This domain has been in existence since 2002. It was registered for the purpose outlined in the blurb below. Two domains were registered at the time; VeryTrue.com, for the purposes outlined here, and VeryTrue.org which was intended to eventually be passed on to a third-party non-profit entity whose purpose would be to keep VeryTrue.com as a business enterprise honest, and to create open-source systems necessary to support and verify the trust system.
VeryTrue.com is
intended to be a news site that deals in:
Important Stuff, old
or new.
Real news that is important enough to pass on to your
friends.
About this document
This document is simply descriptive, but we hope you can get
the gist of the ideas involved:
We do not presume we know more about any of this than you
do; we are just placing what we are saying in context.
Trust
The core thing we have to offer is trust. We
see our role (the role of VeryTrue.org) as a trusted intermediary -- an agent
-- that acts on behalf of clients.
Fiduciary Role
The role we want to
occupy is one of fiduciary responsibility on behalf of the consumer. Therefore,
we have to respect privacy to the point of making it impossible even for us to
breach confidentiality. We cannot manipulate our clients to their detriment. At
all times, the client has to own their data, their time, and their
attention.
Although the intention is to 'deliver eyeballs' to
advertisers, our primary directive is to act in the interests of our readers.
If it is genuinely likely they would be interested in buying a given thing and
the supplier is definitely at least as good as any other, then we put the
parties together by presenting an advertisement and easy methods of contact
that retain privacy to the extent desired by both parties.
The News Site
Principles
What we would like to do is create a 'news' site that:
- Unequivocally
adheres to the highest ethical standards.
- To
amplify the above: our goal is to gain and retain TRUST
- Has
a "most important" editorial policy (see below).
- Is
a genuinely reliable source of information.
- Is
clean, plain, displayable for print, and displayable on all devices.
Editorial Policy -- It must be important
The 'most important' editorial policy would have to be
'titrated', but the idea is to take all known facts, including the ones that
came in today, and essentially pick the top stories. What is important to the
reader will vary somewhat from one to the next. As we get to know them, there
will be a bias toward presenting things that act in the interest of the reader.
Traditionally, media have come to the table breathless with
excitement about whatever they think will put the most bums in seats, eyeballs
on screens, and within the most lucrative demographic(s). The goal is to make
money, even if that involves pointless and degrading (to all involved)
sideshows like 'managed reality' shows.
It has become common practice, for instance, for network
news programs to spend a considerable portion of airtime reminding viewers of
some dreadfully important thing that they can't quite get to as the show goes
along. They deliberately cheat you of your precious time and attention so that
they can deliver that ill-gotten time to their real customers -- the
advertisers.
Our goal is to create a site that does the opposite to some
extent. If WAR has been declared in your back yard and you are in imminent
danger, then that warrants larger type and prominent placement. That should
make the news feed that ends up in your inbox. If it is a slow news day, our
hope is to present something low-key that is important in the grand scheme of
things, but can be safely ignored today. That should NOT make it into your
inbox. Many days don't have much news. We ourselves would appreciate it if we
could rely upon such a site to not waste our time with things that are not of
immediate importance to us and to make our time profitable by presenting either
truly amusing things or stuff that will genuinely inform us of something
important. With apologies to Ms. Hilton, that would NOT include rehashes like
"Paris Hilton Goes to the spa again today, same as we told you yesterday".
Truth
Truth is relative. The fact that an important thing is six
standard deviations out, and that there is data to support that, might reveal
an important truth to someone who has the background to understand it. It would
not likely be meaningful for someone without the appropriate background. As
time goes on and we know more about the readers (blinded so we do NOT know
their identity), we can present things in a way that is meaningful to them.
When Avraham Trahtman solved the "Road Coloring Problem", it was very
interesting news related to work done by our company. We were glad it came to our
attention. Most people would not care. They don't know what the conjecture was,
don't care to know what it was and if the knowledge were forced upon them, they
would not care about the resolution of the problem.
Push vs. Pull vs. Placement
In the past, media was broadcast. Over the last few years, narrowcasting has become increasingly more narrow and specific. However,
what is most important is that the 'push' aspect of 'casting' is being replaced
by 'pull' media.
We would like VeryTrue.com to be a sort of 'placement' media
-- Neither push nor pull. It is there if you want it and we have taken care to
only bring to your attention that which we feel will have a net benefit to you,
not us. As time goes on and we have the resources, we would like to bring into
the system a 'pertinent fact' library that allows people to research a topic
and have confidence that either the information is reliable or we at least
assign a 'reliability rating' for the item in question.
Verity
To make the best of things, we need human beings in the
aggregate (a social network) to help us to verify facts and assign some notion
of how correct they are. We propose a 'trust metric' that we create that
balances information's verity with the impact of that verity. If an article alleges that a
meteor is about to destroy Australia, we would like to be very certain of that
before publishing. With apologies to Ms. Kardashian, if an article alleges that
Kim Kardashian used to prefer green but now prefers pink, we would still like
it to have some probability of verity (and importance), but it should not be
held to the same standard.
Through a system of trust that is verified using PKI, we
could have a very large number of people act as 'primary' sources on the scene.
We would not have to know the actual identity of the person or entity. We would
only have to know the extent to which we trust the key that signed the report.
Experts in programming, for instance, could validate that some other person was an expert in programming without ever having any knowledge of that person's
identity. Should enough professors of Mathematics sign a given person's key as
being qualified to pronounce on Algebra, then a report coming in on that key or
a report that came in from elsewhere that the key holder signed would gain that
level of 'verity'.
Rapid Verification for Breaking News
Over time, as readers from all walks of life had signed keys
that allowed them to comment reliably on an article's verity, articles could
rapidly be validated or debunked. In fact, we could ultimately form queues of
'pending' articles that could be promoted by those qualified to render an
opinion as to both its verity and to its importance and/or relevance.
In terms of breaking news, no other news organization
would have any hope of competing unless they did the same thing as us. You
should not hold your breath waiting for that to happen. Say, for instance, a
section of an important building collapses. An advocate for traditional news
media uses the camera in his phone to send to the home office. Similarly, the VeryTrue
participant sends the same thing to us from his phone at the exact same time.
Who runs the story first and who is to be trusted that the story is accurate?
This is the best-case scenario for traditional media because they have video
and can get some idea of whether it has been faked or not. However, a
persistent troublemaker can (and eventually will) pester the traditional media
outlet with false reports. We have a trust metric for the story that came into our system. Either we trust the sources enough to publish or we do not. There is no way
for someone to 'game the system'. A media competitor cannot responsibly publish
until they do some kind of verification. Neither can we, but for us, the source
carries its own verification. We can always publish faster than they can and we
can always be more reliable.
Why would people come to the site?
These things would bring people to the site:
- Information they find important to know
- Trust in the entire system
- Fame
- Expedited shopping
- Indemnity
Fame with Anonymity
With respect to Fame: Plenty of people would love to be well
known and have a voice that is heard, but not all are willing to pay the
price that fame brings with it. Others are willing to risk their privacy by becoming known as themselves. Because the site would
have genuine credibility, someone would be likely pleased (we would) to have a
story published there. If the site became very popular, the holder of a given
key (known or unknown) would truly be famous.
Expedited Shopping
With respect to 'Expedited Shopping': People do buy things,
you know. That is what money is for (duh). When someone wants something, he or
she would normally like to have it at the time the decision is made to purchase
that thing. In the case of a name brand that they had in mind, which is sitting
right in front of them on a store shelf, it's a no-brainer. That's a sale in
the bag. In the case of something like "a good camera for me", they have to do
research to determine what that is. They then have to shop around to find a
vendor they trust and a price that is reasonable. That takes time. If they
trust us to only allow trustworthy vendors with reasonable prices/value and we
have (like Amazon, etc) a rating system that (unlike Amazon, etc.) cannot be
'gamed', they can go straight to buying the item. Unlike many other sites, we
have access to information sufficient to make a purchase (we already have a way
to bill them and ship to them). Unlike other sites, we don't up-sell
high-margin junk while they are checking out. They click a button to buy, click
another to confirm and it's on its way. If we think they might possibly
actually "want fries with that", we can display it nearby, and if they like, they
can check a box to add that as well. We won't go into how we get it there, but
we have something else on the go that could deliver many things within
literally minutes of the order being placed.
Indemnity for Buyers
With respect to indemnity: With sufficient information on
the customer, the vendor, the product, and other pertinent details we can offer
indemnity for various aspects of the product at a price that is below the cost
of a general indemnity with respect to a given purchase. This could cover
compensation for things that are DOA, extended warranties, etc. Many people
would like an extended or enhanced warranty on some things, but they are all
typically high-margin-up-sell-rip-offs. People with half a brain don't trust
them. Many would probably welcome the chance to indemnify various things if
they had a realistic option.
Why would advertisers come to the site?
These things would bring advertisers to the site:
- Information they find important to know and use
- Trust in the entire system
- Brand enhancement
- Expedited sales
- Indemnity
Brand Enhancement
With respect to Brand Enhancement: Just being accepted as an
advertiser on our system says something good about you. It is an implicit
endorsement. Say, for instance, that you are an automobile manufacturer and we
continue to advertise your cars. It means there were not enough lemons to make
indemnity infeasible. You are likely to get a good car from someone who is
accepted as an advertiser on our system. If you don't, we will make it right.
As long as you remain an advertiser in good standing, you bask in the glow of
reflected trust from not just us, but the entire community we serve.
Expedited Sales
With respect to Expedited Sales: Sales are easy and fast for
the consumer and the consumer has trust in you already. You have not pushed an
unwanted product onto someone; you have supplied something to people at the
time at which they wanted it. You spend no time checking the customer to see if
they will pay or are eligible to buy your product and indemnity leaves you with
nothing to decide beyond advertising your product. The nature of such a system
is that (again, with indemnity) you can be paid the moment your product leaves
your door. A sale for which you are not paid is not really a sale. These sales
become 'real' as soon as you fulfill your end of the deal by shipping.
Indemnity for Sellers
With respect to Indemnity: As mentioned above, it can
expedite cash flow. It also removes any burden on your part to verify the
customer can/will pay. For little companies, this takes risk and discomfort out
of the equation. For big companies, it can eliminate an entire cost center.
Depending on the product, it can cost as much as $200.00 or more to verify an
individual prior to a sale. We are in a better position than you are to
indemnify this process, so it is cheaper. The difference goes right through to
YOUR bottom line.
It is Doable
Finally, we expect you have some idea that this stuff is
technically doable. We are certain that it is and we have been professionally involved
in digital security since before the world wide web existed.
Participation
If you got here, thank you very much for your time. If you
are a media professional, we are hoping that whatever project you are currently
involved in dovetails into this. It's a long shot, but it would be nice.
Failing that, we hope that this has piqued your interest enough to discuss a
little further, and even if you do not want to involve yourself, it would be
helpful for us to gain your advice.
Trust is the Ultimate Commodity
Right now, the entire planet is vying for attention. Trust
is rapidly becoming the ultimate commodity and it is in very short supply.
There is nothing at all illegitimate in creating a trust level and then
leveraging that trust (with complete transparency) to earn money based on
things that involve trust. What involves trust? Well, just about everything. In
a way, currency conversions, credit card surcharges, costs for bank drafts, etc
all involve a 'trust tax'. Due to rapidly increasing rates of fraud, the 'trust
tax' is going up. If we could cut the tax in half from 4% to 2% and
indemnification and administration only cost 1% (that's a lot for a computer-mediated transaction, you know) we could take 1% with a completely clear
conscience. Competitors would have no chance of competing because our 1% is
essentially less than their cost of fraud, waste, sunk overhead, etc.
Major Competition is Weak
One of the beauties of the current environment is that every
major player in nearly every major industry that is easy to move into (media,
telecom, banking, insurance, commodity products, fashion, health care,
education) has fatally exposed flanks. All of those industries have sunk costs
in depreciating assets. All of them are deregulated or about to become 'De
facto' deregulated. All of them rely fundamentally on trust and all of them
have flagrantly breached that trust in very public ways. All of them rely upon
non-commodity 'branded' margins in an economy that is becoming completely
commodity-based. Their operations are predicated on margins that they cannot
maintain. Many of them could be completely displaced in a matter of months. All
of them are vulnerable to competition that could be fatal within less than five
years.
Changing Environment Makes it Difficult to Cheat
Once upon a time, the bad guys could hide under rocks, use
misdirection, set up patsies, etc. Why, one well-known media mogul stole huge
sums of money not once, not twice, but THREE TIMES. It was taking a dip
stealing a relatively small amount that landed him in jail. The days when
robber barons can do a simple swindle for huge sums of money are ending.
Unfortunately, most of the established players don't know another
way. Every time they are caught, they simply look for a new swindle. The
Internet is changing things so that the swindles are revealed before they are
even set in motion.
We would love your help
We would be delighted if you were receptive to helping
somehow. That could take the form of modest encouragement, a little advice or
it could take the form of agreeing in principle perhaps to lend your name later
as a board member, spiritual adviser, or whatever role takes your fancy.
The company (Trantor) has many things on the go. We have
held things close to the vest for so long that it is exhausting to contemplate
having to build such a system alone. There is a wonderful opportunity to do
something good in the world and profit mightily doing so.
Restore the Fourth Estate
This would be an amazing thing to do. You could help restore
the 'Fourth Estate' to some semblance of respectability.
It can still be fun!
We are not, as this note might imply, humorless Gradgrinds.
We do not see any conflict between being irreverent, cheeky, or downright crazy
and having integrity, decency, and trustworthiness. As mentioned above, 'Truth'
is a relative thing. We are more concerned with trust and verifiability than
with any notion of absolute 'Truth'.
It can be Interesting
This is an interesting exercise. It calls for the invention
of some sort of broad editorial regime that allows people from all types of
interests and political points of view to be 'fairly' represented. That is,
there will be a 'front page', but there will also be editorial content. Unlike
other sources, though, our editorial slant would reflect many points of view
and except for the founding principles (a charter, corporate by-laws, or
whatever), we would have little control over where that went. We would have to
create a policy that prevents 'tyranny' from developing either tyranny of a minority
or the majority. That would require some sort of 'journalist manifesto' that
defined what was proper and what was an improper influence. Trantor is competent
to design and build a system to enforce such a policy. However, the company is
not competent to design the rules in isolation.
Thanks for Your Time
Ok. It is done. You may breathe a sigh of relief. We would
love to hear from you any time (even years out). Until then, we wish you all
the best. You may not be Kim Kardashian, but you could still make the news!
Thank you for allowing us the imposition on your time. We
hope it was at least amusing to hear the ideas.
[Modified from text at: http://verytrue.com/ July 18, 2013]
