Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Wednesday November 20 2019, @12:27AM   Printer-friendly
from the got-to-start-somewhere dept.

Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd

Jimmy Wales says his new social network, WT:Social, now has more than 160,000 members.

The platform says it will never sell user data and relies on "the generosity of individual donors" rather than ads.

Those who do sign up are added to a waiting list and asked to invite others, or choose a subscription payment.

It is positioning itself as a "news focused" place, and says members will be able to edit "misleading" headlines.

They will see the articles shared by their network in a timeline format, appearing with the newest first rather than algorithmically to try to appeal to their interests.

The subscription is £10 per month or £80 per year in the UK (€12 / €90 in Europe, $13 / $100 in the US).

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50460243


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 20 2019, @06:28PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 20 2019, @06:28PM (#922492)

    Generally I don't have positive experiences using Wikipedia. Although technical/engineering articles, especially in English and Russian versions, are relatively good and allow to obtain more knowledge with a nice bibliography, other parts are just trending as all other Internet services: They want to be "for everyone". Let's temporarily put away is it feasible for encyclopedia or not. The problem is that instead of slowly building all "dependencies" to be accessible and understood by everyone (which was common in e.g. these old FAQs) it becomes just simplified over all limits. This way, social-related articles are just repeating stereotypes, many times wrong and insulting, but well-highlighted in media and giving profits to advertisers. But the worst thing is with history-related - these are just copying the same disinformation parts, amplifying it by next citations. And although this can be minimized by citation of other sources, it cannot be done in Wikipedia - as credibility is measured in these cases in depth of citations. This measure is totally wrong with history. OK, in engineering it works, but in history it amplifies errors.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3