It should be systematic. Like Amazon ratings for book authors, there should be reviews and reviews of the reviews. Ideally there is also some incentive for the writer to make predictions (eg an Augur bet at the bottom of each article where readers can take either side).https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1247130479041667072 …
-
-
One issue is that many writers do not extend that grace to their subjects! Another is that they thump their chest about being the Truth. If there was a culture of admitting error, it’d be more like Github pull requests than status quo. https://store.nytimes.com/collections/new-york-times-truth-campaign …
-
I don't disagree, media does this at times, too, and I object to them doing it as well.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I don't disagree reputations matter, and we should have accountability, but nobody, nobody will survive constant dredging up of everything from years ago, especially in medium like Twitter that's designed engagement and RT/hearts rather than conversation/accountability.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The Internet would be so much better if changing your mind after digesting new information was considered cool and laudable. Instead, there's a default to "I've always been right, you're an asshole." Pretty weird, since we learn most things by getting better at being wrong.
-
Pseudonymity may be a mechanism for doing this. You can learn in public under a search-resistant identity.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.