I will answer in the order making most sense from the claims.
- Determining what is false is from a logical reasoning perspective very close to determining what’s true. It’s just a percentage question. If 98% think it’s false - then 2% think it’s true (excluding uncertain voters). Same thing, if 80% think it’s true - then 20% think it’s false.
From my understanding, the Trustory MVP has the main focus to determine what has a majority consensus. The implementability for this type of validation is much easier - as consensus can sometimes be very high (90%+), and there is a more obvious market to it (false information (news)).
One concern of the MVP is how Trustory handle it when the majority is actually wrong, but the proof provided by the minority isn’t sufficient to flip the stakes. The solution I understand Trustory has proposed to this is that a claim can be “re-voted” when new evidence show up/the community wants. But the emotional part of voters whom are to re-consider their previous decision is where the crux lays - since we humans don’t take into account all factors, are not rational, and have pride - even if we strive to be on our best. Thereby, even if the opposition (true-voters) re-state their claims in a more logical and understandable way to the false-believers - the false-believers won’t take full account to the new claims. A solution to this in future versions could be another type of staking settlement.
Terms I think we should be careful using (excluding synonyms)
- Obvious lie - just because 1% think it’s true and 99% are sure it’s false doesn’t mean its obvious lie, as history has repeatedly proved. Rather, what is an obvious lie is when the claim is broken down into pieces and the defenders can’t respond to the sub-claims and solve it by distraction or sensationalism. So obvious lies is only the type of lies where all sub-claims can be disproven - not just where the high-level claim has a high consensus.
- Universal truth - because science works in the way we can’t know anything with 100% certainty.
Regarding your point 1, I argue that from reasoning above - “Objective truth” should not be determined.
Trustory’s success and impact rely on many more factors than the consensus mechanisms.
Regarding impact on fighting fake information (news), studies has for example shown that when a human has viewed a fake-video, it is “impossible” for the human to forget and discount what they just seen. For Trustory to make impact - it must therefore play a role in content-feeds (social media, news, search) - which I understand is the direction Trustory want to go. However, to truthfulness-verify these external feeds (Twitter, FB, Google, YouTube) will be tough from a 1) collaboration and 2) scale perspective. The solution I understand is being worked now is importing this external content into the Trustory app - and with the scale of content and staking that requires - only very few claims will have market liquidiy enough to be verified - and thereby not very good UX. I don’t see that the market liquidiy with mass-scale verification of external content will change with time - which is why I rather see that the solution to this is using other staking mechanisms to enable cross-use claims.
To now respond to your point 2 - the main value and goal of Trustory MVP I say is experimentation. Moving to Version 1, I see there would be two goals:
- obtaining scale in high-consensus-false claims, which is urgent and important
- start experimenting in highly conflicting claims by discussing the underlying claims and thereby reaching a more complex consensus on the high-level claim
I have many other concerns for Trustory to obtain the success and impact this type of service deserves, mainly in obtaining scale and combatting social manipulation - which is why it is important we get to start experimenting as soon as possible!