Works Cited

Barstow, David and Stein, Robin. “Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 13 Mar. 2005, www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/politics/under-bush-a-new-age-of-prepackaged-tv-news.html.

Bernstein, Carl. Rolling Stone, Oct. 20, 1977, www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php.

Carey, Benedict. “Many Psychology Findings Not as Strong as Claimed, Study Says.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 Aug. 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/08/28/science/many-social-science-findings-not-as-strong-as-claimed-study-says.html?_r=1.

Fanelli Daniele. “Negative Results Are Disappearing from Most Disciplines and Countries.” Scientometrics, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2158610.

Heath, David. “Contesting the Science of Smoking.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 4 May 2016, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/low-tar-cigarettes/481116/.

Hudson, John. “U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans.” Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy, 14 July 2013, foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/.

Huff, Darrell. How to Lie with Statistics: Pictures by Irving Geis. Norton, 1964.

Humble, Roy K. The Humble Argument. Problem Child, 2010.

Ioannidis, John P. A. “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Medicine, Public Library of Science, Aug. 2005, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/.

Mullins, Brody, and Jack Nicas. “Paying Professors: Inside Google's Academic Influence Campaign.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 14 July 2017, www.wsj.com/articles/paying-professors-inside-googles-academic-influence-campaign-1499785286.

“Negative Results Are Disappearing from Most Disciplines and Countries.” Scientometrics, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2158610.

O'Connor, Anahad. “How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 Sept. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html.

Perlberg, Steven. “CNN Unveils New Studio to Produce Content for Advertisers.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 5 June 2015, blogs.wsj.com/cmo/2015/06/08/cnn-courageous-branded-content-studio/.

R11110000. “CIA Admits Using News To Manipulate the USA (1975).” YouTube, YouTube, 19 Feb. 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=5ED63A_hcd0&ab_channel=R11110000.

Sebastian, Michael. Politico Hires Dell's Managing Editor to Build a 'Brand Journalism' Team.” Ad Age, 27 May 2015, adage.com/article/media/politico-hires-dell-managing-editor-stephanie-losee/298784/.

Sorokowski, Piotr, et al. “Predatory Journals Recruit Fake Editor.” Nature, vol. 543, no. 7646, 2017, pp. 481–483., doi:10.1038/543481a.

Ive thought a lot about alternatives to current social media.

I think a major issue on reddit is the upvote system. Its used too often as a disagree button, and it also has a side affect of people conforming their comments with what will be upvoted.

I made a series of posts (on reddit) discussing alternatives.

in general basically every option that is included or not included on a forum, every feature, algorithm etc helps to shape the type of discussion that is had. Knowing this, you can help to shape the conversation. This can be abused of course, but there are many possible positives.

Look at how this site works: https://www.kialo.com/explore it allows for an ongoing conversation, not one that will be buried in 24 hours. It allows for vast complexity in discussion that is organized and (kind of ) easy to sort through. It is very different from the reddit format, and it shapes the conversation differently.

In terms of voting, I would like to see a site similar to reddit but with a much more robust voting system:

Maybe instead of voting, you have a series of tags you can give a post, like "thoughtful", "credible", "funny", etc.

Maybe you can vote similar to what i just said, you can vote something as funny, thoughtful, interesting, amazing, etc. Then you can sort the posts in these different ways.

Lets say I wanted to make a forum, and I had a vision of a place where people talked about political issues, philosophy, etc - deep issues. I want them to be able tofilter out bad comments reliably, and to find good comments. i want to tone to be very respectful and mature. One thing I could do is make it so the types of upvotes that can be given match what I want. So:

Lets say I dont care about peoples specific opinions, but I want: respectful, effort, mature, thought-provoking comments. That could be my upvote system. you can upvote based on one of those, and nothing else. Now the influence of the voting system will be far better than reddit's system, at least for my goals.

Furthermore, once there is a voting system, what if I could weight votes various ways? For example, I could make it so all comments and posts that get a "thought-provoking" upvote will be treated as if they received 5 votes instead of one. This is one reason why I like the tag system instead of voting. People could tag posts whateve, and then weight each tag whatever they want.

So, say a post is tagged "NFL". Im not a fan of sports so I weight "NFL" to be worth -100 votes. You like sports so to you it is worth +10 votes. So each time it is tagged by someone, that is another vote.

You could use the system similarly to weight a single user. Maybe I find someone who is always very respectful, and challenges my beliefs in a good way. I could make is so that whatever he votes on will be weighted a certain amount. Magnora7, I recognize and enjoy your posts and comments on reddit, so I could weight you vote on threads as +1000. now whatever you vote on with be shot to the top, except in the major subs. This is problematic, because the effect is not equal across all subs. There are solutions though. the Weighting could scale based on the number of user in a sub. so in a smaller sub your vote would be worth ten and in a larger sub your vote would be worth 10,000. This is a little better, but not great. Another option is to make your vote worth "a percentage of the total votes for that thread". the percentage could be over 100%, and I could make it so if you voted a thread up and someone voted it down, and I both had you equally weighted, it would cancel out.

---

thoughts?