Originally posted by MET student Carla Pretorious on 26/01/2020
Metafact realizes that the challenge we face in our modern lives is not the act of finding information (we are bombarded by information) but sifting through numerous sources to find credible facts and answers to our questions. The guys behind this platform aim to bring experts in various fields (sciences to health professionals) together to answer any question that you might have. Think Quora but with verified experts to answer your questions. They are asking for donations on Kickstarter to help establish their fact-checking platform and have already worked with over 11 000 verified experts.
I just cant help it but to respond to this ad. Really, like seriously really! People usually don’t read only the first answer. We searched and we read several answers, we visit some websites, we compare and then we use our “logic” to trust one. If we get our answer only from these 11,000 experts who were verified by someone. And who said that experts have all knowledge correctly and they will deliver it in a fraction of seconds. I don’t know how these platform is promoted. It is like you are telling a student listen only to your teacher because she/he has the ultimate answer to all questions. Oh, by the way, what if two “experts” have different opinions how that will be different than Quora?
I would not invest in Metafact. My first impression of this pitch was that I would “fact check” this fact-checking platform. My questions included; how are they fact-checking? Who are the experts? How are they verified? Are the experts paid? Do the experts have any disclosures? Where is the information store? If there are no ads, how are they self-sustaining themselves financially? How are the facts verified by science? How is the power of science harness independently with no bias? As a teacher with a science background, I am quite critical and skeptical whenever scientific evidence is used to support a product or service. Many times, I hear “science-backed”, “scientific proof”, “science-verified”, I would critically review for evidence. I appreciated the attempt to help stop misinformation. However, I believe we should have educational tools to help people develop critical thinking skills on their own so they can review information independently.
No. I would not invest. First of all, who and what criteria determine what qualifies someone as an expert?
Second, in every field of study, there are a wide range of professional opinions with vastly different perspectives on various issues (for example, within the field of medicine alone there are specialists, naturopaths, acupuncturist, herbalists, chiropractors, physiotherapists, and more!) Due to this fact, having a limited number of answers from a limited number of experts, would be restricting in an educational setting.
I am one to argue that the biggest limitation of search engines like ‘Google’, also has the potential to be its biggest feature. Yes, you have access to thousands of opinions for each topic you search (which can be overwhelming), but you also get access to a wider variety of opinions, perspectives, and medical expertise.
I agree with Amanda, that we need to focus on teaching our students critical thinking skills and HOW to sift through the vast amount of information at their disposal. This is a life skill- as information overload will be something our students will continue to battle throughout their lives.
No. I would absolutely not invest in this platform. The pitch doesn’t describe how they will encourage usership, how they will pay or encourage the “experts” to use their platform, how those “experts” are selected or how they will become a profitable venture. Interestingly the only mention of a business plan describes how they won’t be making money (no ads or paywalls) rather than how they will. Furthermore, how does this platform seek to compete with the likes of wikipedia? How will it differentiate itself from every other platform and encourage users to try it out.
I didnt know that these videos are part of an assignment. I went through some of them while exploring the program in the 1st week. However, my decision didnt change. I thought it was funny to watch this venture and now I am certain that I will not invest in it. First, the problem itself is not a problem. We typically not rely on one resource and we use our critical judgment to choose what we believe in. It is not easy to just rely on one website or certain experts. They are not available for us all the time and we dont like to ask “real humans” sometime. We rely on google or (siri) for answers when our questions are too embarrassing or silly to be asked. I wouldnt describe other aspects of this venture when the problem they were addressing is not a problem!
No, I would not invest in this venture. Although Ben, the founder of Metafact, made his presentation with passion and sincerity, his pitch brought on many questions. He said there are “thousands of scientists and experts ready to answer questions.” Who are these scientists? Who determined them to be experts? What credentials do they have? Is there bias in their answers? How does the company get the scientists and experts to answer questions? Who pays them if their site has no paywalls and no ads.
The venture concept is “Finding the truth is hard, but it can be fixed with Metafact.” I do not think Metafact can provide all the answers to questions that are asked. Also, how reliable and trustworthy are the answers? This leads back to the questions asked above. As an educator and parent, it is important to teach learners to live, think, and act through having access to different sources such as textbooks, social media, news, books, websites, etc. Understanding different worldviews contribute to understanding the world more and allow learners to think critically and discover the truth for themselves.
In terms of marketability, the opportunity space is small and it will have difficulty competing with other previously established fact-checking sites. Metafact does not have any innovative advantages, therefore, no competitive edge.
NO, I would not invest in this venture. It is evident that Ben, the Metafact founder, is passionate about this venture. His call to action does in fact resonate with me as a science teacher, as misinformation can cause serious harm if it is not viewed with a critical eye. Beyond this, as an EVA I see numerous flaws in the venture. The biggest, in my opinion, is the opportunity space. Who would use a platform like this? For people who are concerned about the legitimacy of facts, there are already trusted resources where ‘verified’ information can be found. Beyond this, I don’t see anyone being interested in using a website like this to make sense of potential misinformation. I also have extreme skepticism about who will be used as ‘verified experts’. Who will determine who the experts are, and what do I make of an answer that is only 87% true, instead of 100%? I also didn’t get a sense of how this platform will be profitable.
Personally, I feel Metafact would not be something I invest in because of its redundant nature and UI. Ben shows small snippets of his potential venture and I couldn’t help but make connections to free fact-checking websites like Snopes and Politifact. In addition, I don’t see how this innovation distinctively surpasses its competition. At least with Snopes and Politifacts, there are referred sources hyperlinked in the articles. However, the concept of Metafact seems to only show a bar of credibility with a number of unnamed experts. It’s hard to see who this would market to, especially when academic institutions have generally high requirements on what is considered credible. Overall, the pitch left me with more questions than lightbulb moments, and I think the market for this pitch just isn’t there at this point.
No, I would not invest in this venture. I feel like there is no target customer here. Those who are critical enough to fact-check already use multiple sources of information and can learn how to find experts answers on the internet. Plus, the concept of this venture already exists on Reddit forums and Quora where experts who are verified receive flares and answer and discuss questions with detailed and nuanced discussions. There are only 3 seconds (0:42-0:45) of the video showing the actual website and the questions are binary and the answers show no explanation or justification.
No, I would not invest in Metafact. I think the concept is interesting and there is a real need for “fact-checking” or perhaps further contextualizing information or those facts. However, this pitch seems far more like a dream than it does a venture. He seems to be selling the idea of collective truth rather than the logistics surrounding how he plans on actually successfully executing this idea and developing this platform. While I can appreciate the limited time of a quick pitch, I think he lacked crucial information for investors, ultimately not instilling the confidence needed for a starting business. I have outlined below a few points..
– The possibly largest question that comes to mind as an investor is how much of a return I will see, when, and over what period of time. In the pitch, Ben, the founder, argues that there are no ads or paywalls, which is great for encouraging the consumer to try the product, however, that also means that he does not identify how the business will be making its income. Oddly, I would think some kind of subscription service works best for this kind of product, however, he notes that there are no upfront costs to consumers which makes the financial viability extra confusing.
– He states that he is being backed by thousands of experts but does not define what he defines as a qualifying expert or how he plans on employing these experts. Experts in their field come at a cost and these costs along with operation costs might outweigh the income that the company is making, ultimately making it an unviable option.
– There are no concrete details, numbers, or values that allow investors to have a sense of the project timeline and the different operational components needed to run the company.
– Its unclear who this platform is for and what demographic this product serves, my initial impressions are that this would support young students who are learning critical thinking skills and need additional support/context to understand how to identify credible resources (though this could be far from the case).