Idea for a new type of platform. A tagging based system.

submitted by theoracle from (self.SaidIt)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]zyxzevn 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

How would you add the elements that I added in Investigating the Truth.

The elements are:

  1. Logical consistency. (no logical fallacies)

  2. Scientific method
    +Check for p-hacking and other manipulations +Check for groupthink

  3. Crime investigation.

  4. Bias (including your own)

  5. Unknowns

  6. Working towards a Solution

[–]theoracle[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

So you as a user you would have to moderate for them. You could form a group that moderates on them and advertise yourselves as that. A reader could select say the group "Investigating the truth", things would then be moderated based on that group. The ways things are moderated could be quite complicated, hiding things, collapsing, highlighting posts or maybe parts of text, special comments, maybe even edits... you could have group based voting. All actions are individual based so all members of the group can be audited and someone could if they wanted deselect individuals from the group, or make a new group etc.

The point is the ways in which things are customizable are truly massive. The platform would be able to support the function of any existing platform, so no one would want for another. The advantage is although users may choose to segregate, all opposing community opinions would be just a click away and so it is quite likely many people would end up reading the opposing views they have been hidden from and new consensuses would hopefully form. I think this will bring more unity in society and not the closed off boxes it seems it could create.

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Indeed did I show the most complex system of organizing a forum, just added it to give new ideas.
Some of these can be regulated with tags and links, but not that much.
My idea was more a replacement for wikipedia.
I think that it is a way to motivate people to research the topics better and focus on evidence and arguments.

[–]theoracle[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Well I think it depends to the degree the system allows you to organize based on tags or links. At some point obviously it will get too hard to code or run, so simpler will likely be more possible.

A well formed group of moderators will go a long long way to getting what you want though. I see this as the only way something like the Pyramid of debate is going to work. For on a platform like reddit you would probably need thousands of moderators and they would need to be ultra heavy. There is just so many low effort, low quality, bait like posts that occur. Already you can see the pyramid is breaking everywhere here and there is no way the couple of admins could keep up even if there was reports which I doubt there is.

I see that moderation should be more organic and much less authoritarian. The platform should seek technical solutions over human ones as much as possible and that means not relying on things like admins. Notabug seems to have no admins and yet it works, imagine if some of the features in spaces where implemented as it could be a very different platform with many personalities.

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Here is MIT's deliberation, which is far too complex.
But it has some of the features that I mentioned.
Introduction to the MIT Deliberatorium
The example is stupid, but maybe you can look through it.

The technique is argument mapping:
1) Issue/problem.
2) Idea /solution.
3) argument for or against.

I think that these could be tags.

I would extend the system to:

1) Issue/problem.
+ Scope of problem.

2) Idea/ solution.
+ Scope of solution.

3) arguments+evidence
- a) Logical consistency / logical fallacy
- b) evidence / science
- c) Crime/ faked / hoax / cover-up?
- d) Bias / P-hacking / group-think

4) Unknowns / unverified alternatives / open questions.

[–]theoracle[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So I watched the video thanks. This is an interesting idea for presenting data. I know I have on old forums had to wade through 100's and 100's of comments in threads to extract the useful info. The vote system is meant to help with that but it doesn't always. In some instances good ideas can get downvoted because of the ignorant masses...

To implement your system it requires moderation, which presents the problem of who is your moderator? And for that I think optional moderation is the best solution. You could have tags which are specifically around your concept, and then the platform could have an option to organize based on those tags. You would also likely have a group to moderate on it too.

There is however an alternative solution which I have used. That is you read though an entire post and extract all the relevant info, add or modify as you see fit, and then make a new post, and in that way the idea progresses and is refined. You will see with my post history on this post's idea that is what I have already done....

On a side note I actually had an idea for another site or platform with was solely about distilling all the truths of human knowledge. It would basically try to find and verify every possible piece of knowledge humans have about anything. All the way from things in academia like about physics and chemistry etc to things in trades like techniques of woodworking or how to do various things. We have representations of these everywhere in schools or on youtube, but I want it distilled so you have the best representation of them.

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That knowledge database seems like a great plan. But it is a hard problem to solve.
Maybe the ideas that I listed can help.

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The "pyramid of debate" can be shortened to: "Don't be a dick"

And I have no problem of mods removing people that act like it.

[–]theoracle[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes it is something like that though a little more complicated. The problem with mods is when they themselves become the dicks... and then sometimes people being dicks is fun...

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I also had the idea of having different layers of a discussion,
where you have the totally uncensored space-dick-layer,
and a layer with some small trolls and over-emotional reactions,
the chat-layer, and a layer with actual arguments.

[–]theoracle[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That is what this tag system will be!

I posted the most basic implementation of something like this here https://saidit.net/s/SaidIt/comments/5aia/can_we_have_an_option_preferably_in_the_side_menu/

Which is you have options for no moderation, moderation but only collapse comments/posts, moderation with them hidden. The default I think should be collapsed.

With such a system given you are not technically deleting anyone, then you can go heavier on the moderation. Go and target any dick posts for example.

Me personally I am usually fine with people being dicks as I have been on the net for long enough. Walls of spam aren't great but maybe admins can still delete those. I would most likely choose to have no moderation like I know many will. I think people will switch moderation modes as they feel like. If a mod is being a dick and hiding some things it will get darn obvious with all the collapsed posts/comments. You will likely see the situation grow out of hand for the mod quickly as more people bring to light his misdeeds and turn off moderation.