Feature request - ability to mark evidence as "fake news"


I have been granted the fellowship: https://blog.kleros.io/kleros-fellowship-second-generation/

Proposal for automatic appeal funding: Proposal: Kleros Cooperative Coommunity Fund (KCCF) DAO and funding the appeals

Proposal for additional use of Escrow: Kleros Escrow - additional use cases - suggestion, proposal, request for comments

Proposal for general court policies: Philosophical discussion about "code is the law" VS best interest of the justice and humanity?

Proposal (meta proposal) more proposals: Request for comments - Kleros Fellowship of Justice proposals

Proposal juror chit-chat channel: Proposal - community - communication - Telegram (juror channel) and Slack revitalisation

It’s not that I’m lazy, incapable or anothing, I’d be happy to level up my React / front-end / blockchain / Solidity skills but I’m literally too busy. I’ve been chatting with Federico and Stuart, we agreed on a proposal (we all think it’s a very decent idea) but there is only 24 hours per day and between family, full-time work, fitness goals (health is important) I do not have capacity to offer required attention.

So here it is:

Proposal: mark evidence as “fake news”

Let that sink in.


No need to overcomplicate.

Cambridge Analytica, psychometrics, deep fakes, information warfare, PsyOps, MK ULTRA.

Human perception is subject to thousands of conscious and unconscious biases… If something is “fake news” and could mislead the jurors - I would like it to be marked as such.

In my version of justice, my genuine preference is the jurors make the decision based on real, factual, authentic evidence.

In my version of “rules of war” - there is no need for war. If someone wages war based on “fake news” propaganda it’s not OK.

(just like no gases, no biological weapons, no personnel mines, no “fake news”)


  • mark as “fake news”
  • pay deposit
  • anyone can challenge
  • same workflow as currently

Additional benefits:

  • making system more resilient
  • more cases for jurors
  • everyone wins

It’s an interesting proposition! It’s hard to define “fake news” when presenting evidence though, I’m scared this could complicate a dispute further.

Here I tried to define “fairness”: Philosophical discussion about "code is the law" VS best interest of the justice and humanity?

"Best interest of the humanity, society, justice."

(in the original post I explained why the interest of the society is more important than the interest of the justice)

To define “fake news”:

"False, untrue, misleading."

There is a gray area for “unverified”.

Someone makes a claim that _____ (something)

Someone should be able to challenge that claim, that claim is unsupported.

Option A: put ETH on the line, challenge that claim, depending on the result add badge “sustain” or “fake news”
Option B: ask for the verified source (citation needed), if no evidence supporting evidence, then mark as “unverified”

I’m worried it’s getting overcomplicated:

  • sustain
  • fake news
  • unverified
  • “normal” (no badges)

That’s why putting a proposal on the forum so that everyone can help!