I don't think your example of the Tesla recall is great for this idea because there isn't anything untruthful or inherently deceitful in the headline "Tesla recalls 2.2 million cars for software recall" or headlines like it. It may be phrased in a way you personally don't appreciate, but nothing about it is inaccurate. It does summarize the idea that a font size update (the need for the recall) was sent over the air (which is a recall) for 2.2 million Tesla vehicles.
Lots here depends on how you set up the rules. If you build it so that you need consensus not only within a group (from randomly selected people in that group, so nobody can form a cabal) but across groups, you have a system that is as close to unhackable as you can make. What matters here most is what normal people see and what you in your group experience as your deviation from the norm.
I don't think your example of the Tesla recall is great for this idea because there isn't anything untruthful or inherently deceitful in the headline "Tesla recalls 2.2 million cars for software recall" or headlines like it. It may be phrased in a way you personally don't appreciate, but nothing about it is inaccurate. It does summarize the idea that a font size update (the need for the recall) was sent over the air (which is a recall) for 2.2 million Tesla vehicles.
Fair enough. Your trust network can leave this one alone.
In mine, I would submit the request to update and see if other networks agreed.
Lots here depends on how you set up the rules. If you build it so that you need consensus not only within a group (from randomly selected people in that group, so nobody can form a cabal) but across groups, you have a system that is as close to unhackable as you can make. What matters here most is what normal people see and what you in your group experience as your deviation from the norm.