The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
25 votes

If you want to kill off the MSM, here's how WE can do it

We get 2-4 web developers together and create a site that offers everything people want. This crowd-driven and managed site gathers both opinion and facts with self verification steps along the way. It ranks both against the crowd's weighted values and then displays the info in virtually any format to any medium desired. It can be used globally, locally or privately and assigns precedence and dependence links to all items. I have laid all this out before and shown how it can easily overcome the value people get from any other source because it pulls in opinion, fact, debate, links, causation and does all this in a way that attracts people like flies on you know what. The majority of it is spec'd out already so it should only take a matter of a month or two.

I believe the DP group here has more than enough talent on call to accomplish this within a couple months' time and I certainly think it would become a very useful tool for this site as well as any other site looking for the truth to rise out of the ashes that is our popularized info these days.

I can't think of a single one of our battles that wouldn't benefit from a trusted source of both facts and public opinion. It's time someone did this, so how about it? Can we get some cooperation going and move 'media' into the 21st Century? Did I mention that it has 3 solid revenue streams?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

sounds like reddit

good luck

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Not really.

That's been addressed in the comments. There's tons of detail in them and much more left out.

Thnx for the read and comment! I think this really needs to gain some traction.

You'd be into a billion pages of user generated material

before you knew it. Much of that would be various factions fighting for dominance through sheer volume of submissions. You might have number-of-pages wars to gain territory. Some control of duplication may become necessary. What's to keep someone from posting slightly reworked variations of the same article every few hours?

We all know how annoying it can be to find double posts, each with a different set of comments.

I would perhaps consider demoting a member who in the comments habitually hijacks topics, changing the subject midstream.

Are you visualizing this with a comments section for each article, as the DP has?

We might try to discern what the project will NOT do, before it becomes as complex (and expensive to build) as the human brain!

Help build the world's best encyclopedia of Liberty - the RonPaulWikiProject
“The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and will to carry on.”
-- Walter Lippmann

This is the "biggest" question you've hit me with, LOL

Yes, if content storage was involved, it certainly could become a drive hog. There are two ways this could go.

The first is obviously a limiting one where no content beyond links is stored. This alleviates most of the space requirements but brings in a vulnerability of stale links. Doable, but not preferable.

Second, is the possibility of cloud storage. If a well organized system of RAID type pointers could be devised, the data could simply float around on the drives of people running the site. When it was called for, certain mirror systems would gather the locations and a call for it would be done in standard RAID fashion. This means that if one part isn't available at the time, the same data can be generated by 2 or more other systems. Obviously, the numbers would have to be tweaked as viewing habits and site popularity changed but it's certainly doable. Fortunately, that's a ways off with 2+ Terrabyte drives around $100.

I really enjoy the possibility of the data actually residing "no-where" so the government has no power over it. ;)

What about hate or "terrorist" groups making this their home?

Would you provide any sort of off switch for certain types of content? What if someone wanted to get the best answers to where to get the best illegal porn?

What if al Qaeda was known to hang out there (whether real or CIA-created content)? "How to commit mass murder?" might be found in a totally non-moderated, decentralized system. No off switch forever, but our names on it as creators?

I also like the decentralized approach, ala P2P file sharing, but that means you could never throttle that stuff back.

Help build the world's best encyclopedia of Liberty - the RonPaulWikiProject
“The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and will to carry on.”
-- Walter Lippmann

The people are the off switch

All non-desirable content is subject to the same checks by the people. In short, people can label it both "Explicit" (qualifying for adult view only) and for destruction. The thresholds may take some time to settle to the best levels but if the existence of this undesirable content motivates x% to flag it, the threshold will probably settle to x-1% to allow this to happen. (I still can't remember the third 'bad' label that people can put on it, argh.)

Spam, I'd think.

Was that it?

Trusting the public to protect me from liability is not a game I'd choose to play.

Are you really comfortable with that?

Help build the world's best encyclopedia of Liberty - the RonPaulWikiProject
“The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and will to carry on.”
-- Walter Lippmann

Give a specific example

I don't see any liability risks.

Offer up an example and we'll debate it. And yes, I trust 'individuals' to keep it clean. By being anonymous, it forces people to act as an individual, rather than a group subject to peer ridicule.

Let me throw a few questions

Let me throw a few questions at ya, tamckissick.

As you mention the difference between this new network and Reddit, let's look at a few more.

How is this different from Wikipedia? DP? Google?

Google spends billions on filtering out fraudulent rankings. It lacks the ability to sort websites by age, but they do give extra weight to freshness. Because of their high degree of development, it's very difficult and usually short lived to game the system. Many of us have chosen "white hat" techniques over cheating for longer term results, but it takes more experience, research and skill to go this way. A replacement for the MSM would require an equally complex weighting system.

Wikipedia provides the cross referencing you describe, but doesn't allow at all for freshness. Users are strongly encouraged to provide linked sources for everything. It allows all users to edit all articles, which can create some chaos until it settles out. Also, it seems some subjects are mysteriously censored at times. Compare information on Valerie Jarrett on both Wikipedia and Google.

And what about Daily Paul? The hyper interactivity of the DP is one reason it's grown to over 10.3 million pages. Another factor to its vibrancy is the limited and focused subject matter, which IMO will suffer somewhat from its morphing from a Ron Paul site (easily defined) to a liberty site (loosely defined). I'm not sure a kitchen-sink site would enjoy the same popularity, ironically, due to infighting.

tamckissick, how would your project primarily differ from the Daily Paul?

Help build the world's best encyclopedia of Liberty - the RonPaulWikiProject
“The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and will to carry on.”
-- Walter Lippmann

Hmmm, Lots of questions

I'll take them in order.

Filtering the undesirable content:
Each visitor has a preferences page where they can change their 'vote' for what weight they would give to certain thresholds. The threshold for what kicks certain info out permanently could end up at, say 5%. If so, that would mean that after passing 100 total votes, if more than 5% was claiming that was irrelevant, offensive or (can't remember the other 3rd factor) but it's kind of like being counter trolling/flaming... if more than 5% say it's bad, then it vanishes. If this seems too low, people will naturally trend toward increasing their threshold setting which averages the overall one slightly higher.

We have not even considered some type of freshness mechanism. We did discuss the issues that arise from storing links vs. actual content and what happens when a referenced link dies. Our consensus was that depending on our ability to acquire massive storage space, we might go with something similar to Google's 'cached' pages where full credit is attributed. This addresses issues of page changes as well as acts as a type of archive for what someone later recanted.

A side issue on this is whether or not what some random page says should even be considered as submittable fact. Ideally, the actual research, study or policy should be referenced only. TBD

Cross Referencing:
Wiki's referening is passive and does not provide any info on that ref. This is designed so that whichever reference is most relevant is the one that jumps out at you. Insignificant or minor ones get much less attention. Think of those word clouds.

Aside from an "Explicit" tag (thresholded and voted as well), no content will be censored. The very structure doesn't allow it. Without going into minute details, multiple votes are seen as one person changing their mind or reasserting their same vote - i.e. they're only kept for trend type graphs. Rogue page changes can't happen because of the law of averages, once a page passes into popularity.

The format for data storage is such that the only way to see the info is to use the site correctly. The only way to input any info is to vote correctly. Even the creators won't have access to go change any info by altering data because it's not stored in accessible tables and such. In this way, even government subpoena's can't get force something to become secret, hidden, altered or removed. Picture P2P file sharing combined with Win2k distributed file system and cloud processing ala SETI's project.

We predict lots of interactivity, just on an anonymous basis. People have an inherent interest in seeing some instant result change before their very eyes. They can watch a topic in live mode with a specific demographic breakdown and see the average and trends change. If they make a significant contribution, they will want to watch the results as their argument changes opinions of the others. It's kind of like Up and Down votes where opinion and merit remain separated.

Also, as we've seen here on DP, if something gets Downvoted 'for no apparent reason', the poster feels the need to break down the issue into sub-sections to isolate where they went wrong. This is at the very heart of the project because it causes the inter-linking and dependencies on which our human decisions are made. It's this aspect laid out for new people that has the greatest impact on coaxing more research.

Focus Limit:
When on one topic, there is available only the info that's relevant and directly focused on that topic. Links will show side bars should one want to take that path but in not doing so, there is almost no distraction. Favorite topics will appear on the left for close watching as will a drill-down category list and recent, popular, controversial, live, etc. Lots of options are available to travel around but once you're in one place, it's very focused. Think of a personal conversation.

MSM is being naturally killed off

Along with record stores, video stores and libraries.

Always promote and provide links to alternative news sites, especially ones which allow interaction with posts and communities.

MSM is arrogant and entitled. They have no idea how many people think they are full of shit.

I believe a lot of people do

I believe a lot of people do think they are full of it but are too busy to look into it or don't know how to, so in the end all they have to go on is what they are told.

I like the OP's suggestion of a one stop shop site for all things MSM. Maybe have pages dedicated to each individual news channels stories of the day(Fox, MSN, CNN, etc)and have truly unbiased information used to challenge what was said or give the complete story of the topic.

Unless it's illegal to piggyback their stories. Then I suggest we don't.

What are the 3

revenue streams?

It's free to view as long as you participate

but to publish, it costs. Private use of the site for a group/company also costs and of course there are un-biased ads.


need to end the MSM...

Albert Camus — 'The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.'

You mean..

a site like reddit?

Reddit is ok

but they have no interconnection to related info and they have no mechanism for the best merit to float to the top. This one keeps it all together and keeps all data anonymous to stop personality issues from arising.

There is of course a threshold with respect

to the proportion of the population which can be reached with the truth, and it is dependent upon age.

[One of the best things that can and will happen--and I hate to say it--which will really hit MSM hard will be when the older generation(s) die off. Also, this will be the time when elderly B-Boomers are so incapacitated that they can no longer vote. (LOL! But first we must either 1. return to paper ballots, and / or 2. eliminate secret voting and vote instead as public declaration.)]

Ironically, for all the good that this generation has done for our country, it is the most willfully ignorant of what is really happening in our society and with our hijacked government. And these folks sit around and absolutely absorb MSM shite, as they are largely allergic to the types of technology upon which we depend for real, verifiable information gathering these days. Their participation in MSM shite delivers the $$$ through the advertising-to-product-purchase chain, etc. which gives MSM its parasitic strength. (Well, and the soap operatic world of televised sports, too.)

I mean not to be harsh or agist; it is simply the sad truth of our situation. And of course I don't smush ALL older folk into this rather mean characterization either, mind. Some--albeit few--become more radical as they grow older (a la Ben Franklin) or have always been freedom-minded. [I keep trying to challenge my WSJ-soaked, Bush family-respecting father to do this! : ) I mean, just to challenge authority for the sake of it....]

But now that I think about it, at least this generation cannot literally be a physical challenge to any struggle for freedom; whereas younger ignorant people of greater physical means can join the stormtroopers if so motivated upon hearing things like "Domestic terrorists AKA liberty and patriot folk hate our freedom." We'll certainly have our hands full dealing with these types, especially when money dries up and food becomes scarce, etc. , and they will need to feed their meat-head, fatty children and keep them in video games.

What would the Founders do?

Voting is a two pronged fork

When looking at the entire system of voting, we must really ask exactly what do we want.

The answers I've come to and received from nearly EVERYONE is the following:
People want the genuine wishes of the people to be tallied accurately.
People want corruption to either be stopped or instantly visible.
People want a system where 'games' cannot manipulate the vote.
And lastly but less defined is that people want the real scoop on exactly what they are voting on.

I addressed this with another proposal a couple months ago. In short, it solves the first 3 of those through the way votes from the states, counties and precincts are reported to the national level. It basically makes all of that process completely visible in real time without exposing any private information or vote choices. Everyone who cares to look can instantly see where in the chain a vote no longer matches the originally intended choice. The way it does this is also entirely transparent so any manipulation of the process is visible as well. The cool part is that if and when this system becomes trusted, it can slash the cost and speed up the process so that referendums are no longer a time/budget burden. (Read that as recalls!) In short, takes the individual's vote and instantly publishes it to be compared to what the establishment says it was throughout the rest of the chain.

In regards to the 'gaming' and part of the last requirement above, I also advocate that we install a type of voting called the alternative vote. With the changes above to count it automatically, this method would be very easy to implement. What it does is it allows people to vote in ranked fashion for everyone they want. This stops the roadblock of "voting against the worst evil". Had this been in place in '08/'12, I believe RP would have received a majority, leaving the other two to split less than 30%.


Thanks for the link.

What would the Founders do?

You bring up many great points

but I think your conclusions are just a little short-sighted. To be more clear, I think you give up just before the finish line.

When I look at the more problematic groups of today, I don't see as much a choice of being that way, I see it as doing the best they can WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THEY HAVE AVAILABLE.

For example, today's Gen-X is only asleep because they don't know any better (indocrination / propaganda) and they have no idea how things really could be. In short, they have no vision with respect to liberty and freedom. I don't see the solution to this as force feeding them and telling them that their world should be boycotted. I see the answer as allowing them to see the cracks in the system and letting their curiosity take over.

With the older generation, they don't see the capabilities of today's technology as holding the vast potential it does. Sure, there could be pitfalls along the way, but the people are ultimately in charge and they must be both informed of what needs to be done (Gen-X) and informed exactly how much power they have (Gen-Eric).

This project is a tool that offers both in a way that each can relate to. It has a social network type of attraction without the distractions that people fall into while in that environment.

The traditional MSM networks spend a lot on branding

which provides and maintains a head start. People gravitate to those brands they have learned to trust. So it doesn't matter how many times you tell some people about the dangers of flouride, they'll still buy Colgate especially if it's on sale.

So branding is important. Just look at Facebook, which many feel is inferior in user friendliness and privacy. They were first, and the Brand got established.

Help build the world's best encyclopedia of Liberty - the RonPaulWikiProject
“The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and will to carry on.”
-- Walter Lippmann

So did the Ford Pinto!!!

And that's exactly what took them down. A little bit of news outlining one report that the Pinto could explode when hit from behind and suddenly the Pinto was the most famous death trap you could find. Even perfectly good ones were scrapped for parts because they couldn't be sold.

If the truth of the Pinto can crush it, what do you think the real truth of the MSM (knowing what we here at DP know) could do to them?

New pamphleteer

Get an old school printing press with human powered backup / combine an elegant pamphlet with a modern day app for smartphones - thus competing with the big-budget whore media at a small fraction of the overhead. With sufficient supplies you are steps ahead of the coming take-down of the Internet for replacement with smart grid based system.

bumping for . . .


it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--


They let everyone contribute, and readers get to comment freely and vote for stories to get to the front page.
Youtube channels that are reporting real news deserve supported.
Freedombroakcastingnetwork is trying to launch a new outlet right now, they have been here begging for people to become involved.
People are trying this already, and we are killing the MSM, it just takes time. People here still want to see the MSM video before they believe a story... we have a ways to go yet.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

That's true

However, when you look at them, they are following in the same style of the MSM. It's boring, "we'll tell you what the news is" stuff. Even though people can submit what stories they want, it's not organized or linked in any usable fashion.

This project would allow ALL related info, on any scope (local to global) to be accessed by one click while viewing a specific topic. If you're just finding out about police brutality and you view a topic on it for the first time, you can see how many other related instances exist in full view. If you disagree with one aspect of the article, you can drill down into the supporting info for "why" (both fact and opinion) that reason stands. It's structured with everything that would be available in a normal conversation at your fingertips.

And since people will always vote for fact to carry more weight than opinion, those facts will always ensure that the merit of an argument wins over emotion.

Good Idea

Why couldn't existing news (businesses) join for a per story price with the benefit of getting traffic and the public or traffic get the ultimate vote on what they see.Plus individual ability to post based on users acceptance. A cool name is a must also.

That's in there

I just didn't elaborate on any of the economics.

It has 3 revenue streams. The first and most obvious is ads. clearly marked as such, they must be non-related to topics shown to maintain the non-bias of the overall site.

The second is like you suggest where a poll or result graph (either live or historical) can be embedded into some blog, news page or even on television. Unlike simply viewing the poll by normal visitors which is free, this re-publication of it would require a simple buy-it page which then charges per click or per view. The smaller the blog, the less you would pay (personal might cost $.30 while CNN might pay $500). Clicking on the embedded object would take the person to this site where they could see any info, based on any demographic across any time scale once they offered their opinion.

The third revenue would be from being able to use the infrastructure of the entire site for private in-house, intra-net use. In this way, private questions and results could be handled in a way that they can still call upon the results of all public data. A very simple purchase would enable a group coded link which could then be sent via email to members so that clicking would sign them up. My research in the past has shown that intra-business polling is a 3-4 billion dollar industry.

My tentative name has been PollCall but I'm hopeful for ideas of a better one.


Would be a money maker. Where do I sign up?

Lord Acton, Lord Chief Justice of England, 1875 - "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the People v. The Banks."