Principle
Evidence before reaction
Claims are expected to point to a public source so readers can inspect context directly.
About
A calmer system for reviewing public claims
This platform is built to make civic feedback more readable, more evidence-driven, and more accountable than a typical social feed.
Evidence-backed postingAgreement-based votingVisible moderation reviewPhase-1 invite-only contributors
Signal
Agreement is explicit
Users vote on whether they agree with the claim, not whether they simply like the post.
Control
Moderation stays visible
Reports, access rules, and enforcement are treated as part of product trust, not hidden mechanics.
Why it exists
Most public feedback systems fail in the same way
They reward attention, compress context, and make it difficult to separate evidence from momentum.
Problem
Public discourse is easy to amplify and hard to verify.
In conventional feeds, posts spread because they are emotional, fast, or tribal. The source can be buried, the reactions are ambiguous, and moderation is often invisible to the reader.
Reaction metrics distort meaning
A like, share, or angry reaction does not clearly say whether users believe a claim, reject it, or are only responding emotionally.
Evidence is often secondary
Readers are forced to leave the page or search on their own to evaluate whether a statement is grounded in something public and inspectable.
How it works
The product is designed around a narrower, more interpretable signal
Instead of maximizing engagement, the platform narrows the interaction model to make public feedback easier to read and compare.
1. Post
Every claim needs a source
A feedback post pairs a sentiment label with a required source URL, so the claim and its supporting reference stay connected.
2. Vote
Agreement is separate from sentiment
Users agree or disagree with the claim itself. That avoids mixing “I like this post” with “I think this claim is true.”
3. Review
Moderation remains visible
Reports and moderation states are part of the product surface, so readers can see when a post is under review rather than guessing.
Current phase
Phase-1 is intentionally limited
The platform is currently using a trusted seed-network model to test posting norms, moderation, and access controls before broader registration.
Why invite-only first
A smaller contributor base makes it easier to calibrate rules, observe misuse patterns, and refine the product without mistaking noise for healthy usage.
What remains public
Reading stays public. People can browse officials, inspect posts, and understand the scoring model even before open contribution is enabled.
Next
What happens after this phase
The long-term goal is not a louder product. It is a more reliable one that can expand to broader public participation without losing interpretability.