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.

Been trying to get something like this going

for some time now.

Yahoo really blew it. They had everything back in the 90's all they needed was a bit of talent and vision and they could have destroyed the LAME stream media long ago.

Yes, Yahoo took a drastically wrong turn!

Plus, even AOL had planned on a user submition news site but that never materialized. I had hopes. :(

Truth be told, this idea materialized originally as a result of seeing the MSM fraud of the Perot campaigns! Been waiting a long time for Web 2.0 to arrive.

See my other reply and PM me if you're interested!

Todd

Excellent idea! I'm in.

I make my living with search engine optimization and I'd be happy to provide some advice. Your project would benefit from being very visible, highly ranked, in all search engines. Since you're in early development this will be much easier to implement.

I'm sure there are others who can offer similar services. I don't mind working with an SEO team, but I'd require decent examples of their work before sharing a work table with them.

Don't forget social media integration, such as facebook, twitter, linkedin, googleplus, pinterest, instagram, stumbleupon, youtube, etc. to help get the word out. I can help you set that up as well.

Is this a network for liberty loving groups, businesses and individuals with some vetting, or for the general public?

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

Awesome

"Is this a network for liberty loving groups...?"
No, it's completely benign of any bias. It's fully driven by the weightings that people have chosen to value fact vs. opinion. There are other weights as well, but not relevant here. Everything is voted on before you can see the results but you can vote as often as you want. It simply takes the latest if doing a snapshot, otherwise it's a trend.

I'm convinced that by being the bastion of truth, that the Libertarian way will shine through. Our side is the only one with completely logical arguments behind are reasoning so I just went looking for a way to ensure that the facts can get verified and can stand out against the opinion. My thinking also is that when the two are drastically opposed, people will begin to see how biased their thinking is.

This concept applies to all debate on all topics, so in effect, it becomes an archive for facts, supporting links, public opinion and supporting arguments on a given topic. Then, to make it even more compelling, it links any topic to any other in a dependent or precedent manner so people can drill down into the "why" something is not as they thought it should be.

All those other sites you listed should easily be able to embed a widget showing a live or snapshot poll to entice viewers to go on recon. That recon could even include graphing the info against a host of demographics. (Anonymity there was key and tricky)

If you have any comrades in development that could assist, let me know via PM. If we can get enough help, we could do this pretty easy.

Do You Think Michael Nystrom Would Be Interested in This?

Maybe hang this media concept as a webpage off the Daily Paul?

I don't know

but what I do know is that I don't think it's best to promote it as a liberty / libertarian / political tool. To attract people from all genres and whom have widely varied interests, it is actually benign of all opinions. It is nothing more than a tool for truth in both fact, history and genuine public opinion. It relies on people to ask a question for something to be included. Others then fill that question with related info.

Should someone visit because they are really interested in what Brittany Spears is wearing at the Grammy's, they can get that and they learn that this is an truly unbiased site. Then, while visiting, they just might happen to learn that her clothes were made in a sweatshop and they'll see the links, documentation and other relevant info supporting that. If they follow that lead, they may end up at corruption somewhere in the chain. Since we all here know that virtually all corruption existing today stems from the big bank oppression of wealth, this may just wake up that person with no further prodding.

Some of this sounds like Quora

with crowd sourced voting of the best answer to a member's question.

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

Yes, in a way

The difference here is that when two questions become linked (also a crowdsourced action - as everything is), the results of the precedent question can become the major weight of the dependent question in a sub-level way.

As an illustration:
Top question of "Is global warming something that people should change their energy habits on?"
Precedent question that arises "Is man's CO2 production great enough to shift the overall balance?"
And that one might have two precedents of "How much does it take to shift the overall balance?"
And "How much CO2 is man producing?"

So as the results of the precedent questions get fleshed out, they affect the higher level questions. As people investigate them, the trend towards those being more important and choose to weigh them higher. As this process continues, the direct results of the original question and the opinions carry less and less weight. So the net effect is that the two most root questions actually answer the one above.