> Has that ever worked?

From section "Priming accuracy improves sharing":

"[...] sharing discernment (the difference in sharing intentions for true versus false headlines) was 2.0 times larger in the treatment relative to the control group in study 3, and 2.4 times larger in study 4. Furthermore, there was no evidence of a backfire effect, as the treatment effect was actually significantly larger for politically concordant headlines than for politically discordant headlines"

In other words, people who were primed to pay attention to accuracy were significantly less likely to share misinformation. Seems to me like an example of it working quite well.

Yes, I don't take the studies seriously because I've worked on Mechanical Turk. The people primed to pay attention are maximizing their workflow, because taskmasters set unreasonable time limits, incomprehensible instructions, and every action is necessarily out of context. Attention there is totally divorced from anyone browsing a news feed.

Did you see when they tested it on Twitter users?

Yes. The last study looks even worse.

Not a rating scheme, the value would the thrown away and never shown to anyone. The point isn't to collect information, only to force the sharer to think.

And the sharer is just going to trust you to throw away that information? I don't think so.

Most people aren't careful about what information is collected on them in the first place. Are people going to stop sharing things on Twitter because they're afraid of giving up one more tidbit of information to big data? I don't think so.

It's besides the point anyway. Any mechanism that primes or prompts the sharer to be mindful of accuracy before sharing could help reduce sharing of misinformation, according to the results from the article.

Really surprised that no social media with nano-payment-funded distributed and syndicated moderation exists. Centralization of moderation is taken as de facto, but I'm skeptical that it has to be this way.

Who moderates the moderators in such a system? Would it be structured like the Wikipedia editor hierarchy?

The customers ultimately. Moderators should produce moderations which result in something people think is worth paying for. I'm thinking of a multi-rooted aggregation system. Wikipedia is an example of a single-rooted system.

What qualities do you think that would incentivize in a moderation system? I'm not feeling that tendency to share less misinformation is one of them, and I'd fear that richer people would have more power to control the narrative in such a system by effectively bribing moderators.

Apologies if there is something about "nano-payment-funded distributed and syndicated moderation" that I'm not getting.

Commodifying and creating a market for accuracy-driven moderation among other types of moderation shifts the conversation toward the question "Is misinformation a market failure?" If that's the case then we have a much more interesting discussion on our hands.

But much like ratings systems are actually used as approval/disapproval systems, such a system would instead come to represent ‘what is the most profitable moderation’. Such a market would optimise towards profit, not quality.

That's a critique of all markets. I'm down.

100%. The insight there I guess being a need to choose carefully which areas you allow market dynamics to be introduced, or at least make sure you know what the medium of exchange really is because that's what the market players will optimize towards.

What are "Twitter groups"?