RE: Fact check tag/post for Steemit - proposal to promote transparency and accuracy of content
This really is a great idea. I but wish I'd noted it before, so I could resteem it and toss a vote on it.
I'm surprised there aren't a great many more voices on here expressing similar approval, given the contentious and vociferous debate Steemers generate. I particularly appreciate the peer review process, and how that can potentiate avoiding the kinds of propaganda and censorship other platforms are evidencing of late.
I guarantee shadow bans and de-threading would quickly destroy Steemit, and doubt anyone wants that to happen, at least not any Steemers.
Zuckerburg would love it.
Edit: I LOL'ed at that last exchange between @sneak and @berniesanders. Also, there were several claims there that could have benefited from fact checking. 1) @berniesanders stated one user with enough SP crushed his rep. This is false, the user (@dan) had enough Rep to crush his rep. He also claimed his downtrodding wasn't the 'voice of the users', and I'd have to give that a qualified yes/no. He's made enemies, but also has supporters, and @dan has made some enemies too. @sneak's claim that he pays insufficient attention to @berniesanders to know of the event in question is prolly inaccurate, but irrefutable =p
Lastly, followed!
@valued-customer - I think because we don't have a trusted authority to arbitrate and make some decisions when there is a dispute, the #factcheck service becomes important so that we are not biased or swayed simply by the reputation and voting power of the people in question. I know that people on #bisteemit and #statistics try to highlight certain activities by looking at the blockchain data, and I hope that they will consider the proposal.
For me it is not important that I earn SP/SBD with the posts, but I do want to build some trust and credibility with the work I have done here on steemit to help contribute to this area further so that we can continue to grow a better community. I have seen some of your previous posts before and it is nice to actually have something to discuss now :)
While some might yearn for authorities to trust, I am not one of them. It is the blind peer review process that most attracts me to your proposal, as it seems a solid way to avoid appeals to authority, and seems likely to generate participation in the review process throughout the community.
That is far more trustworthy to me than appeals to authority!
Thanks!