How Enterwebs works
Enterwebs looks like a familiar forum: communities, posts and threaded comments. Underneath, it's built so that disagreeing is safe, evidence can be checked, and the people who run it can be held to account.
Three systems that stay separate
Most forums mix up three different questions. Enterwebs keeps them apart, so a popular opinion can't get a post removed and an evidence note can't get someone banned.
- Is this a useful contribution? Members mark posts and comments useful. That only affects how easy something is to find. Agree and disagree are separate reactions that never affect ranking.
- What does the evidence say about this claim? Evidence reviewers write notes about specific claims, with sources, scope and limitations. A note is about a claim, never about a person, and never leads to a sanction.
- Did this break a published rule? Moderators enforce written rules. Every decision cites the exact rule version, tells the affected person why, and can be appealed.
Feeds you can understand
Every feed says how it's ordered. Newest is chronological. Useful discussion ranks by useful marks with a gradual age penalty, so new posts get a fair chance. Across perspectives will highlight posts found useful by people who usually disagree, once there's enough rating history to do that honestly. Until then it stays switched off rather than guessing.
Evidence notes
A note quotes the exact words it checks and uses one of six categories:
Supported by available evidence Contradicted by available evidence Insufficient evidence Mixed / depends on scope Opinion or value judgment Prediction – not yet assessable
Each note is written by one evidence reviewer and checked by another before it's published. If a post is edited, its notes stay with the wording they checked. Anyone can submit evidence, request a correction or appeal a note.
Moderation you can challenge
Moderators can only act under a rule that was in force when the conduct happened. Urgent removals (threats, private information, spam) have deadlines and are never renewed silently. Every decision can be appealed to a reviewer who had no part in it. If no independent reviewer is available, the appeal waits rather than going back to the same team.
A record that can't be quietly rewritten
Moderation decisions, appeal outcomes, rule changes and role changes go into a public ledger. Each entry is chained to the one before it with a cryptographic hash, and checkpoints are published, so changing history later would be detectable.