I don’t exactly gather how will you corroborate veracity using technology when you have a major news story in hand. Let’s take a very simplistic example — 2 days ago a YSR congress MP allegedly slapped an AI official. This was everywhere in the news. He was announced as guilty (within minutes of breaking) but again no one knows how it happened (at that particular instant). The AI official might have abused him or something else for that matter might have unfolded which can provoke even an MP so how is technology making your platform’s news delivery “radically” different. I know this might seem as a no-brainer to argument against but still it makes sense because filtering sense (not necessarily truth) from non-sense on social media is technologically not very attainable (seemingly). Assuming you’re Sorkin’s Newsroom buff, you would have seen this social media journalism conundrum play out there in Season 3 especially when they encounter this phenomenon of everyone on twitter breaking out news on a moment’s notice and there being no way for fellow people to substantiate the veracity but to take that piece of breaking news at face value. By “Veracity” — I don’t mean to imply the absolute truth (because sometimes there is none) behind a piece of news but the subjective context and the flavor (call it bias, if you may) with which each journalist while reporting the news quintessentially polarizes it (sometimes unknowingly which is OK).
I have a second Q but not for now, later when you can find time to reply to the one I have just asked. Thanks!