Any updates on the lantern content selection process?


#1

Hi all

Not been around for a bit. I was just wondering if there had been any developments on how the content is going to get selected for the Lantern broadcast?

I know there are spreadsheets etc for the main high(ish) bandwidth broadcast. I’m still unclear about what 10mb of content I’ll be getting when my lantern arrives.

I wrote some thoughts here: https://discuss.outernet.is/t/who-decides-what-2mb-of-content-i-get/852/20

I found some sources of information that I thought would be useful for a global audience: http://www.netvibes.com/samuk#General

Has any new work been done on this since Feb?

Thanks

Sam


#2

No major changes in thinking just yet, as we’re still knee-deep in development. Our proto-boards are coming back next week and then we should have another couple of revisions before production. We’ll be spending more time on content delivery once production is under way.


#3

Thanks @Syed

What do you think of this comment:

==

I have come to the conclusion that there is simply no ‘unbiased’ news. The best I think Outernet can hope for is to provide a range of sources and let people make up their own minds which ones they consider trustworthy.

I reckon that including headlines from:

The BBC (UK propaganda)
Voice of America (US propaganda)
RT.com (Russian propaganda)
Press TV (Iranian Propaganda)
Al-Jazeera (Muslim Propaganda)
China.org.cn (Chinese Propaganda)
reddit.com/r/worldnews/ (Western perspective with slightly left slant)

Gives you a good range of sources. I’d tend to read the BBC and VOA on Ukraine, but Al-Jazeera, or RT.com on the US torture revelations…

==

Are you going to presenting a range of conflicting resources and recognising that they all have bias? Or are you going to continue the search for ‘objective’ news?

Thanks

Sam


#4

You do bring up a good point. Everything that gets sent out should be verifiable fact. With references.

No use sending garbage data out.

KISS

Garbage In = Garbage Out.

A documentary would be more useful then some of the stuff at those sites.


#5

I think you miss my point;

My point was exactly that ‘verifiable fact’ is an unobtainable aspiration.

Is it true because the US military says so, and the story is picked up by major US news outlets?

Is it true because the Chinese military says so, and the story is picked up by major Chinese news outlets?

I’d say that you and I are in no position to decide in either case. Both perspectives should be shown and the user can make their own mind up.


#6

Very true


#7

Do you want some help drafting a process for deciding what goes into lantern broadcast? It seems like you don’t currently have the time to make much progress with it?

I’m sure there are many people who would be interested in contributing ideas. I think the main thing you need to do is work out what the process of content selection will be. I’m happy to draft some ideas, but obviously only want to spend time on it if it’s useful.

If it’s just a case of pulling random bits out of Wikipedia, or one or two white guys based in the US deciding what the content will be I think it would be a missed opportunity to do something interesting.


#8

Hi Sam,

We would seriously review anything you proposed, but there would be no guarantee that it would get incorporated into our content policy–I hope you can understand the reason for that.

As far as what we’ll be broadcasting, the vast majority will be crowdsourced, so it’s the community recommendation and verification process we are spending most of our time thinking about.


#9

Hi Syed. Great stuff. I’ll jut some thoughts down, don’t expect it to be picked up wholesale, but if you’ll take a look then it will be worth doing…

Thanks

Sam


#10

I would think wikipedia would be the best resource to distribute…