Web of Trust Audio News Distribution

c0rtex writes "Wearlab (University of Bremen) has designed a cool web of trust voice message routing system with a decaying credibility metric. It supports xmms and winamp. Source available for Linux and win32. "MPN makes it possible to deliver completely decentralized and independent news. Everyone has the possibility to be a reporter, no filtering publisher is required...""

Comments

Why bother?

[aridhol]

Why would I bother with something like this? If I want local news, I know where to find it on the web. I can find personal home pages near me through the local ISPs. Why do I need yet another way to get information?

In addition, I'd rather read my news. It lets me go at my own pace, skip over the summary to the details, translate it, easily quote from it for rebuttal, etc.

Re:Why bother?

[aridhol]

OK, but why do it in audio then? Text is more portable, you don't need to worry about having the correct codec. It would use less bandwidth. It would give just as much information (or possibly more, 'cause you can put more in without worrying about bandwidth).

Re:Why bother?

[Qrlx]

Why do I need yet another way to get information?

You could have made that same argument before the advent of the Internet, you know. Want local news? Hang out at the barbershop. The coffee house. Talk to the kids on the street. Attend a city hall meeting.

I do agree that reading would be way better than just audio. There's simply no point to limiting the "stream" to audio-only. I can understand a bandwidth cap, but there should be a way to introduce a text stream, and maybe a video stream if exists the bandwitdh to push it without crowding out others.

It has become increasingly obvious that The Names You've Gradually Grown To Trust (like NYT) are less and less worthy of that trust -- marketing and the need for sensationalism drives their agenda and clouds their judgement. I get my news from The Economist and Funny Times and everything in between. The more sources, the better!

Re:Why bother?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"OK, but why do it in audio then? Text is more portable, you don't need to worry about having the correct codec. It would use less bandwidth. It would give just as much information (or possibly more, 'cause you can put more in without worrying about bandwidth)."

I have days at work where I'm working on visual projects (I.e. artwork or a demo or something), and I'm basically running on auto-pilot. On those days, I listen to music. I've had days, though, where I'd rather listen to the news. Now remember, my eyes are occupied so reading the text is out of the question. Fortunately, I have a local news station that does audio streaming. The only downside is that they think Dr. Laura needs to be on in the morning.

There's other reasons too. I'm just giving you an example of why this article caught my eye.

The problem with saying "why do I need this?" is that what you're really saying is "I can make due without it if I just work harder!" Well, that's pretty much true of any technology. "I don't need glasses, I can just move my face closer to the monitor!" See what I'm saying? That's just not a useful attitude to have. If you're not sold on something, it's because you're not getting it. It's not because there's a fundamental problem with it.

Beware the pseudo-trust

[johnthorensen]

The technology claims to be able to provide "news that you can trust in", but it should be noted that trust != truth.

As in traditional trust systems (Karma, anyone?), someone being trusted does not necessarily mean that their information is valid.

-JT

It's probably just me but...

[core plexus]

not only does there seem to be a large number of audio-related posts this day, but...

I can't remember when the last time I listened or watched a news program. I find that I can suck up all the news I need from less than a dozen sites (including /., of course) during the course of a day and all my reading and clicking is still less than the 11-15 minutes of someone droning on between advertisements backed up by video clips and sound bites.

"Hey! Who grabbed my ass?"

Why audio?

[g4dget]

Putting together a good news story with audio is much harder than writing. Why not start with a "credibility system" for text?

Uses?

[johnthorensen]

As far as I can tell, actual real-life uses for this are not really in the area of getting the daily news. Rather, it seems better suited to "man-on-the-street" type coverage where unfamiliar parties are thrown together. Perhaps some types of urban warfare??? It's not so hard to envision trust metrics changing based on the consortium-of-the-week in some third-world environment where transmissions need to be made in the clear but some sort of filter is necessary and identity verification is important.

-JT

Great Concept except...

[Torinaga-Sama]

I barely trust people who make a living on knowing what they are talking about.

Maybe I don't understand the underlying concept, but it sounds kinda like a big game of telephone.

Also what good is a source that cannot be identified outright? How will this get us unfiltered news when the you have to filter everything (in your head) for truth or logic?

If I miss the point please explain as this has piqued my interest.

Keys Are Just Changing Hands

[limekiller4]

From the site:
You want to hear news every 10 minutes? Fine.
You want to hear only one minute each hour? Also fine.
You want to hear the news as soon as possible? Why not.
You want news from another country? Who does not.
You want news from a specific person? Go ahead.
You want to know about a specific topic? Sure.
You want news you can trust in? That is our business.

Yeah, it's the last item that bugs me. Trust is still being vested in someone to create the trust model.

Someone has to be holding the keys and the keys here are the weights. For example, the rate of trust decay could be increased to marginalize the "small reporter." I'm not suggesting that these guys are some ill-intentioned neer-do-well's, I'm just suggesting that keys of power are merely being shifted, not eliminated.

Frankly, if I'm wrong, someone PLEASE speak up and tell me why. I've never wanted to be so wrong in my life. =)

Re:Does this guy use AOL?

[Entropy_ah]

The funny thing about your post is that it proved to me the exact oppisite of what it said. As I scroll down the page here i see no "First Post", penis bird, goatse.cx, Beowulf clusters of grits, and NPN&P. Thats because I have my threashold set high enough to filter all of those out. No, Its not perfect but Its not bad either. I think thats what they're trying to do here. Allow anyone to publish, but have a distributed moderation system.

keep 'portable' in mind

[Anonymous Coward]

I have read most of the posts here, and most of you don't realize that this was made with 'wearable' in mind. Meaning that you have a slow connection to the internet, and a quick connection to the intranet. Let me give you an example. You have a wearable device that has a 128kbps uplink (think cellmodem) and you have an IR port on your shoulder that can communicate with other people within the line of sight at 4mb/sec. With this system, your buddy who listens to the radio can record and re-distribute the stories to his buddies over the IR link. If you bump into them during the day, you could instantly be updated on the latest news.

If anyone wants to have a television channel

[inerte]

Start an *internet* one.

Simple: Use P2P and magnet links to distribute content. Have a bunch of online friends, say, 20, produce content. Then post a magnet link with the video. You can have weekly news, comments, animation, movies, whatever you want.

It's possible, today, to start your own video distribution system. You can call it "video-blog" too, or "vilog".

got anything positive?

[twitter]

you don't see much, and that is your choice. You say. I see two ways this could work, depending on how most people configure themselves.

1) The plurality opinion, among those who care enough to broadcast, dominates what is "credible." Aliens kidnap people. School prayer should be mandatory. The list goes on. The internet is already like this.

So you want to kill the internet too?

2) The service fragments into cliques. You only hear from people who agree with you. Within any given clique, whatever you already believe to be true - this is credible. Nothing else is. The internet is already like this.

What's new? People pass what they hear through a bullshit filter called education and experience. Your post put mine offscale, and the flaws were easily demonstrated. The internet brought me this silly post of yours extolling lawyers with brain hemmorages. The same page your message came in had useful content. I suppose I could tell my agent to block your account, but that might keep me from reading something you say one day that makes sense.

Choice and freedom to chose are good. Contemptuous ignorance is anoying.

Re:decentralized news pirates

[TrentC]

Quick! Call John Ashcroft! These pirates want to take copyrighted "news stories" and distribute them freely!

Nah, if you really want to shut it down, point out to the Oval Office that this network could be used during Desert Storm II: The Final Battle (coming Spring 2003, buy your tickets) to provide uncensored reports of the results of U.S. military operations. You'll have the FBI kicking this guy's door in within an hour.

Jay (=