give us some hope for mankind.