Hi, your article is quite long, so I'm only going to address a few points that I saw were directly related to the software I'm planning to create, since you've directly asked about it.
Is it true that information can be dangerous!?
Yes. Most obviously, false information can be dangerous. If your pharmacist mislabels your pills and it says "take 4 per day", when you are only supposed to take one per day, this could cause you to end up in the hospital (or worse). I could go on here with many more examples of how false information can be dangerous, but I hope this makes the point clear. Honestly, I feel anyone should already know the answer to this question without it being asked.
Partial information can also be dangerous, even when the information you have is true. If you are told it is safe to be under water for several hours, but you are not informed that this is true when you carry an oxygen tank with you, then you could also find yourself in a precarious situation.
And finally, even complete information can be dangerous at times (not so much for the recipient, as for others). Christians have been killed in some places when it was discovered that they had abandoned the prevailing religion in the region in favor of Christianity, for example. Even recent news articles have discussed where spying software has been used to obtain information that later led to people being imprisoned and/or killed.
Is it true that folk benefit from fact-checked info?
...or is this simply convenience often at the expense of precision, even truth?
Sorry, I find your point here difficult to understand/vague. First, it really depends on what you think fact-checking means. But in general, double checking information from a source is not "convenience at the expense of precision, even truth". A perfect example of how fact checking can be useful is to double check the dosage on your medicine with a doctor if you think there's a chance your pharmacist got it wrong. This fact checking could save your life.
Is it possible that the design of a system to rate information on Hive could be designed with some of the biases towards 'unwanted' information of the type referred to in this post?
Is this likely? Is this to be desired? Am I being paranoid?
You're being paranoid. If you read my posts more closely, you would find I've explained many times that the information rating results will vary depending on which sources you yourself rate as trustworthy. For example, in an extreme scenario to demonstrate the point, you could rate only your own opinions as trustworthy and the rating system would rate all other information as untrustworthy.
A natural consequence of this is that different people will get different answers about the truth of the same information. The allowance for diversity of opinion is baked into the system.
Two final points, one about Hive and one about the information rating system:
- I believe your original thesis about what is allowed on Hive is confused at best. You can post whatever you like on Hive. Votes can raise/lower attention to your posts, but that's all they do. In fact, downvotes have often resulted in more attention being given to a post, just because some authors yell and scream when they get downvoted. At the end of the day, voting affects rewards, not what is allowed.
- I want to clarify the nature of the information rating software as it sounds like you think it will be a core component of Hive. It will not. It will just be a 2nd layer app that will benefit from Hive-based services.
Thanks for a prompt and fairly detailed response. I wanted to wait a few days to see if the post attracted any discussion in the comments but this hasn't happened. I'd like to respond to what you have to say in brief and without provoking argument:
My perception is that the issue of 'danger' arises when something is done with information - ie. it is the use to which it is put rather than anything inherent in something that is of itself inert. I'd wanted to explore this idea in the post and comments.
The 'fact-checking' issue is problematic IMO because it introduces the bias of the fact-checker (human or human-created algorithm) as a middle-entity which presents information in a simplified black-and-white manner (true or false). Not only does this discourage research, it also turns 'fact-checkers' into gatekeepers of information ('allowed' vs 'not allowed'). This is undoubtedly happening in the world-at-large. I'm concerned about this being replicated on Hive.
I did suggest in my post that 'allowed' on Hive - as I was using the word - meant 'allowed to be visible' by, for example, not downvoting. I suggested there is a desire to make certain content lower in visibility, a conscious and stated intention by an unknown number of folk with hefty wallets. The type of content I am referring to is the stuff generally labelled 'conspiracy': for example information that claims to demonstrate the harmful nature of the current global 'vaccination' programme. It is the type of content that your interlocutor (quoted as replying to you) says can cause 'significant harm'. I'd wondered about whether you agreed as I considered that that might be a bias that enters the system you are designing. You did clear that up somewhat by indicating what you did about how the rating system will work, and I leave it there - your opinion being no biz of mine beyond the mentioned concern :).
There's obviously much more to say but I doubt much point in doing so, especially since the post and the ideas haven't had much traction :(.
I thank you again for taking the time to respond.
I somehow missed your reply previously, but then someone just left me another reply on this post (calling me a "whack job" as it happens, so I guess the emotional temperature of this post is high for some people at least). Anyways, I suppose some good came out of it as I can reply now.
Sure, in a completely abstract sense, false information does no harm, if no one relies on it (the "use to which it is put"). But your argument is completely impractical, IMO. The whole point of spreading information is for people to make use of it. That is the purpose of communication. So it's a specious argument, IMO.
When someone conveys information, false or not, there is an intent for it to be used in some way (although, in some forms, such as fiction, it is just meant to entertain). But from the context of your post, it is obvious you're not referring to information that purports to be fictional in nature.
It sounds to me you're objecting to fact-checkers who you believe have an outsized amount of power in persuading others they are speaking the truth. I presume you don't object to fact checkers who are fact-checking mainstream media, for example. Or do you? Are you saying that no one should fact-check anyone and we should just listen to each person individually and make a decision about the truth of that person without relying on input from anyone else? I think it would be best if you clarify what you think should and shouldn't be allowed with respect to fact-checking, because I think you're trying to coat a generic term with a lot of extra meaning.
To your first point: free-flowing information itself does not seem to be dangerous, rather the application of info (the use to which it is put) that can take forms which may be considered dangerous by some or many - a knife may be used to cut tomatoes or fingers and some may blame the knife as much as the person wielding it. Information can also simply be 'used' to inform and, arguably, informing ourselves is what we are doing with info all the time. An action may be triggered by one specific bit of info/data yet itself be a much more complex thing born of multiple info/data points, thus giving the superficial impression that this or that bit of info is 'dangerous'.
To your second point, I'll quote myself from the article and hope it clarifies my view of 'fact-checking':
I'm going to Post this again...
Some of the people IN CHARGE of the Downvoting such as @blocktrades have made some terrible errors here. ... Terrible errors.
People who FEAR information need to go.
...or perform alchemy even: transforming FEAR by facing it square on unflinchingly!
Been Facing THIS sQuarely for some time..
... the flinching is from the Dyskinisia.
Hey BT. Just read this.
At the end of the day, voting affects what is written, not what is allowed to be written.
Hi, similarly, I just read this, so sorry for delayed response :-)
Voting CAN affect what is written, but it doesn't have to. That's mostly up to the writer. If the primary goal of their writing is financial reward, then yes, voting will probably affect it.
This can definitely be perceived as a weakness of the current system, but in fairness to myself I will point out that I didn't design the primary economics of Hive, nor do I think removing downvotes would solve the issues related to the economics. I do have some ideas for long term improvements to the current model, but there's a lot of code that needs to be written first and I haven't even started yet.
I don't think removing downvotes would solve this particular economic issue either. And far be it from me to hoist any criticism whatsoever. I commend all your work and have personally only ever heard good things about you. And frankly, I'd like to see a bloke try to do what y'all do every day. He who cast's the first stone...amirite?
I'd be curious to hear what your long term improvements are to the current economic model. If you can "layman" it. I get the feeling it'll be well over my head. I'd also be curious as to how you felt about other things as well, but I'll stop here for now.
The most fundamental change is probably not very controversial at this point of time since many here have lived through the "vote wars" of the past few years: move the primary rewards for content to the 2nd layer, allowing for competing opinions on the quality of a post to co-exist. We've almost finished up the first step required for this work now with implementation of the HAF framework. The next major step is to implement a smart contract system on top of HAF to enable support for community-based tokens.
In addition to the above work, my related area of interest is to research ways to improve our ability to get and assess information and to improve our decision making processes (both as individuals, and as people organized in groups on larger tasks). To me this is the most important and challenging problem facing humanity nowadays, and I believe flaws in our current processes (e.g. bad governance models) have lead to a lot of unnecessary conflict and wasted effort.
I've discussed some of my early ideas for this research in the post below in a form that I hope is mostly accessible to the layman reader: https://hive.blog/hivemind/@blocktrades/a-peer-to-peer-network-for-sharing-and-rating-information
I also wrote another post that goes more into depth on some of the technical details (which you might want to skip), but there's also more down-to-earth question/answers in the comment section of the 2nd post that may clear up some things up about my ideas so far: https://hive.blog/hivemind/@blocktrades/modeling-information-in-an-information-rating-system
You are so cute, @blocktrades, for your decent attempt at layperson english. I am literally in the process of consulting my blocktrades translator (klye) so that I might ensure greater success in interpreting what it is you have actually written.
Once I have obtained said translation, I will respond to you thusly.
And again, I do truly appreciate your time in writing this up. It means a lot. I LOVE hearing your thoughts. Sorry I'm not up on all the stuff.
UPDATED -- OK. I'm up to speed. Will comment tomorrow. Love what you're doing though. And bless your heart. I read your peer to peer network for sharing and rating. good stuff.
OK. So it sounds like what you're saying is, the majority of the voting, and the voting shares, should not really be taking place on the hive blockchain proper, where authentic participation still sometimes leaves much to be desired when it comes to who should get what and why.
But it should be taking place, as I know all you blokes have been saying for years, in well distributed (decentralized) hive-based projects like LeoFinance, Splinterlands, PAlnet, NFTs showrooms, and so forth. And the HAF has made this easier for them to develop, and will lend itself to smart contracts in the future. Which is great. I have always agreed with this type of growth.
In reference to your rating system, I read your articles. I REALLY enjoyed both.The trust network intrigues me greatly. The "visiting cousin" analogy worked very well. There would obviously need to be a way of overcoming the limits of who is in your trust web.
But it's an insanely cool idea to basically be able to have a system that tole me “Alice is right 80% of the time” really does put a twist on things, doesn't. This would change the game of dating immensely, I'll tell you that right now. LOL
WOW!
To think I supported you...
You sound like a whack job! Stick to code and IT and stop trying to control the human drama with your ABSURD interpretation of notions. I should hope the whole damn HIVE ecos go the way of Steem.
Sorry, I but don't understand exactly what you are objecting to in what I wrote. I couldn't find "notions" in my response, for example.
If you have specific issues to complain about, I will attempt to respond. But "you sound like a whack job" doesn't really help me understand what you're objecting to.
I meant to say...
You sound like YOU are part of the problem here. Which is a shame, because I Was a big fan... big fan.