How can we combat fake news and falsehoods without resorting to censorship? In my previous post, I introduced the general idea of a World Truth League, where teams of prominent experts, public intellectuals, and others would be able to compete against each other over the accuracy of their predictions and retrodictions. (Shout out to my colleague and friend Steve Kuhn, who first shared this awesome novel idea with me on May 16 of this year.) But how would such a proposed World Truth League work in practice? Simply put, the World Truth League would be flexible, fast, and fun! Let’s review these three key features in turn below:

1. Flexible: forecasts and hindcasts. First off, how would teams play? In brief, each round of play (a “truth round” or “truth contest”) would feature an intriguing question about some future or past event, thus requiring both forward-looking forecasts as well as backward-facing retrodictions or “hindcasts”, depending on the question posed during each round/contest. More specifically, each team would provide its own best “truth estimate” in response to the specific question presented for that particular round of play, i.e. a real number on some standard scale, like 0 to 10 (see, for example, the simple truth-estimate scale pictured above), where 0 = zero probability, 10 = total certainty, and the numbers in between = various degrees of belief or confidence levels. Each team’s truth estimate would thus represent that team’s best guess about the likelihood that an event will occur in the future (a forecast estimate) or an estimate about the likelihood that an event actually happened in the past (a hindcast bet).

2. Fast: instantaneous resolution. How does a team win or lose? For each truth contest, teams would be allotted the same amount of time — five to ten minutes per round to keep the competition fast-paced and exciting — to discuss that round’s question among themselves — which could simultaneously be livestreamed, like in chess — and to submit their truth estimates. At the sound of the closing buzzer, the truth round would be resolved instantaneously: the team whose truth estimate is closest to the average of all the estimates would win that round. The World Truth League would thus not only be flexible — as I mentioned above, some rounds of play would feature future events like traditional prediction markets, while other rounds would showcase uncertain events from the past — it would also be fast and furious.

3. Fun: secondary betting markets, i.e. bets on bets. Last but not least, the World Truth League would be fun and exciting because members of the public could place bets on their favorite questions and on their favorite teams during each truth round. Which team will win a given round? Which question will generate the most divergent set of “trust estimates”? Which team’s truth estimate will be closest to 0? To 10? The possibilities are endless.

To recap, the World Truth League has three attractive features: it’s fast (rounds would be short and the resolution of bets would be instantaneous after each round), flexible (encompassing both forecasts and hindcasts), and fun (providing the general public new opportunities for betting via a secondary betting market). But what could go wrong? I will survey some possible objections to the World Truth League over the weekend.

Note of clarification: this is just a tentative sketch of Steve Kuhn's original truth league idea; we are open to any suggestions and changes that would improve this model. Destructive criticisms are especially welcome!