stevenglansbergalone

Yes. It is a ridiculous system. Someone as popular as Elon (who has complained about mainstream outlet reporting and then posted content from a dangerous cult) can easily say "This is a brilliant article" and get his followers to give it a trustworthiness rating. Some shady company could get its global marketing team to upvote positive stuff about them

The system is so inherently flawed and not much better than what we already have or what Facebook said they would experiment in. But every couple of months we get a new AMA on progress and a bunch of people calling it another broken system and yet he continues to act as if it is some cure for fake news. If anything it could be a system that can be abused to further legitimize fake news.

There is no solution here and it is not somehow 'a smart solution' because it is based on something Elon described.

[deleted]

They won't. They don't care. An articles trustworthiness can't be gauged by popular vote. What they want to do is create a system where they can say they are fighting fake news but they are just making a platform that they know is easily manipulated so the next time Donald Trump or Elon Musk or whoever has a platform they want to champion, they can point to the score. Or both these people have enough sycophants that they can write or endorse an article and it will appear trust worthy. This allows them to validate their own beliefs while at the same time condemning anyone who dares call it fake news because 'It's been verified'.

Why else would someone who is supposedly as smart as Musk praise a system that any average Joe can see an issue with.

So use your own judgement in the end. So what's the point of the site exactly?

This is why we don't let people directly rate or review journalists themselves, their ratings will be determined by the aggrigate review of their articles.

How is reviewing a slew of articles from a single journalist different from reviewing the journalist?