Why? News sites don’t even care about maintaining an edit history. They just make minor fixes and leave editors notes when they fix things. News on the block chain is not something anyone wants.
I do. Censorship resistance and removing the ability to rewrite history would be good. even if current media practice is different doesn’t mean it can’t change in the future.
Forbes just recently partnered with Civil, a blockchain journalism project from Consensys Studios, which is the commercial powerhouse of Ethereum’s cofounder.
I've worked in publishing, this initiative sounds like many other "save journalism with technology" initiatives that I've seen go nowhere, like the Coral Project.
But back to Civil. Why would I care that Forbes is going to publish SOME of their articles on this blockchain? Their site uses HTTPS, I'm always sure that the content I'm looking at actually came from Forbes. I never need to question that the person in their byline is who they say they are, and I'm not sure how a blockchain would help if I didn't: it seems like their big plan is to just put badges on articles?
This sounds like a grasp at relevance via blockchain hype.
I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong, but I feel pretty safe predicting that this will go nowhere. It doesn't solve a problem that Forbes actually has.
Precisely, and we already have tools at our disposal for that which also work very well in the news agency example (albeit internally): Wiki and Git. Blockchain adds nothing, and has disadvantages of wasting resources.
The only thing the Blockchain has proven to be useful for is cons in the form of speculation, akin to Ponzi scheme. I've seen it argued that it allows people to move away cheaply from bad currencies. Companies like PayPal and Stripe allow for the same already, and they use real currencies.
Comments
Why? News sites don’t even care about maintaining an edit history. They just make minor fixes and leave editors notes when they fix things. News on the block chain is not something anyone wants.
I do. Censorship resistance and removing the ability to rewrite history would be good. even if current media practice is different doesn’t mean it can’t change in the future.
Forbes just recently partnered with Civil, a blockchain journalism project from Consensys Studios, which is the commercial powerhouse of Ethereum’s cofounder.
I've worked in publishing, this initiative sounds like many other "save journalism with technology" initiatives that I've seen go nowhere, like the Coral Project.
But back to Civil. Why would I care that Forbes is going to publish SOME of their articles on this blockchain? Their site uses HTTPS, I'm always sure that the content I'm looking at actually came from Forbes. I never need to question that the person in their byline is who they say they are, and I'm not sure how a blockchain would help if I didn't: it seems like their big plan is to just put badges on articles?
This sounds like a grasp at relevance via blockchain hype.
I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong, but I feel pretty safe predicting that this will go nowhere. It doesn't solve a problem that Forbes actually has.
Precisely, and we already have tools at our disposal for that which also work very well in the news agency example (albeit internally): Wiki and Git. Blockchain adds nothing, and has disadvantages of wasting resources.
The only thing the Blockchain has proven to be useful for is cons in the form of speculation, akin to Ponzi scheme. I've seen it argued that it allows people to move away cheaply from bad currencies. Companies like PayPal and Stripe allow for the same already, and they use real currencies.