jaredwiener

But will definitely take a look. Looks like a hydration error from the SSR

"Forth" is not a reference to the programming language. We want to be forthcoming, and in a forced pun, we're also looking to represent the Fo(u)rth Estate.

The thinking is that in the old days, when you had a print newspaper, there were ads and articles, but they were completely decoupled. You could read an article, or just the headline, or just glance at a photo, but regardless, you would see the ads. Now, of course, you have to decide to click through.

BUT -- and this is the key part -- the newspaper-style ads still exist, they just exist upstream in the flow, and giving the revenue to the aggregators, not the people doing the reporting. (It also leads to incredibly misaligned incentives between the aggregators and the publishers, leading to things like clickbait...)

Our hope is to be able to close that loop, share the revenue from in-feed ads with the reporting partners, and try to get away from the Facebook/Google/Twitter/etc model.

The vast majority of Americans get at least some of their news from social media, even though they don't trust it.

Forth is a news feed for news; not quite social media. Everything comes from vetted journalists who adhere to our editorial policy, so you can trust what you read. No spam, no misinfo, no hate speech.

Have a little over 60 journalists in all sorts of beats/locations, and growing.

We've been building https://www.forth.news.

It's a news feed, but for news -- populated exclusively by journalists. Anyone can sign up and follow along, but no misinfo, no spam, no hate speech -- just fact-based reporting.

Would love to hear your thoughts.

It's not a social network. It's a way to follow reporters/news organizations/topics, and see what they post. No misinfo, no spam, no hate speech. Just news.

Any journalists who are interested should reach out -- https://journalists.forth.news

That said, this is why we vet journalists as they come on. We cannot guarantee that no one will ever get something wrong, but we can limit how often it happens. On Twitter/HN/etc, anyone can post anything and face little to no consequences -- thats how trolling can happen. Journalists have bylines attached, and those mess ups can haunt them the rest of their careers. They don't want to get things wrong. We don't want them to get things wrong either. And if something is wrong, then we put out a correction.

Listening to everything everyone says can have its upsides, but filtering out noise is not one of them.

But basically, we cant be a truth telling machine. We can, however, filter out the obvious noise and hold our journalist partners accountable if we find issues with their reporting. We speak with every reporter who onboards to the site, and reach out when needed.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

https://www.forth.news

Its a news feed, but populated by journalists, governed by an editorial policy. No conspiracies, no misinformation, no spam. Just news.

It's just news. From journalists. No conspiracies, no misinformation, just news.

I'd love to hear thoughts/feedback from the HN group.

Yes, this is my site -- though I am not the author. We are a news feed for news, trying to recreate the social media experience (brevity, following who you want, etc) with a feed populated exclusively by journalists.

You can click on any author's name to see their bio, affiliations, and other threads.

Curious who you trust, and why?