Blockchain circle

One stop hot information platform

About us:

Blockchain circle provides the latest information about blockchain, digital currency, digital wallet, exchange, metauniverse, bitcoin, Ethereum, contract, financial management and so on, and always pays attention to the latest market...

Ancestral blockchain specializes in fake news?

Time : 30/01/2022 Author : 9m46w8 Click : + -
        Since brexit and Trump came to power, the future of the news industry, especially the issues related to "fake news", has increasingly become the focus of attention from all walks of life, from only professionals to ordinary people. People have come up with various methods to combat the so-called "fake news", "alternative facts" or the subtle influence of algorithms on people. Big name media such as the New York Times and CNN emphasize the brand they have spent many years building and the spirit of journalistic professionalism they have inherited. Wikipedia and fact verification agencies operated by various schools, NGOs and other entities are also increasingly relied on by the media, and their exposure rate is increasing.
 
        The discussion on saving media and realizing media evolution through blockchain has not stopped for more than a year. At many authoritative media industry conferences at home and abroad, blockchain has also been regarded as the rising star of "saving" the news industry. The most recent one was the 2018 global network editing Conference (Gen) held in Portugal on June 11. The blockchain media practitioners at the meeting said, "there may be no centralized media in ten years.". The title of this article is only for rhyme; In fact, in the view of active promoters, the blockchain is not so simple as removing fake news. It can completely save every aspect of the news industry. It is omnipotent.
 
        Theoretically, all participants / nodes on the blockchain are equal, that is, distributed and decentralized. This means that on the premise that all links are well designed and there are no loopholes, once the data / information is linked, its transmission will be more secure, less likely to be tampered with by intermediaries, and less channels / intermediaries will pass through. Specific to the news industry, several typical blockchain application models are reflected in the production of news, the verification of facts, and the ordering and distribution of news. (1) The generation of news. There are several projects, such as steemit, civil, matters and Publiq, which aim to directly provide remuneration to individuals at the news source through micro payment.
 
        The reason is very simple, because "take people's money and help people eliminate disasters". If you don't know where the money comes from, the things you write may be relatively objective. So where does the money come from? Currently known projects provide ordinary users with payment rewards, subscription to authors, or early transfer payment by purchasing services, accepting advertisers, etc. In other words, if you have formed the awareness of paying for good articles, you can naturally appreciate the author; If you like to watch the free ones, you can watch them in the same way as the traditional ones. The difference is that the advertising fees submitted by advertisers are put into the same pool. After they are completely broken up, the preferences are determined according to the reader's reading, likes, comments and other behavior habits, and are distributed to the author in a corresponding proportion.
 
        In view of the fact that user activities on the blockchain can be carried out through the public issuance of tokens (tokens / tokens), some projects also face the coin circle capital market and obtain funds from external markets outside their own ecosystems through ICO (initial public issuance of tokens). The projection to the "classical Internet" is roughly equivalent to the listing of media groups. (2) Fact verification. The blockchain itself cannot make value judgments, but it can be used to ensure that the conclusions drawn by manual inspectors will not be tampered with by intermediaries in the process of passing them to readers. Trustednews, the new browser plug-in of eyeo, the developer of adblockplus, a popular anti advertising plug-in, can not only ensure that the news authenticity information extracted from artificial fact verification agencies such as Wikipedia and Snopes is not tampered with, but also determine the credibility of some end users through evaluation or other scoring methods, and assign weights to these people.
 
        Next, we can realize some crowdsourcing of the verification process through these private fact verifiers. The fact verification only uses the non tamperability of the blockchain, and basically does not involve monetary interests. Therefore, it is also one of the most easy to achieve results among several applications. (3) Distribution of news. The main purpose of applying blockchain in this link is to reflect the actions of users after watching the news as truthfully as possible and without prejudice, and to infer the true meaning behind it, and to ensure that the algorithm will not be distorted. Why start a new business on the basis of the algorithms already formed by commercial companies? This part of the promoters assume that although companies like Facebook or Toutiao today store the largest and most ideal user's original operation data, and have the smartest brains to help them design algorithms, when using and presenting these data to the outside, they will inevitably carry the company's "selfishness" or "private goods", and may even take advantage of their own advantages in data, Consciously guide users to do or not to do certain actions & mdash& mdash; Of course, there is no evidence to prove all the hypotheses.
 
        Therefore, blockchain promoters believe that they can reflect user behavior as accurately as possible through the irreversible, no / low manual intervention distribution mode set by the blockchain, and will not be influenced by commercial forces. However, if only based on the three different paths abstracted, I do not see the necessity of using blockchain to transform the news communication process. Is there a huge and revolutionary difference between the news industry based on the blockchain and the news industry operating in the existing way, so that you would rather make great efforts to abandon the old society and embrace the new world?. The existing system is good enough, but the switching cost of the new system is not enough to be compensated by the benefits it brings.
 
        In this case, it is not cost-effective to replace it with a new system. The vast majority of network users have very low willingness to pay, but it is relatively difficult for them to migrate user habits. Generally speaking, not only can you not expect to make money from users, you also have to spend money to buy users. Even Chinese users who are not "more willing to trade privacy for efficiency" (Robin Lee's words) are the same. For example, # deletefacebook (the campaign to cancel Facebook's account due to the "Cambridge analysis" and other events) has subsided in less than a month. Some people may be angry, but more people do not think so. If most people are allowed to switch to a "probably safer" alternative (even if it's free), they don't have that incentive.
 
        Moreover, "the deterrent power of punishment does not lie in the severity of punishment, but in its inevitability." For users who enjoy free services, the damage caused by free services may be long-term, chronic or uncertain. Although there are always people who remind you that advertisements and biased algorithms will make you biased, misled by specific manufacturers, information disclosure, etc., no one will promise that as long as you use the free news client for many days, you will definitely suffer from physical pain, family changes, or loss of how much dollars. If "fake news" or anything else does not bring such a certain association to users, but is always just a potential hazard in probability, there is really no hope that users will jump out of their original habits.
 
        Therefore, blockchain media, in the end, still have to find ways to solve the source of funds. Direct reward is extremely difficult to get through. As for the long-term subscription mode, the single article pay wall mode, and the previously mentioned ad transfer payment mode, which is not the way that the media without blockchain has gone?. So, does the blockchain achieve "no middleman earns price difference", or does it make advertisers or final readers feel that it is more valuable, so they spend more money& mdash;& mdash; Or is it the main source of return through a wave of ICO& mdash;& mdash; I'm afraid it's hard to say. As mentioned above, readers need to pay for it.
 
        When they purchase services and become "users", the corresponding relationship between them and the media will change and they will no longer be equal. Former readers and current users have transformed themselves into "bosses" thousands of miles away. They judge whether this article is "worth my money" by their own vision, experience and values. How to judge? 1、 Can I see and get the same information through other free or money saving ways (bypass the payment wall); 2、 Is this article to my taste; 3、 When I read it, do I feel that I have been helped, shocked, or even achieved self-improvement. These standards are obviously different from those used by news professionals to judge the quality of reports.
 
        For example, from the point of view of "appetites", this is still an interest driven choice, so the title party and the marketing number, which have been nurtured by the non blockchain environment for many years, are obviously full of fighting power. Even for normal articles, the evaluation criteria may degenerate into more stimulating, deeper and tear jerking, which will almost certainly lead to the distortion of the evaluation mechanism. For example, it is believed that short articles are not as "deep" and "informative" as long articles, and catalytic articles are longer and longer. The reader's aesthetic ability is not enough, and it may even lead to the extreme situation of rejecting dissent: the calligrapher Wo Xinghua's solo exhibition originally planned to be held in Chengdu was urgently stopped because of great criticism.
 
        In today's headlines, there are a lot of fierce criticisms about Wo Xinghua's works, thinking that he is a "sinner in the history of calligraphy" and a "representative of ugly calligraphy". Once there is a clear conflict between the choices of readers and professionals, will the blockchain resolve or exacerbate the differences? What should we rely on to resolve it? Increase the weight of professionals? How do you identify the professionals? Other readers are so angry that they don't play with you, and their activity has dropped& hellip;& hellip;。 Organizations that try to achieve equality of "right to be reported" include wikitribune, founded by the founder of Wikipedia, and GlobalVoices, the "global voice" more than a decade ago.
 
        The aviation news agency believes that the modes of these two sites are similar, that is, the team evaluates a small number of credible contributors and editors, and adopts a centralized contribution method. Because they are designed to provide cold news beyond the agenda set by the mainstream media, the way viewers vote to determine the heat and layout is almost ineffective. For example, the traditional Chinese version of "global voice" is always concerned with the development of Taiwan's ethnic minorities, while the English version is always concerned with the Middle East battlefield. It's really hard to interest the public. In contrast, wikitribune will have more American politics, and the report has tried its best to deal with it fairly, but it is still difficult to forcefully change the perspective of attention. Although the voice of the current institutional media has been thinned to a certain extent, it has not lost its ability to set the agenda on the whole.
 
        It can also shift people's attention to certain specific directions through the periodicity of some topics or specially planned operations. However, agenda setting is an operation with limited effect. Not all problems or new news have the conditions to become the focus of public attention. The "hot spots" that do not have the ability to spread themselves will only be as boring or even disgusting as the hot search of stars. We all know what we like to watch, but among a lot of things of the same type, I can help you choose and help you decide whether to watch this or not today. If this is the case, then under the new system, no matter who judges the news, it will not be able to make a voice for the news that has not been paid attention to and cannot make a voice under the original news mechanism.
 
        For example, there will always be news about how many people died in the explosion in the war-torn areas. This kind of news is far away from most users, and may not be of great interest, so they jump directly. After the occurrence of some cases of malignant wounding, some media, relying on their professional sense, would interview the family environment of the perpetrators and explore the root of the crime. Recently, such reports have been widely "boycotted" by readers because "the perpetrators have someone to speak for them, so who cares about the victims?" "Crime is crime, there is not so much to say.". Needless to say, the original intention of some blockchain projects is to break the division of units, promote the division of work and cooperation between different media, and integrate the shrinking investigative reporters and reporting teams. However, in the process of actual operation, the media can barely touch it, but it is very bad to hurt the nerves and bones.
 
        "Users can freely initiate news topics, and other users can subscribe to the news topics by contributing CVL tokens. When the amount of raised funds reaches a certain limit, journalists or news organizations will claim the topics and organize reports.". This should be a variation of the media's open disclosure in previous years, such as cnnireport. However, this system is an attempt to open up different media exposure channels. The media can say that they have a complicated mentality as to whether they want to get through. Of course, it hopes that its news is exclusive; Moreover, under the previous model, the so-called "professional reporter" is the same as the current we media, and it is also a clue with multiple inputs.
 
        More importantly, the current use of social media hotspots is the most mainstream way for institutional media to pursue hotspots, and there is no need to pay money or tokens to reprint microblogs & hellip& hellip;。 In the face of these new blockchain related media innovations, institutions such as the guardian and CNN generally hold the same attitude as those of Web2.0, Facebook and snapchat, which used to be hot spots. They participate in a constant pace and only after the game method and input-output ratio are roughly determined can large-scale deployment be possible. Therefore, even if blockchain advocates talk about lotus on the forum, the actual implementation process will still be extremely long and conservative for the media and ordinary readers.
 
        Last but not least. Many blockchain media entrepreneurs are willing to mention this point in particular & mdash& mdash; "There will be no advertisers or third-party interest groups involved in the operation of the business model". When the reporters and reporters have selfishness, the media have selfishness, and the readers have personal preferences, any identification and extraction of "interest groups" will be quite difficult. I'm curious how these media will define some NGOs in the xiaofengya incident. Compared with the traditional media, they are definitely the "citizens" of the disclosure; However, the content of promoting and advocating rights and interests for their own NGOs was discovered only after in-depth reporting.
 
        This line even eventually affected the trend of the report, making everything constantly "reversed". What is the media that can really achieve commercial impact? I am afraid that it is not enough to just declare that it is isolated from commercial forces. Moreover, it should also be a lair of idealists and take practical actions that are anti commercial and hostile to commerce. In addition, we must break all the obstacles mentioned above and enjoy a reasonable source of funds (such as inheritance). The only thing we can do is WikiLeaks. Coincidentally, many donation channels are now blocked, and it really depends on bitcoin to live. This can be said to be a very "blockchain".
 
        
Previous:[optimize the legal business environment] Baotou Iron court held a seminar on insurance cases and blockchain certificate verification
Next:No more

Related articles:



© 2005-2032 | Blockchain Circle & & All Rights Reserved    Sitemap1 Sitemap2 If there is infringement, please contact us at: