What's a story on TruStory?


#1
  1. Explanation
  2. Example
  3. Question

You can think of any news article as a handful of claims with opinions and fluff wrapped around them. Stories on Trustory are those handful of claims without the entire narratives around it.

For example, in this article regarding a16z MakerDAO deal, the only claims that I could pull from it are. https://medium.com/makerdao/a16z-crypto-purchases-6-of-mkr-backing-stablecoin-vanguard-makerdao-ff410a692393

  • a16z bought 6% of total MKR supply for $15M
  • MakerDAO is the first decentralized autonomous stablecoin organization

Not to say there aren’t more claims that could be extracted but those were the ones that were glaringly obvious. I could have drawn other claims from the article but those were the claims that were unique to that article.

Finally, there are explicit criteria for a story.

  • Can be deemed as TRUE or FALSE
  • Number of people who can verify is high & distributed
  • Must not be a future prediction
  • Does not require private information to deem it as TRUE or FALSE
  • Should not be about moral truths — focus on objective information, knowledge, and observations

Do yall have better ways to explain what a story is?


#2

I think this topic could be pinned so everyone who first comes to the forum could read it and get an idea (or be reminded) about what a tru story is - and what it is not.


#3

After reading TruStory’s website, tweets and doing the expert program exercise I’m still unclear. TruStory refers to itself as a social network, but also compares itself to Wikipedia, which I get because the content is user generated and informative. However, the term social network to me makes me think of Facebook, Twitter etc. Plus, Wikipedia itself does not consider itself a social network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_social_networking_site

While it’s clear to me that the goal is to be informative. Is it considered more important to link to an informative article or the original source or should I link to both? Also, should I strive to provide more useful information beyond a claim or to be entertaining?

I understand there may not be an objective answer, but I’m still unclear if the goal is to be reddit, but good or something like a politifact for crypto that people actually trust and would continue to trust when it goes beyond crypto claims.


#4

Great question.

I can see where the confusion comes from. Social network has the connotation of Facebook / Twitter, but really it just means:

  1. a network of social interactions and personal relationships.

  2. a dedicated website or other application that enables users to communicate with each other by posting information, comments, messages, images, etc.

With that, we intend for TruStory to feel less like a reference site (which is static) and more like a social network (which is dynamic). It’s difficult to come up with an exact analogy. I hope in the discussions we have coming up, we’ll be able to clarify this confusion.


#5
  1. All the terminology that we used to describe TruStory are metaphors for how it works. In some ways, it functions like Wikipedia. In some ways, it functions like Facebook. In same ways, in some ways it functions as Twitter, etc. People are strongly familiar with 1 or 2 platforms so we use different analogies so different people can grasp what TruStory more easily.

  2. For each story, link the source. The evidence should be as direct to the source as possible. Example. If you read an article about some investment and you heard about it from a news source, report the news source as the source, and the medium post or a screenshot of the transaction on the blockchain as the evidence.

  3. To extend your analogy, it should have the community of Reddit (niche, user-generated, enthusiast-driven) but the content of Politifact.

These are all great doubts. In love with the critical thinking you’ve shown.


#6

Going by the blogpost explaining what is TruStory I can say that any story related to crypto industry which can be validated by the majority of the users will work just fine.On the other hand any story that is too subjective,abusive to discuss or is too obvious at first glance will not fit in.It’s a platform crowdsourcing the validation of information.


#7

News story usually involves facts, opinions and judgement that author makes all along in her piece. A decade back we (mostly based on indian experience) trusted everything written. Usually, such trust was respected through more honest stories.

Money became pervasive in every aspect of the life and journalists followed money. In turn, they gave up their commitment to write honest stories.

What I understand of trustory is- a platform that offers people to seek truth (or honest stories) collectively with incentive and punishment mechanism embedded in it. In other words, what honest journalists could have done we are doing it on our own and contribute in the area we are expert in and being incentivised or punished for lousy work of ours.

My questions are-

  1. A news story is not facts per se. Most stories springs from one or more facts but offers wisdom and insights of a writer. Can this be achieved with people who are driven by embedded incentive and punishment mechanism? (PS- I am talking about general news stories and not crypto per se)

  2. Is human mind wired to consume only fact checked stories having no judgement and wisdom of one person? This I am asking from more of philosophical angle than biological.

Please put more light on this

Warmly,
Naveen

Request- Need more time to do first project because of Deepavali in India. Please oblige.


#8

great questions, Naveen.

The point is not to remove emotion, judgement or wisdom. Instead, it’s to ensure we can all agree on the logical reasoning behind that judgement or wisdom. If we can’t agree on the logical reasoning behind it, then that probably means it’s too subjective there is no need to determining it as true or false.

For example, if you claim that “EOS is not decentralized”, we all need to first agree on what we define as “decentralized”. Because if we can’t agree on that, there is no point in arguing over that claim. It’s too subjective. But IF we can first agree on what it means to be decentralized (e.g. “more than 100 validating nodes”), then it makes sense to validate or refute that claim.


#9
  1. A news story is not facts per se. Most stories springs from one or more facts but offers wisdom and insights of a writer. Can this be achieved with people who are driven by embedded incentive and punishment mechanism? (PS- I am talking about general news stories and not crypto per se)

You’re right. A news article is just a handful of claims with a bunch of bias or insights or wisdom around it. People can be incentivized to pull out and dispute those claims with a token that rewards and punishes certain behaviors. A token makes this possible.

  1. Is human mind wired to consume only fact checked stories having no judgement and wisdom of one person? This I am asking from more of philosophical angle than biological.

Wow. I have no idea. My guess is that humans like story along with claims. But the news has gotten to the point where it’s hard to separate the two. I think a platform where you only get the facts and other platforms that are open about their bias and agenda and spin would be the best of both worlds.


#10

Also, although the story itself is fact based, we allow a rich discussion about the story to happen in the comments.


#11

Thanks! I’m also curious whether you’re envisioning users posting under their real name or a username.


#12

username. Except we do have a identity verification process that is inherent to the protocol.


#13

Thanks for providing this definition. As I’m doing the exercise and trying to wrap my head around how to spot the TruStory-worthy claims, what’s helping me is thinking of a story as:

A subjective, present-oriented claim about a cryptocurrency’s value, capacity or chronology (e.g. I’ve spotted some items about XX being the “first” or “only” to do YY). Not an expert at all in crypto (hence why I’m applying), and this discussion is very helpful!


#14

@Pam
I spent 1 month theorizing what it was and where to find them but what actually helped “stories” click for me was pulling claims from the news and trying to finding evidence helped clarify what it was and what is was not. So what I’m trying to say is that you’re on the right track!

With regards to your definition about a story,
“A subjective, present-oriented claim about a cryptocurrency’s value, capacity or chronology (e.g. I’ve spotted some items about XX being the “first” or “only” to do YY).”

Here’s where I would correct it.

  1. A “story” is better defined by what it is not rather than what it is. Example. A story is not future-oriented includes more possibilities than present-oriented or past-oriented.
  2. A “story” is objective. There shouldn’t be any subjectivitiy in a story even if the objective claim has subjective assessment. For example, 80% of the exchange volume is fabricated is an objective claim that is falsifiable but how I reached that conclusion is my own analysis which has a tinge of subjectivity. The framework for making that decision (the data sources I pulled from, how I approximated when there was no reasonable approximate available, how I made calculations) is subjective. 80% of exchange volume might seem objective. It is. But there was a lot of subjective small decisions that went into creating that objective claim.
  3. “A cryptocurrency’s value, capacity, or chronology.” Don’t want to box ourselves in by saying all the variations of topics that claims could be about. In general, if the claim is made about the cryptoindustry, it would be relevant as a story on TruStory.

The way I think about a story is that all the news sources we read and hear from are blankets of fluff and bias around a handful of claims/ nuggets of truth. TruStory is focused on those handful of claims that the rest of the article is written about.

Stories are news without the bullshit.


#15

Thanks for your detailed feedback. (Embarrassed to see I typed the word “subjective” when I meant, definitionally, “objective.”) I see what you mean about not boxing in or limiting the definition of a story to, as well as why “present-oriented” is a limiting descriptor. And I agree, doing more of the actual claim and evidence finding is going to help it click for me!


#16

This topic seems to be a more appropriate place to continue the discussion about ambiguous claims so I’ll continue here if you don’t mind @preethi

I’m worried about the question that was illustrated by that example - that some claims could be ambiguous enough to render both True and False conclusions inaccurate.

Even in the case in question, I believe if some Quorum (or TRON, etc) related developers read that claim, they could first and foremost think about Ethereum as a technology and not as a platform - because they use the Ethereum’s technology daily but might not use its “native” networks at all.

So for them the original claim could sound naturally True - and if it is listed as “false” they could get surprised and upset, thinking that TruStory has either produces fake news or acting way too biased.

Let’s look at an imaginary case: “a 1000 BTC bet between John Sweeney and John McBeef on whether SomeChain’s hash is cryphographically insecure has concluded, the winner is: John”.

This claim could be super important for the market, and it kind of could be deemed as True (as John is indeed the winner!), but its ambiguity makes it totally useless, right?

And it’s not that impossible I think, for example if roughly 50% of population considered Ethereum to be a public net, and another 50% considered it to be a code base for your private nets, that would be one subjective storm around that story.

So the question is: what approach should be taken in these weird cases of more or less perfect ambiguity when there is a “True or False” conclusion but it’s absolutely worthless and/or when the conclusion is heavily influenced by one’s bias so instead of being based on objective information it relies solely on subjective criteria.

Hopefully there won’t be many of these cases but even that original claim shows us that we’d better be prepared to handle these properly. In an objective manner?


Best TruStories of the Week - #3
#17

Simple. We would Flag it for being too ambiguous, and allow the creator to edit the story body to not be ambiguous. Then it can be validated or invalidated.


#18

Ok it still nags me :slight_smile: Where’s that edge between the “too ambiguous” verdict, and a less ambiguous but too biased conclusion, and a more or less solid objective conclusion…

I mean, yeah, the two Johns example is clearly “too ambiguous”.

But with the original Ethereum platform story you assumed that it was talking about the Ethereum main net and that was a bit of a biased decision, right?

(as proposed above: a hardcore Quorum or TRON developer could just as well assume by default that “Ethereum platform” is about the open source code base which they build upon and use daily, and not about the network which they might not use at all)

I understand that in these unclear situations the bias of the majority would win: if more TRON developers would vote for the claim using their bias, compared to main net users with their bias, the story would be listed as “true” and vice versa.

And that does not sound quite right, basically all these cases will get skewed towards the bias of the community (the “experts” etc) whose opinions distribution likely will be quite different from the distribution of opinions of “wider public” (and most of its countless subgroups).

In short, so far it looks like while most of the stories could be verified in a more or less objective manner, there will be a set of these unclear borderline cases where the objectivity will get replaced by the bias of the community.

And that would be an issue because it could alienate people who would stumble upon these contradictions (conclusions that are clearly wrong from their POV) by themselves, or worse… actually, let me stress this crucial point:

Parties who won’t be happy by what they read on TruStory about themselves will use these borderline cases to discredit TruStory

And even if you don’t worry about giving grounds to these expected attacks on the reputation of TS, still it would be great to have some more clearly defined procedures of determining when the conclusion is too biased (vs. objective enough), and/or tools to mark these borderline cases.

You know like wiki has the “citation needed” mark, it could be smth like “borderline case” or “see terms clarification” or some other mark with an attached clarification (“In this case we’re treating the ambiguous term Ethereum Platform as Ethereum public network; the conclusion might not be appropriate for other cases”). It would not solve the problem 100% but it’s better than nothing imho.