The Slashdot moderation system might work up to a point. In the end, subscribing to moderators you trust (instead of subscribing to killfiles like Mastodon and Twitter groups use) may be the only way to evaluate comments.
It's besides the point anyway. Any mechanism that primes or prompts the sharer to be mindful of accuracy before sharing could help reduce sharing of misinformation, according to the results from the article.
Apologies if there is something about "nano-payment-funded distributed and syndicated moderation" that I'm not getting.
From section "Priming accuracy improves sharing":
"[...] sharing discernment (the difference in sharing intentions for true versus false headlines) was 2.0 times larger in the treatment relative to the control group in study 3, and 2.4 times larger in study 4. Furthermore, there was no evidence of a backfire effect, as the treatment effect was actually significantly larger for politically concordant headlines than for politically discordant headlines"
In other words, people who were primed to pay attention to accuracy were significantly less likely to share misinformation. Seems to me like an example of it working quite well.
: Does anyone know if that's actually the case?
No one want to say something is accurate and be thought of a fool later. Making this choice forces you to be a scientist, in that you're now making a statement that's falsifiable. Even better when it's probabilistic.
You aren't accounting for human nature. People aren't robots.
People might very well laugh at the slider and not be intimidated into respecting its power of graduated informational judgement. As of now, after two hours, the only two replies to the GP are saying they would ignore the slider.
Why do you believe a slider would force people not to share misinformation? There must be some basis for that opinion.
"Force" is a strawman, but there is a clear basis for thinking that an accuracy slider could cause people to be more thoughtful about sharing: the results of this study, which found that "subtly inducing people to think about accuracy" resulted in "participants in the treatment group were significantly less likely to consider sharing false headlines compared to those in the control group, but equally likely to consider sharing true headlines". The effect found was quite significant.
No. It was the literal word that was used not a strawman, which is an intentionally misrepresented proposition meant to be debunked.
"Seems to me that the mere existence of the slider would _force_ people to share less misinformation"