Hacker News Reader

Comment by loceng | Hacker News Reader

It's amazing to me there isn't a system that we can automatically pull from, of trusted channels, that will bring into view these more "hidden" narratives - that get crowded out by the current mainstream media and journalism trying to respond quickly without doing their homework or with doing more quick reads that keep to a narrow scope of a narrative instead of a longer read that requires attention, which in fact will quell the reader's excitement or over excitement - likely leading to less viral sharing due to losing readers who aren't patient enough to read more thorough content.

View on HN

"It's amazing to me there isn't a system that we can automatically pull from, of trusted channels..."

I like it, but who gets to decide which sources are trusted?

Whatever network(s) or leadership within the system you subscribe to.

The people visiting the service decide that for themselves; they decide if they think the provider is trustworthy. You personally have to trust the person / people deciding which sources on a matter/story are trustworthy. It's a chain. That trust gets built up over a long period of time ideally, starting typically from a very modest beginning. It's worth noting that sources are often not consistent, they can be trusted on one thing and then get another thing wrong, so it certainly won't be a simple matter of dictating that This Source is good and That Source is bad (for everything).

More challenging than earning that initial trust, is maintaining it, not allowing a perversion to occur over time (where the service becomes biased, irrational). For every service that gains initial trust, most inevitably lose it over time; keeping it long-term is far harder.

It's a chain, it's a hierarchy, it's leadership, governance and accountability systems - protocols and processes - and transparency towards results/outcome. It's why "historically" good brands can get taken over by relative bad actors, perhaps "just" greed, and pillage the good reputation and reach a brand has - and because they already have the resources, processes, and reach - they can maintain it more easily; it's far harder to break through the noise to create a new brand with mass mindshare than to acquire, and why acquisitions happen and conglomerates form - as a form of suppression and to continue maintaining control.

There are good sources on this, like Matt Levine's column "Money Stuff" at Bloomberg.

[I just imagine a finance guy after Heartbleed or Stuxnet complaining "woe betide me, the IT coverage on CNN and Foxnews is so bad... I wish there were trusted channels to discuss these, you know, hacker news!"...]

Yes, a meta system that would have the best channels available per topic (HN, Money Stuff, The Aviation Herald/PPRUNE, etc.) would be great, but I imagine it would pretty soon be exploited and overrun... Maybe it has advantages that they are generally somewhat out of the limelight?

If the good leaders aren't exploitable, and they maintain unique channels of gaining momentum and attention - say via word of mouth or succeeding at gaining attention in the news or good at piggybacking on existing amplification systems (e.g. Andrew Yang running as a Democratic, otherwise would have run as Independent, due to understanding the duopoly and mainstream media's amplification of only those two main narratives), eventually the best leaders will outshine whatever bullshit takeover and noise pollution that may try to overtake the system; that still doesn't mean there won't be attempts for manipulation and narrative capture, suppression tactics used, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com