I want to hear Sup Forums's thoughts. I want to make a news website that is completely anonymous and people can write their own news articles. I would want people to be able to rate and read articles without having to log in and I want to allow any kind of content on the site provided it does not condone crimes containing a physical victim. (Emotional? Fuck off SJW)
I am a PHP developer and want to hear random thoughts.
Other urls found in this thread:
1stamender.com
twitter.com
And what would keep people from just shitposting
I was thinking having a rating system where people can rate an article low if it ends up at the top of the list. I didn't want any moderators as that could become corrupt and be a road to censorship like facebook/twitter/reddit/Sup Forums.
The shitposts wouldnt be taken down but dictated what to do with by the people.
Additionally if something is out there advocating in the physical harm of a person/organization then and only then would it be subject to a report and a removal. Mods would not be combing the site.
i just.....
i can't.
the fucking racism here.
you people are ill
literally shaking right now.....
wow.....just. just wow. literally unbelievable.
ill never understand this......place.
it feels like
after the past 2 weeks i have been here it just seems to get worst and worst.....
blatant racism
child porn spam
animal abuse
anti semitism
holocaust denial
woman hating
homophobia
fat shaming
off topic adult cartoons
the list goes on and on.......
the n word literally hurled around like it was a casual insult......
are there even moderators to control this insane place??!!!
disgusting.....are you even "humans"? or just jaded pieces of SHIT??!!
i see why you people are callled the sewer of the internet...
You're going to end up with a reddit karma system and people being pretty upset that the article the wrote that wasn't popular but was objectively true was downvoted.
ahh thats where I don't use sheer number but an average. It would pull from an average of all the votes of the article and the journalist rating... also date. The newer it is... the better the journalist rating... the better the journal, the better it will show up on the site.
does that sound like a good idea?
bump. need more suggestions.
That sounds better, harder to abuse at least. Maybe have a "top contributor" for journalists that get a repeated high vote average.
Will you care in any way about fact-checking or quality? It sounds neat but a bunch of people are fucking asshats and no one will take you seriously if there's a dissertation of black culture right next to "How The Lulz Happened This Weekend You Won't Believe It Really Really Important Article Read It"
To tell you the truth no. The fact checking will be up to the journalist and the reader. There will be an opinion section and a rumor section to the site so you can clearly label an article as opinion or rumor.
I do want to point out: journalists already do not fact check for the most part. They just write and release more than 75% of articles due to time constraints. I don't believe it would be any worse for anyone if random people wrote the journals or if dedicated journalists did. That's why you would rate it and comment on it if there is a discrepancy.
You could technically report an article if it is blatantly false and if it causes physical harm in being false, then it would be taken down.
I ask because personally if I was going to make a news site, which is a daydream I have occasionally, I would want it to be above what the current media does, which is manipulative and agenda-driven.
Maybe a user-based genre/subject tag system where you tag an article with "serious" or "funny" so when you do a search for what you want it will be sorted based on user votes, other sites have that i think.
the genres that I have for the database are listed as
>General News (Or News for short)
>Informational
>Politics
>Economy
>Sports
>Technology
>Gaming
>Opinion
>Review
>Rumor
I figured that about covered my bases.
>libertarian news style
I like it, but there is no accountability in this system. What stops someone from making crazy claims that are libelous? How do you prosecute these people? Also while the averages thing seems good in theory youd need to make sure if something was getting downvoted into hello, you could check it and verify it. Otherwise what would the purpose of the site be? Itd be beforeitsnews.com
Suggestion: build some sort of "sources" part of posting to make it easier to cite sources for serious articles.
Your right there is no accountability. Thats why you have the rating system for people to rate
Yes I do have a field for being able to site sources and the sources would appear on the bottom of the article so serious posters can utilize it.
Maybe if a article gets downvoted heavily the poster can contest it - you could have a section for contested articles that people could have a discussion on so others can read the article and the comments below to make their own minds up.
a kind of 2nd chance for heavily downvoted or possibly controversial articles.
the algorithm I wrote for rating is heavily influenced by the date. The majority is actually the date. At least 30-50% I would say. Basically it uses this algorithm..
Check the rating of the journalist... every single person who rated... pull the average.
Okay it's a 3.5 (example).
Now look at the article rating. What is the average out of all the people?
4.2? Okay.
Now take into account the date. -1 point for every single day that has passed.
So really an article that is 10 days old would die off even if it was huge. But it would never be removed mind you. Doing some math in figuring out how big it would use up in the database it came out to like 10kb for the entire article + a profile so easy to archive.
This is my mission statement btw.
[NAME OMITTED] is a freedom-based news website dedicated to adhering to the freedom of speech. The idea is that anyone can make an article about anything without risk of being silenced or persecution. The goal is to share thoughts and truths and have only relevant news articles which is dictated entirely by the anonymous users of [NAME OMITTED]. No account is needed to share, comment, rate or read articles. You only need to make an account if you wish to write articles. Your anonymity is kept and no personally identifiable information is required when creating an account.
Do you have a system to prevent one person from using some sort of bot or program to spam downvotes on an article they disagree with?
It will detect a persons external IP address and just overwrite your rating with your own.
I picked an external IP address because the only organization that would be able to pull your information would be your ISP with a court ordered warrant. IF someone spams they would essentially have to set up hundreds and hundreds of proxies and/or zombied computers not in the same 2 blocks or so to do it. I would imagine that would get old really fast just to take down an article.
Look man i'm in, i am a developer and would fucking love to do something like this.
You would like to make a site like this with me?
But a rating system is still not accountability. You cant just make libelous statements and expect no lash back. If there isnt a writer to have defend the writing, it will fall on the host or publication. This requires lawyers and money, something i reckon you dont have alot of. You gotta be careful getting into the media game friend, this is where i currently work. You have the programming down well, you need to learn media law, otherwise you wont last for 6 months. Someone publishes a shitty story about wal mart, that you cant verify the facts of, youre getting shut down.
Some people control/rent botnets. Maybe a warning to yourself if an article gets x amount of downvotes in x amount of time just in case you have to worry about haxors.
ahhh yes. I see what you are saying. I did get in touch with a lawyer who is helping me out with this part. What I did put in my disclaimer when building my site is:
For readers:
[SITE OMITTED] is not responsible for ANY user posts / links / etc. The reader may assume that the writer of the article is solely responsible for the content that is displayed.
For writers:
[SITE OMITTED] is not responsible for ANY user posts / links / etc. A journalist may assume that they take on all responsibility for any content posted.
so that covers me. They could come after the journalist but the issue with that is they're anonymous and there is no real way to pull their data even through server backlogs. The server itself wouldnt track this. So essentially whoever is suing would have nobody to sue.
Good idea. I can implement something like this to prevent it or even better a non-invasive capcha.
>whoever suing has no one to sue
Your lawyer is lying to you. At the very least your need a site editor to be able to toss out the most libelous stories. There is always someone to sue.
I'm no lawyer but I agree with:
A powerful person gets a bug up their ass and they will clean you out.
to write an article you must go through a disclaimer and you have to agree to that disclaimer. the site creators would not be responsible for any user posts.
Additionally, we would have the ability to ban an article provided that it does break the rules of conduct, which in reality, are very very lax.
Going down this thought process, just made me think of Sup Forums. I mean shit there has to be janitors to stop CP and whatnot.
If you allow photos you'll have to have a similar system.
CP is a victim based crime and by the rules can get reported and removed for sure.
That disclaimer means jack when you are facing a team of lawyers who get paid to take jackasses to court all day for the simplest mistakes. The only way to completely clear yourself of any of this is to have people register, but then file their story anonymously. You need a site editor, and a registration. Trust me man, getting taken to court is no fun, especially when you know you are in the right, but the guy you pissed off has money and time to waste
Frankly, the biggest problem as far as I'm concerned is that you are letting anyone do it - if you don't have trained journalists who are paid to do their job, you're going to end up with mainly shit. Good journalism takes time, money and intelligence. Look at reddit: the news there is posted from other sites with paid journalists (Reuters, AP etc.). When reddit tries to play detective/journalist, you end up with farcical outcomes like their attempt to find the Boston bombers. Every loon and chimp with a keyboard has their say. Without quality control (and that requires paid and/or trained staff), you're going to end up with a massive pile of shit that no one will take seriously or want to read.
This.
Look at people who call themselves news bloggers, all it is commentary or op ed pieces. No real journalism (minus some) is done through freelancing.
you have to register in order to write articles. But none of the requests to register are PII (Personally Identifiable Information)
I get this but seeing what journalists do I've seen that they don't really fact check at all and that you might as well have just random people moderating themselves which actually would be more than what a journalist goes through.
I dont think you would get a pile of shit, but more of a mixed bag. You'de get shit for sure but at the same time I feel like you would get really good content that advocates for the 1st amendment.
what if you could donate to a journalist to their personal paypal? (But leave the option so people can still stay anonymous)
Worse than garbage would be convincing conspiracyfag-type shit where you give a voice to a complete nutjob who is smart enough to put some pieces together that don't quite fit but in a rational interesting way.
>guys i had an idea for a site where people can post unsourced blogs
Beforeitsnews.com
Pii could work but like i keep saying. You need the scapegoats in case man.
Donation wont bring good news, good news comes from people who arent worrying about what they will eat this week. Sure youll get the ambitious go getter, but why would he try hard if he cant accurately claim the articles he writes for his portfolio? It is anonymous remember. At best, youll prob get a professor or something who can write occasionally and who has good research, but you need to be pumping out content everyday, otherwise no traffic.
Its not a blog if it provides sources. Also my site would not randomly take down an article if it talks about aomething really unpopular which a blog site would. The format is also done in a way where its designed to look like an article
News gathering is more than cobbling together a story from other stories
Yep. Also want to point out that a person would be able to put any content including reveal yourself in the articles. Plus ability to log into that account would be good to prove it is you.
Not the worst idea ever come u with. Certainly not the best either. I say go for it OP. What's the worst that can happen? You lose like $50 on server cost for nothing?
You know you put a lot of faith in your journalists reading this post. 99% of journalism is parroting what other more credible journalists have said. I have proven this myself through something that wasn't even true, and got it posted through all the major news sites + so called journalists and had no fact checking whatsoever. I dont want to go into detail on it but this does happen... all the time.
I'm already working on it. Would like more pointers as I really love my idea and am very passionate about making it a reality.
Of course i do, i am one. And no 99% isnt parroting other journalists. It isnt parroting when you only have one revenue of information.
>presidential speech story
Is this parroting? All the stories will be the same because all stories can only come from one source of info.
>today in dallas, police chief info
Not parroting either. National stories look like parroting because information is usually coming from like one source. You can get random interviews to spice up your story, but the meat of the article is the same meat everyone else is using.
stop posting this pasta.
it is called wordpress son.
naw not wordpress. I'm a handcoding PHP developer.
I would gladly use something like this. WordChan?
I would tell you the name. It's actually already decided but the problem is I can't post the name otherwise it would be self promotion which would get me banned.
Just post the name. It's not advertising it if you're not asking people to go to it. Basically no different than name dropping a company.
Very well.
Actually...
The site is already made.
www.1stamender.com
www.firstamender.com
Both work.
I think a major problem would be fact checking and misinformation. News ought to be edited for best quality.
Why not set up some sort of peer review system before you allow an article to be published?
Not bad not bad. Talk about OP delivers.
Needs https:// support
the problem with review before publishing is because the inherent censorship that could happen.
Additionally... I've reposted articles where they've been taken down by other sites like wikihow:
1stamender.com
No need. We're not gathering PII.
But then the review process needs to be done by people that know what they are talking about.
I wouldn't trust 95% of people on b to reveiw my work adequately.
I dont really see an anonymous system working unless you have people with accounts making sure it isn't shit.
To keep them unbiased they should only be editing for; prose, grammar, factual errors, and logical fallacies.
But grammar... errors and fallacies are allowed. Yeah its shit content but the purpose is no silence.