wtf

Our opinions are important - they lead us to make decisions that impact our lives and our futures. Individually, and in groups.

We form our opinions from our understanding of the world around us. When our understanding of the world is accurate, we are free to make good decisions. When our understanding of the world is not accurate, we lose that freedom.

Our understanding of the world comes from our direct observations, and from other people. People like parents, friends, teachers, clergy, celebrities, scientists, experts, and writers. Our understanding of the world can be clouded by error, and by manipulation. Often, those who provide information to us also seek to manipulate our opinions - to alter our thought processes, direct our conclusions.

When somebody is able to influence our opinions, they transfer some of our decision-making power away from us, to them. This simple calculation enables a few people to accumulate power, while many more people become powerless.

Our own direct observations are limited in scope. Therefore, journalism is the primary channel that produces the information we use to make choices.

Journalists should provide unbiased information, and increase our freedoms by increasing our knowledge and our ability to make good decisions. Journalists have been granted constitutional protection in the United States, far beyond that of ordinary citizens, because this information sharing role is so critical to the success of a free society.

Unfortunately, the journalistic process has been severely corrupted. There is no mainstream or well known or highly credible source of news that is without bias. The level and type of bias that each publication and journalist suffers from is unknown. Therefore we, the consumers of news, must attempt to translate and interpret and weigh every detail in order to build an understanding of the world. But it is impossible to do so accurately, without any reliable factual basis. We end up deciding what we believe, instead of knowing how things are.

Gathering factual information to share with the public is difficult for many reasons. There is typically not a large reward, financial or otherwise, for simply sharing factual information with the public. It does not appear to be possible to operate a business profitably on the basis of simply gathering and sharing information with the public. There is virtually no motivation for a person or business to take on the task of gathering and sharing information with the public. In fact, doing so is often detrimental to their interests.

There are many rewards for people and businesses that can influence the opinion of the public. The motivations to do so are endless, and do not need to be listed here. (1. Money, 2. Power…)

Media critics have called attention to the lack of credibility in journalism. Like journalists, media critics are simply self identified. They suffer from the same human weaknesses as journalists, and they too may seek to manipulate. But the true weakness of media criticism is that it offers no solution to any problem. It complicates the equation, without improving clarity.

Media criticism is an additive process. If a journalist writes 1000 words, a media critic might produce that much material again to counter the original idea. And any rebuttal requires still more material. This additive process is exhausting for the consumer, and is simply not a scalable strategy for coming to an accurate conclusion important issues.

As I was ruminating on the dystopian idea of flying blind through the future, with no real way of knowing what is happening in the world, I had the silly idea that what we really need is an antibullshit machine. If we had one, we could simply put something in, and get back the truth. If there was doubt about the result, we could simply put them back into the antibullshit machine to check it.

An antibullshit machine would not require more of your time, or burden you with additional complexity, it would simplify everything. It would neutralize manipulation, and increase your understanding of the world.

This platform is an attempt to provide that antibullshit machine. The reality is that there is no such thing as an antibullshit machine, everybody knows that, including me. But it is possible that this attempt can still lead to a better understanding of the world.

Manipulation can be difficult to identify. We often hear it in the words of people we disagree with, but words that sound agreeable can carry the most insidious distortions. We may not recognize manipulation when it seems appealing.

When we hear the words of somebody that we already disagree with politically, or ethically, or religiously, we are vigilant in our mental criticism. When we hear the words of somebody we agree with, we may not apply the same filters.

This project is an antibullshit machine. It identifies and quantifies manipulation in content. It does so independent of all political ideas and leanings, simply by identifying and reporting on manipulative language.

When somebody wants to share a fact with you, they have no reason, or motivation, or desire to manipulate you. They offer you a fact, and you receive the fact, and that is the whole transaction. You then form your own opinions based on that and other facts.

When somebody wants to influence your opinion, you get more than just a fact from them. You get waves of manipulation that can be difficult to detect and deter.

This project simply analyzes content, and quantifies manipulative strategy. Articles and authors and publications are scored based on their attempts to communicate factually, vs manipulate the reader.

This analysis process is politically and ethically agnostic. It simply focuses on language. As part of the process content is also analyzed for ‘left’ and ‘right’ leaning language - this is an objective calibration, to enable you to identify any bias in the analysis.

This project is now in public beta.