In other words, "and then a miracle occurs". I don't see how this requirement could ever be met in general. For particular cases (like first responders at an emergency being able to directly feed what they are seeing and doing), perhaps.
The name of this aggregator is journalist.
Take - for example - the question:
"Did Trump ask the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton in 2016".
The direct quote is this:
"Russia, if you are listening I hope you are able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."[1].
That led to "Russian officials began to target email addresses associated with Hillary Clinton’s personal and campaign offices “on or around” the same day Donald Trump called on Russia to find emails that were missing from her personal server"[2]
Turns out that people disagree very strongly about what that means[3].
[1] https://youtu.be/-b71f2eYdTc?t=20
[2] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-asked-russia-to-...
That's because brain interfaces in the same general category already exist. Much less sophisticated, of course, but as the saying goes, that's just an implementation detail. :-)
Most of the big successes have been involved "reading" brain signals and using them to control things like the modular prosthetic limb or speech synthesis.
In contrast, it seems like most of the "write" stuff has been comparatively crude (e.g., phosphenes in visual areas), though the somatosensory stuff (also for the modular limb) is pretty neat. Have I missed something?
I'm am not trying to say gatekeeping information platforms would solve this or is even morally correct - I am just trying to demonstrate the downsides of such a system that lets the floodgates open to content creation with lax moderation. if you want some semblance of truth and accuracy in the media people consume, it doesn't hurt to have some bounds on what is an acceptable source of news (again with caveats)
I imagine that having some sort of reputation system might eventually be the answer. After all “is [email protected] a liar?” would also be instantly accessible information. But again we know there are lots of powerfully people today who are dishonest and yet there is little consequence for them because enough people like the lies to prop them up. I don’t see that changing.
Under these conditions it becomes unnecessary for someone to do the basic legwork of seeking out stories and curating them, no? Interpreting the stories of course does require someone’s time and energy, but for example there would be no need to go and investigate what is happening with the earthquake rescue because the first responders could effortlessly share their thoughts/experiences, the person in charge could instantly add their voice to the info stream telling everyone what the clean up/rescue plans are, etc. What role would a newspaper play in a setup like this?
Now, we aren’t there yet. We are not a hive mind and sharing what we are witnessing takes time and effort. A first responder isn’t going to stop and tweet about what’s going on. And the even bigger hurdle is consuming this much information. That problem hasn’t been solved yet. But we are closer to that than not: Twitter and Reddit allow regular people to share what they are seeing: earthquakes, protests, awards ceremonies, graduations. Curation will only get better. Whereas before only the select few had a voice because it was expensive, now almost anyone can broadcast to a huge swath of humanity.