For now, we're starting out with option 1. We would love to build something more complex, like option 2, so that it's personalized for each user. Our rating data comes from various reputable sources, including public polling, and some crowdsourcing (via our kickstarter backers).
FWIW you're missing Drudge Report, Breitbart, Stormfront, The Daily Stormer, The Daily Caller, /r/The_Donald
You had more on the other side, but Mother Jones was notably missing.
Thanks for pointing out how this could come across though. We certainly don't want to turn anyone off, even inadvertently.
News?
It's sad that we live in a nation that is so broken that disinformation is a daily problem for each of us, but it is and it is not going away. Your best bet is to remain skeptical of all information at all times.
Also, there is more at play than just reporting of so-called facts. The NY Times will typically run a story and for no reason at all, there will be a paragraph bashing Trump in some way, right in the middle of an otherwise unrelated article. They just find ways to inject stupid editorial opinions into otherwise "clean" news articles.
I agree that both sides would benefit from learning about what the other side values beyond the sound bites but part of the reason "liberals" are pushing back is because of the outrageous behavior of the Trump administration in regards to blatant lies and an apparent policy of reform through dismantlement (c.f. some of his cabinet picks and their lack of qualifications/pedigree for the position).
If conservatives want better understanding then they should act more moderately. There is a massive double standard by conservatives/Trump supporters in regards to issues like executive orders, presidential vacations, adultery by politicians, conflicts of interest, nepotism, and congressional investigations. If you want more understanding then stop pushing a divide and conquer agenda.
Maybe Breitbart readers are not representative of American conservative values -- but if that's the case, given Bannon's role in the White House, that should worry everyone.
"Filter bubbles" exist because we seek them by default, it's proven to be cognitively expensive to challenge your beliefs, so the people who actively seek out challenging information are outliers.
I don't see anything here that takes cognitive science into account to truly change behavior, which I think would be required.
Good idea but I think we need to fundamentally change biology for this kind of thing to work.
There are also folks on the other end of the spectrum, for whom this isn't something they can stomach. In some cases this is because it reminds them of painful conversations with family members or others, or just because they feel marginalized at a personal level when they read certain news from the other side.
This app is designed for folks in the first camp, who are looking for ways to have a more balanced "news diet", so to speak.
We're also considering adding some gamification techniques to make this stickier for people. This could operate at the individual level (letting people level-up based on their track record) or at a team level. It's a work in progress!
Essentially you are making a cognitively heavier Reddit/facebook feed/digg etc... that also assumes each side has equivalently quality content.
Good luck, I think this is something needed but it's probably in the hardest camp, with toughest monetization.
I'm not saying they were perfect back then, but there was a clear sense of professionalism and fact checking in journalism even in the recent past, that now is difficult to find even in major journals.
We see this as a potential benefit to facilitating people reading from both sides: if we can bring moderate/other-side audiences to news outlets, they will have more of an incentive to make their coverage more moderate.
News outlets are not paying for placement in the app — the list of included news outlets is being crowdsourced through our Kickstarter community. Does that address your concern, or am I not understanding?
