Re: Digital Press Passes and Decentralized Public Key Infrastructures

An infrastructure that categories trust by context would be powerful, 
but I fear it would be too complex for most people to manage.   That's 
why the tool we're building uses a generic notion of trust.  Because 
what you are trusting is not people's expertise on a particular topic, 
but rather their tendency to only opine on topics where they have 
expertise.  Thus, your dermatologist who opines on heart transplants 
should not be trusted.

On 7/22/2021 3:49 PM, Annette Greiner wrote:
> One important angle on this question is the context of a statement. A 
> list of who’s trusted and who isn’t would need to include who is 
> trusted _in_what_context_. For example, a physician who specializes in 
> dermatology cannot prima facia be taken as an authority on heart 
> transplants, nor vice versa. Part of the misinformation landscape 
> we’ve seen of late is characterized by people getting credit for roles 
> in which they have no expertise because they have credit in some other 
> high-profile role. It would be a serious error on our part to develop 
> a mechanism of people generating lists of those who they consider 
> trustworthy without reference to context.
> -Annette
>
>> On Jul 21, 2021, at 9:21 PM, Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us 
>> <mailto:bob@wyman.us>> wrote:
>>
>> The best answer to the question "Who decides who is in and who is 
>> out?" is probably "Who cares? Do whatever feels good." The important 
>> thing in building a curated list is to simply build it.
>