YazIAm

1) Now that video deepfake is a thing, I currently only allow videos as primary sources in rare circumstances (such as the video being published by a verified account of the subject). 2) Only primary sources are accepted. Currently anyone can start contributing, but every claim is still reviewed by a team of verified fact checkers. I hope to scale this long term with a fact checking reputation score.

I'm happy to provide any journalist/blogger who wants to include this style of annotation on their site a js plug-in to do just that.

The whole fact checking process actually happens within the system, the facts you see on there were collaboratively fact checked by a team of 7 to 11 vetted fact checkers. So that may also provide an incentive for journalists.

Currently (for the prototype), you can start contributing, but your reviews only become public once I've vetted you and given you a fact checking test.

Long term the goal is to have an open reputation score for every fact checker. I'm currently experimenting with different implementations of this, and seeing good promise.

The goal is to enable journalists/bloggers to annotate their content with their fact checking. Allowing their readers to audit to and to contribute to the fact checking for themselves.

In other words, enabling journalists to "show their work".

Thanks for the feedback about the colours, I'll play around with it!

Been experimenting with building tools to make fact checking more transparent and reusable for a few years now, this is the latest iteration of that project. Feedback appreciated!

The argument against this is that founding a startup, when factoring in the incredibly low success rate, may not be the best strategy to gain money. Joining an early stage startup (with equity) that's clearly on a growth path, or even working for a Google, Facebook, etc. is a much better bet for making money.

Also, startups, where startup means creating a new unproven solution intended to achieve exponential growth, are unfathomably hard. It's hard (in my experience) to stay motivated in the face of startup hardships when one's primary objective is money.

An authoring platform enabling authors/journalists to "open source" their fact checking. That is, making their fact checking reviewable and reusable.

Here's a demo article on net neutrality! https://sourcedfact.com/a/net-neutrality-how-we-got-here

When it comes to media, trust by brand is breaking down. Media outlets can't expect their audience to just trust their assertions because of their big name anymore. That used to work when there were only a handful of outlets that any given person would be exposed to, making it possible to assign mental trust values to these outlets.

To re-earn their audience's trust, outlets have to start "showing their work", in other words making their fact-checking openly and collaboratively reviewable.

Good luck all!

Curious, what was the thought process behind removing the 'News' and 'Mass Media' request for startups?

Not sure when they were removed exactly, just noticed now.

Figured I'd make something for people (like myself) that want more sourced information, but are frustrated with the signal to noise ratio these days. Would be surprised if it reached people who regularly fall for fake news (at least at first).