It feels like the news has been getting progressively worse for quite some time, and it's starting to take a toll.

Now news fall into 2 categories.

First Category: Super long text that could be summarized in a post one-tenth the size.

For example, in Brazil (where I’m from), there's a big flood in the south. Whenever I want to check on it for updates like water height, affected areas, damages, or if it will continue, I have to wade through a 1000+ word essay. It could easily be summarized into simple texts, but it's often written by someone who doesn’t really know the event, leading to a lot of misinformation.

Second Category: It’s often politically biased, making the read non-informative.

For example: Lets say the president plans to send troops abroad. I want to know why, what the troops will do, their numbers, and the strategy. I need information that is useful and easily memorable and true to it's nature.

Political bias in news just stirs anger on one side and approval on the other. News should be neutral.

The solution: So, I’ve been pondering how we can improve the news landscape.

Some other platforms applied good solutions. Take Twitter’s community notes, for instance.

They provide a good model for fact-checking. But it’s not quite there yet.

Perhaps the issue is that it only fact-checks without correcting or adjusting the news with accurate statements.

Here’s where I want your thoughts to go…

What if news were created by the people/independent journalist, not by large journalism companies and then corrected and adjusted by the same people who read they?

Just consider, with our varied ideas, thoughts, and biases, wouldn't blending them all be the best path to neutrality?

So, let’s set fairy tales aside—how would this work in practice?

How would it work? A journalist (Person A) creates a post on the platform. This post goes live. According to the platform's ranking of how good the journalist is, the post reaches more people.

When someone ranks the post as good, the journalist is pushed to a higher ranking, and the post is also boosted.

Then, Person B, who is not a journalist and has a lower ranking, makes an adjustment to the post's data. This data is A/B tested.

If the updated post gets more likes and a higher ranking than the original, the post is altered.

If the user who made the alteration gives a thumbs up to the post and simply adds to it, the first journalist receives a higher ranking. Otherwise, they lose ranking, almost like in a game.

Ok, but why would journalists work for free?

Sometimes, yes. But, usually no.

There could be 2 possible ways to get paid (I’m open for suggestions of more)

1 - Instead of relying on media firms for payment, journalists can choose to work independently and link their posts to their own websites.

This empowers them to pursue journalism with greater autonomy, free from the perceived ethical compromises often associated with traditional media outlets.

2 - Users who opt for the free tier will experience ads on their accounts, whereas paid users will benefit from an ad-free environment and the added perk of being able to edit their posts.

This incentive attracts users eager to express their opinions while also encouraging them to upgrade to the paid subscription for a smoother, interruption-free experience.

Additionally, a portion of the ad revenue will be distributed among the top 50% of users with the highest rankings, fostering a culture of active involvement and innovation on the platform.

All this would be open sourced, to keep the platform neutral.

Just something that has been in my mind (I'm a programmer like y'all and would love to do it)

We can talk more if someone is interested (josepiteco@gmail.com)