Sources of Truth for dReps, Voters and Constitutional Committee

Governance General Governance Conversation
1

To make it easy for all Cardano members to obtain information that reduces any misinformation and baises from 3rd party sources, should a new group of news evaluators be formed?

My opinion is that such news evaluators should summarise information in an easy-to-read format and that they be apart of the MBOs as they would be obliged to reinforce the Cardano Constitution.

That way the voters, and dReps could more be more easily informed which leads to more efficient decisions to be made. This hopefully leads to an increase in community engagement and more effective means of governance for the Cardano ecosystem.

What are your opinions on such a proposal?

2

It sounds like another application of the “fact checking” principle, which for the last 3 years has been used to promote a disgusting amount of censorship and political agenda. :face_vomiting:

3

I found the blatant bullshit that made that “fact checking” so necessary much more :face_vomiting: than the fact checking itself.

But – true – very few things are mathematically provable right or wrong.

And I also don’t see that such a role is necessary for the very limited set of governance actions that are presently discussed.

4

I agree that the fact checking has been politicalised but to what extent can people discuss Cardano without knowing whether it is fud or not?

What the general public perceives of Cardano from media sources has an myraid of misconceptions, stemming from smart contract incapabilities to being a ghost chain.

If voters and dReps would be subjected to such misunderstandings from media sources how would you suggest the ecosystem have effective governance as Cardano grows?

5

As long as the requirement for participating in governance is to have at least a minimum amount of ADA, of skin in the game, I don’t see a risk that people participating in Cardano governance should believe very simplistic criticisms of Cardano. Why would they participate then, anyway?

And a lot of things labelled as “FUD” are, in fact, valid criticisms and people should take them seriously. Or they are at least valid beliefs and opinions.

Marking the fact checking by media as “politicised”, “agenda”, “promoting censorship” could also be seen as such “FUD”, trying to completely discredit it. Just as dangerous.

1 Like
6

Because there is no requirement for accountability as to what the media discusses about Cardano or many topics for that matter. From the example before, the general public are informed that the smart contract doesn’t work which is far from the truth.

Unfortunately the fud could impact voter participation and growth in the ecosystem.

That is why I suggested for news evaluators to be formed based off a set of set guidelines unlike the media. There is currently no need for factual journalism. Maybe peer-reviewed research checks can also increase the accuracy of news and address fud.

There is no need to fact check the media but what I am suggesting is to form news evaluators that provide an alternative of news content. That way it makes it easier for all stakeholders to make informed and accurate decisions.

7

the way you state it here, it sounds like this is a facility which could work against institutional censorship rather than reinforcing it… :thinking::slightly_smiling_face:

8

There are many tactics including censorship, biases and straight out misinformation that are often used in the media.

It would address institutional censorship as there is no accountability by media to report on facts.

If what is reported about Cardano is inaccurate, where does it stop, and to what impact will it have on governance decisions?