News and Information June 1, 2020


We started by setting up the questions people have around News and Information

all depends on meaning - making sense - from what perspectives?

who you gonna call? truthbusters!

From Griff Green to Everyone: 04:09 PM

How do we judge accurate data/news (Fake News/manipulation)

I’m a cadCAD maximalist… so I have a lot of ideas there too

What data is relevant to what decisions? CONTEXT! (as said by others)

From Lauren Nignon to Everyone: 04:10 PM

How do we integrate all the conversations that are happening in order to get a grasp of the larger knowledge graph?


How do we know that we have all the relevant perspectives represented?

How do we weigh those perspectives? Expertise? Skin in the game? Accumulated risk?

How do we know someone is an expert?

How can we create systems where people can validate that someone is an expert and have trusted research?

How do we integrate testing along with our data so we can try things and increase our knowledge as we continue to discuss issues that we want to decide about?


How much do people even use data when making decisions?


What is good data?

Can news reflect data holistically?

Will good data and the access to it truly result in informed decisions? And what are the reasons if it doesn’t?


Initial discussion: What about situations where we have opinions and vote on things that we can’t afford. Or things that aren’t facts. For example there was a group of kindergarten students who were asked to sex chicks and one of the proposals of the kids was we could just vote–but that doesn’t change the reality of whether the chick is female or male. Just because you can vote on it doesn’t help.

Another observation is that the question of facts is also connected to the discussion. How do we use news to make sure people choose viable options.

What the group thinks is more important than what the reality is.

So as a group making decisions, am I incentivized to vote in a way that benefits the group or benefits me personally.

How do we know that the information is expert information and how do we create the systems that would optimize for that? We have information systems that optimize for clicks and getting someone to buy things-- we could use similar technologies to optimize for the trust and truth of experts and information.

Post-truth. If there’s not trust in certain channels that this is factual or correct information and people come with alternative facts, how do you navigate around that. Data-aided governance could be part of that.

Commons Stack has an article about computer-aided governance where you take the data as you can and do predictive modelling.

But I want to go back to reputation and expertise. Expertise is important but also aligned incentives and skin in the game. Yeah, the chief scientist that is the best expert but guess what, he’s funded by Monsanto.

In some systems like Diversifi / Nectar DAO they had a system where people could make arguments and counter-arguments and pretty much with very little incentive to do that other than knowing the truth and in today’s system

Today there are conflicts of different information from WHO and Gates foundation and there is a distrust and saying that the Gates foundation wants to depopulate the world. It makes it crucial how these things are done to prevent this kind of distrust.

There are two layers. We live in a world where there’s tremendous availability. On-chain data is objective truth around some chain, and the more subjective layer which is pulling in external information that needs to be verified by a broad community of stakeholders. For certain decisions–what’s more relevant? Actions or knowledge? Maybe their expertise should be based on the actions. There’s a broad categorization of that.

Ray Dalio talks about that, giving people reputation in decision making about how correct they have been in the past.

This is a flow of how attestations happen–who attested to someone’s trustworthiness, etc. You can also see the history of how someone made attestations over time, too, so am I a good judge. Every time we make an attestation we put skin in the game and risk my reputation, and also if I rely on what you said, I have skin in the game. So if I claim that you said someone was trustworthy, you might be liable for the course of action they took based on your recommendation.

You could do this at different levels. On one level you could just say they are reputable or qualified. On another one you could guarantee that they are good by staking something.

In the post-truth, the destruction of the elites, erosion of trust in the media has largely been happening at pace at the lack of trustworthiness. There has been a polarization/hackification a race to the bottom in quality in regard to journalism, and we’ve seen front page articles that have to get denied and walked back within a few days. The impact of the original article happened to be in line with the political preferences of the authors. There was a study about whether libertarians or conservatives were more aligned with totalitarian thinking and nobody saw that they had invented a sign and it turned out their data contradicted their conclusions, but the conclusions represented their opinions, so they didn’t catch the error until it had be widely publicized and finally critiqued. The institutions haven’t demonstrated that they are trustworthy.

This touches upon the questions posted.

What would scientific journalism look like, it would be like wise monkeys that say nothing speak nothing and hear nothing.

You can’t put in grants to challenge such perceived truths. In the current institutional system you can see that people are excluded from the systems if they challenge the current dominant views on climate change, for example.

The group got into a heated debate about whether the rivalrous nature of groups is natural or built-into our nature, or whether that’s a systems design problem. We also considered whether this is an existential problem

Murmuration is based on limited variables and the individual is only aware of a little of it. But in a massive flock more than Dunbar’s number, it’s murmurations of murmurations, it’s clusters that are of themselves breathing an that’s where we see this conflict.

Ultimately it comes down to what we do. Is my murmuration based on what I’ve read by conspiracy theorists or by what my local neighborhood hears and relates. Larger movements come with doing. Doing is always very powerful.

From to Everyone: 04:53 PM

Small groups competing with other small groups inside the context of the larger group

From Michael Linton to Everyone: 04:54 PM

Reeds law rules

From Martin Dow to Everyone: 04:59 PM

Culture, anyone?

Brehan Law

From to Everyone: 05:00 PM

Murmuration - complex adaptive behavior emerging from individual decisions made with limited local knowledge

From Martin Dow to Everyone: 05:00 PM

^^ arguably highly resilient and decentralised, murmurish?

Follow up on Brehan’s Law.

Within the cultural context of where I am on the one hand, it’s interesting in the face of decentralized system of people-- to what extent how does that connect foundationally with fairly simple laws around murmuration, because there was a breakdown there but it was highly resilient over millennia and it withstood wave after wave of colonial invasion. Beyond the Pale from Dublin’s english, where the colonizers ended up fitting in with the existing system. What local level patterns were in place that were adaptive enough to withstand that yet had some national scale… population scale cohesion.

From Me to Everyone: 05:04 PM

From Michal to Everyone: 05:05 PM

apologies folks need to drop off too!

take care and talk soon!

From Me to Everyone: 05:05 PM

This is a book about the North American tribes and the patterns of organization

We are organizing CICOLA in several languages and I wish we had a methodology but I’m kind of wondering how to synthesize in multiple language. My idea is to create miro to combine a bunch of boards and have multi-lingual speakers play around with all kinds of quotes and come up with groupings of similar ideas to help define, and make those into a firm molecule of a great idea.

From Me to Everyone: 05:04 PM

From Michal to Everyone: 05:05 PM

apologies folks need to drop off too!

take care and talk soon!

From Me to Everyone: 05:05 PM

This is a book about the North American tribes and the patterns of organization

From Martin Dow to Everyone: 05:07 PM

@Grace - is there a link to the Miro that’s not via the welcome? It 404s for me


From Lauren Nignon to Everyone: 05:07 PM

From Martin Dow to Everyone: 05:10 PM

“opposition” => “principled objection” IIRC

The trust that hasn’t been degraded isn’t just institutional. We also don’t trust one another to make sense of things. How can I trust that uneducated person? But if we want to create a decentralized system we are going to have to take a leap of faith and trust one another.

One of the important areas is getting information from the edges, because that’s where innovation happens, at the edge. These ideas at the edge can get excluded. In the sensemaking process we want to structure the talks in easy language (Spanish or Portuguese as a second language). We can bring people far from the edges to help make sense and frame how we are doing things.

Refer to fed wiki, particularly in a distributed system. With multiple translations you can increase the integration across cultures. Maybe we can do a training session for multilingual people. Also stacco from the guerrilla collective. They have a model for collaborative feed based system which that and federique.

Lauren: I would like to have a way to have Miro boards being populated in real time so that we can have a collective intelligence and be able to broadcast.

Brand identity and this kind of promotion is just so outdated. This “storytelling of the brand” is just ridiculous.

The Recording:

You would need a specific structure for that in the meeting to do it intgrally, but you don’t have to do it in a meeting.

We could do that offline. We could use twitch or otter or other things.

You induct curators cross linkers and critics.

Lauren working on a peer production methodology for deep profiles. Clipping other people’s opinions of others. A way of building reputation.

amazing discussion points and insights — a few comments to add to amazing discussion :slight_smile:

1: i think we may be beyond coming up with “universal centralized expertise centers” (eg WHO, CDC, etc)

so i think the focus should go towards more denctralization and allowing groups to have their own expertise centers and even their own truth with the key caveat being that any groups particular “version of truth” does not harm other groups

it probably would be easier to define and encourage the constraints of “liberty for us / no harm to y’all” than to try and continually come up with a universal truth/expertise center to accommodate all perspectives

an attempt to unify groups way larger than dunbar’s number just seems like it will always be futile until or if we ever get to a point as a human species where almost 100% of us are at some idyllic enlightened stage of our evolution :joy:

2: opening up scientific research even more

will be integral to the increased accessibility to trust — without free access to scientific research, people are not able to verify information

not to mention, the somewhat archaic and inaccesible format and style many scientific papers are written in — it would be helpful to imagine new ways of organizing this info

3: distrust in authorities are at an all time high

for business/corporate organizations, information is often hidden behind patents and trade secrets, even information that is vital for one’s health — i am an advocate for liberty but some kind of voluntary revolution must occur in this context for people to gain access to verifications and hidden info that can increase trust

for governments and other such authorities, information is often hidden for “public safety” (classified info, etc) — this one is tricky because as we still find ourselves in a world with sure military threats, there is a real danger to sharing certain info openly — on the other hand, if some more concessions of transparency are not made, then trust in government will continue to erode and “public safety” will be then threatened from the back door entrance from riotous domestic populations

1 Like

I think the idea of an evolved human consciousness is not idyllic or LOL. It is actually necessary to evolve if we want to survive. It is now extremely obvious that we cannot take actions without affecting others, and the only question is how we can create the kinds of communication and interoperability systems that will do that. Will that be through some kinds of new forms of currency? Through a series of rules, like the requirement to have a no-waste economy? Will it be through an enlightened human consciousness and eugenics of people who aren’t enlightened? Will it be through brain implants? Any of those are possible and some might even be desirable. However, I would say that we cannot deny the fact that it is an evolutionary necessity.

1 Like

yes i think evolving in a way that resonates with our interconnectedness is undeniable and necessary — and all those possibilities are ways the evolution can go

the more we can experiment with all the possibilities you mentioned (and more) the quicker and more smoothly we can transition into this new evolutionary phase

so i’m certainly inspired to be a large part of this social experimentation age and hope others join in more and more as well

1 Like