Labeling food and offering “suggested” servings and proportions was implemented before the obesity epidemic. Is it possible that labeling information, could exacerbate the problem?

It could if — and again, can't come back to this enough — it's not transparent. Yes, suggesting servings came before the obesity epidemic, but they were mostly used as sales tactics, not legally obliged transparency markers. E.g. junk food/drink producers assuring mothers that serving their kids pop and candy satisfied the energy they needed. The most visible of these weren't based on anything resembling transparent or quantified suggestions. Ironically, given our conversation, they almost always relied on some opaque credible-sounding institution, like "Doctors of America's soft drink of choice for babies", or "Doctors say your child needs X joules of energy in a day — get them with [sugar product]" (made up examples, but you get the idea).

In some ways you could argue we're actually precisely at that stage of the infodemic: the most egregious fake news sources gaining followers by using the same kind of qualitative claims to suggest they are the "real news", and that you need to keep up with them regularly to not get fooled. Guess what: it became almost impossible for the junk food companies to get away with it once the labels became quantified, standardized, legally significant. The same thing can be done for content. You may say you're the "real news", but when transparent analysis (which can be tested across sources) shows you use inflammatory language 95% of the time, clickbait tactics 88% of the time, only use positive words with one party's politicians and a high frequency of derogatory terms with opposing politicians.... you get the picture. No wording your way out of that one so easily.

many people fear the same thing happening in a sort of 1984 Ministry of Truth type scenario.

I'll always take an opportunity to emphasize the difference: 1984 Ministry of Truth / Present-day Chinese censorship system, are the polar opposite of a system that would *transparently* and *quantitatively* inform people, in a way that is *easily disputable*. The former provide for none of these 3 characteristics. To pretend a system that does is the same is comparing apples and oranges.

It's true that government as we know it today, and Big Tech, are not themselves transparent or accountable in this way, so I can understand people's fears and concerns — but as mentioned in our conversation, just because they operate like this, does not mean every other future solution must as well. This assumption is not rational or constructive, and plays right into the arms of Big Tech: nothing every changes/ the status quo is maintained.

That all said, the loudest people citing 1984/ claiming parallels to totalitarian dystopias, who oppose systems that encourage mindfulness and labeling, are the ones who most benefit from being able to traffic in misinformation consequence-free and with zero systemic resistance, helping them gain followers and revenue at no risk/cost. "Who benefits from your anger?"

In science, something may change from conjecture to evidence rather quickly, and we certainly don’t want a Galileo-type situation, but how can we avoid that?

1) Look at the source, not the content. Did Galileo's life reflect that of a heretic anarchist who was often stirring the pot *just because*, or did he have a record of being well-intentioned/constructive? Was he known to be unreasonable and offensive, or reasonable and civil? Was he a person who seemed to speak without doing his research, or did he have rational, well-articulated, scientifically defensible arguments? Was he acting alone, or unduly influenced by a heliocentric lobby? Big Helio?

The same questions should apply to the leeway we give sources that post content. Whether something is information and becomes misinfo, or vice versa, is almost irrelevant. E.g. let's compare:
a) a gov institution that has otherwise been a fairly reliable resource and always civil, and no ulterior motive for being wrong or misleading
b) a social media account that has consistently courted conspiracy, is regularly offensive/inflammatory, and peddles snake oil merch on their sites or affiliated network.

Spoiler alert: vast majority of the division in society today is as a result of many people choosing (being fooled into?) to side with the latter, rather than the former. Our governments and institutions are not working efficiently, but using this test it's easy to see which is the lesser of the two evils, from an informational context.

Somebody who has a track record of (even when disagreeing, even if did it a lot!) :
- being well-intentioned/constructive
- being respectful and civil
- having rational, scientifically defensible, well-articulated arguments
- no apparent ulterior motive / method of profiting
... should be given all the leeway in the world, even if what they're saying goes completely against the grain. People should *earn* this right, and when they do should be put on a pedestal — not what we have today where the polar opposite gets that honour, thanks to garbage attention-seeking surveillance capitalism-defined algorithms.

2) Let's be clear on definitions. "Fake News" is a term that has been co-opted to water down the criticism it can represent. It helps to be specific. Misinformation is not the same as disinformation. Misinformation is information that is false but without the intention to be misleading. Disinformation is false information that is intentionally so. We have every right to be critical of important figures or institutions that steered us wrong with misinformation, but it's foolish to think this is equivalent (and to throw ourselves to the side of) those criticizing them with opportunistic disinformation campaigns.

There is a sordid history of food lobbists applying pressure to push their food of choice into US guidelines.

An extra point, relevant to the broader theme:
This isn't so dissimilar to how I view formal education credentials vs. what we're trying to do with Readocracy. Legitimacy being granted from legitimate-sounding institutions, with no quantification or consideration for what is actually represented (to say nothing of any interest of responsibility for how the supposed learning is retained and maintained as the years pass after your degree). In just the same way a qualitative approach to labeling "healthy food" limits us and obscures our ability to feed ourselves well, you can argue the same thing happens when we qualitatively label the credibility of information, with nothing to back it up.

but I’m still wondering who watches the Watchmen?

There seems to be this persistent assumption, even by people that hate it, that systems will not be, cannot be, transparent, and we'll always need to rely on the powers that be, rather than — god forbid — a system that enables us to verify things ourselves. This is perhaps conditioned.

THE ENTIRE POINT of these fact checking services is not for them to say 'this is TRUE" or "this is FALSE" with zero explanation or context. All of them — because this is their raison d'etre! — provide you with substantial justification to decide for yourself. This is what good fact-checking is! "let me prove it to you!" The vast majority of the time they are reasonable, consistent, and accurate.

Again, the point I wrote regarding transparency when comparing these "Watchmen" to 1984 or China: is the system by which the source was identified as misinformation transparent/ explained? Can you question it? Can you submit a correction (without punishment, let alone it being seriously considered)? 1984/ China/ totalitarian system = nope, nope, and nope. Reputable fact-checking partners: yes, yes, and yes.

I'm vaguely reminded of an event I was at in SF with some senior tech policy figure of French nationality. He was lamenting the strange contrast between the understanding and approach to media in France versus in America: in France, traditionally, it was well-understood and perceived as rational that different outlets had their own bias and angle, and people knew what each represented, and went in aware of that, and might choose to read a few to see how an issue was being presented; in America, it's somehow assumed that all of the outlets are supposed to be totally impartial and pure, and there's perpetual outrage when it's not the case — and yet most people continue to usually consume from "their" same source almost exclusively, believing that it mostly is the "correct" one (rather than just another angle).

And as for “fringe ideas”. I absolutely am a “rabble-rouser”. Am I a “shithead rabble-rouser”? Maybe, but I don’t mean to be. I like to stoke the fire of ideation.

So you just answered the problem yourself: you meet the criteria of being well-intentioned. You're not stirring the pot to hurt people or just to hoard traffic for your ad-fuelled revenue. You're trying to "stoke the fire of ideation". Wonderful.

I think a healthy dose of conspiracy is warranted to fully interrogate something (Stay tuned for Episode 5).

Agreed! Just as much as we need education reform that properly educates us on world history. We're doomed to repeat history if we ignore it, and this includes being doomed to be fooled if we ignore the ways others have been / are fooled.

I really want to know how Readocracy could reward deep investigation including fringe ideas.

Our upcoming Tray, which lets you build your own information routine — like an RSS reader on steroids, that lets you build your own algorithm on top of it — will address this directly. We are designing it to ensure that at least 10% of what you see is the polar opposite of what you have been tending to consume recently, clearly labeled as such. I'd be wary of mixing in outright misinformation within that flow, even if its labeled, but would instead like to integrate it into the community more broadly, as a dedicated discussion group on the subject, or a promoted credential about understanding conspiracy theories (which we already have :) )

Like my boy Carl says: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Amen

A lot of what people consume today is in the form of videos/pdfs/podcasts. How will people get credit for these things and how will these sources be credited?

Youtube videos already supported, we just need to make it public for all users, PDF almost live as well. Podcasts will be able to be listened to and quantified/ analyzed/ credited early next year, and books as well. In the meantime you can already add books and podcasts asynchronously in Readocracy, which parses podcast links well, and is plugged into the Google Books API for books. In both cases there are simple questions that allow you to prove you likely worked your way through the material and get credit.

P.S. RE: these "credits", going to paste a question from our FAQ: "What are the credits for? / Why credits? / What is a credit?"

The "credit" is both figurative and literal.

Figurative in the sense of recognition - getting credit AKA recognized for being well-informed through all the reading you've done online.

In a more literal way we are quantifying each piece of information and assigning it a number of credits based on the length, density, source, and how experts have appreciated it. These credits go into your profile which you can embed on LinkedIn, your CV, and anywhere else you want to enforce your credibility on a subject/ in general. It is also how credentials powered by Readocracy are programatically unlocked, e.g. did you earn a sufficient number of credits from an assigned set of reading?

The credits are also used to give transparency to understand the credibility and context of people's contributions E.g. helping you understand if somebody is well-read or well-respected on the subject at hand, versus somebody who has never read a single article on the subject before commenting, sharing, etc.

This all said, we are aware some people don't need to/ have no interest in getting rewarded or recognize for their learning (this is especially true of existing respected experts), and are thus making the credits optional.

If you *do* want the credits, overall, they have 6 benefits/ applications:

1) The credits are sorted into a profile that is an impressive, thoroughly data-supported way of showing off your likely knowledge and commitment to any subject. These profiles, along with the stats, can be embedded in Linkedin, your CV, and more. This can help you land your next job, especially if you're traditionally under-qualified. If you're familiar with HR or recruiting, you'll know 3 things to be true:
- the traditional CV is not enough (easy to inflate its claims);
- it's extremely important to stand out from the mind-numbingly homogenous pile of cover letters and applications;
- it's almost guaranteed a digital/social media background check will be done on you. Your public and embeddable Readocracy profile helps significantly with all 3 points. Furthermore, as an applicant, there is this fun little Catch 22 regarding degrees: when you first get them, you lack the experience; when you've had them for some time, their value/relevance is considered reduced. Readocracy helps you prove your passions and likely knowledge beyond what your degree can say (very little). We have already seen this approach land some impressive jobs that otherwise seemed out of reach.

2) The time you spend on certain subjects can be exported for submission for your profession's Continuing Education / Professional Development requirements. The credits will not align, but the verification and quantification of your focused time will.

3) The credits give context to understand the credibility of people's contributions E.g. helping you understand if somebody is well-read or well-respected on the subject at hand, versus somebody who has never read a single article on the subject before commenting, sharing, etc. Between the job aspect, and this, it's why we refer to the profiles (powered by the credits you earn) as trust and credibility passports.

4) The credits help you become much more mindful of how you spend your time online. Credits are based on the length, density of information, and reliability of the source (we rely primarily on MediaBiasFactcheck's comprehensive database for this). Thus, when something is worth 1 credit, versus 30, it immediately reminds you what you're spending your time on. You might think twice about reading endless listicles in zombie mode and, conversely, might be more inclined to give time to that reputable long form piece you were about to put off.

5) The credits can earn you real world rewards: we are working on partnering with organizations to provide perks or a discount if you're a top ranked reader or contributor on certain subjects each month. E.g. if you're one of the top readers in Business, you might earn 20% off an HBR subscription.

6) Lastly, bragging rights. There will be leaderboards that you can search to see how you rank on any subject, or combination of subjects, across any geography.

For example, independent scholars may download PDFs from a very special Russian site and would therefore not get “credit” as the article would not be in a web browser.

You'll be able to add/upload files to Readocracy in the future :)

Generally speaking, being behind a paywall doesn't matter as long as the person who wants to see what you read is as well. And either way you'll see the title, summary, and credits behind it, along with any annotations they made (as long as it's not part of an explicitly classified-labeled intranet). This is why our shareable annotations feature is so handy.

Are higher quality sources sometimes behind a paywall?

General comment: I think this is a major problem which is showing that the subscription model of funding media is not the answer. It's much better than the advertising-based model, but it's resulting in this "dark forest" of the internet: all the good stuff, whether it's content or discourse, is tucked away in little groups out of view, and the wide open space is becoming this dangerous, terrifying, lawless, useless space for the dregs of what's left.

I’m still left wondering what criteria make an institution trustworthy

I hope Readocracy makes it easier to decide if an institution is trustworthy by atomizing their "brand" down into individual people, and then aggregating and showing their commitment and credibility to the subjects they are advising on. Including their latest information and annotations alongside their recommendations, so that we know *why* we should trust them, rather than exclusively "because they said so" and some loosely associated credentials from 20-30 years ago that have nothing directly to do with what is being recommended.