politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
How would that function?
A portal site which lists search results. Each result contains a list of definitions/entries - each from different instances. Editors from different instances can decide to agree with others at multiple levels (granularity), right down to a definition. It would probably be difficult to agree on paragraphs, but not impossible. Search results with a lot of "agreement" are showed at the top of the result list, while those with with no agreement are shown at the bottom.
The agreement dynamics can already be seen in science between journals, articles, authors, even if it's less structured and formal. There are now search engines that use AI to measure an agreement/disagreement scale between papers (connected by citations).
Obviously, there needs to be some way to validate, track, and mark the "bad faith" instances to push them down or out of the results entirely. And that way has to be based on a combination of expertise and reputation, not on universal vote counts.
That sounds like it would require way more effort to maintain than the existing Wikipedia model.
I like this idea in theory, but I think it would be easy for bad-faith actors to game the system. Expertise can be faked and reputation can be manipulated. Governments or other powerful/wealthy organizations could easily fund a large effort to shift agreement metrics toward their preferred narrative. We know Russia and China already have whole farms of people on social media trying to skew narratives and perceptions. Hell, I could see a tech-savvy individual distributing a software package to like-minded (or gullible) people in order to effectively automate the process of skewing the agreement metrics.