Truth isn't subjective. People's opinion of it is, but those are actually quite distinct statements.
From a "rights perspective" of morality, people certainly have the right to their opinions, as long as they don't act on them in ways that infringe the rights of others, and I've not made any argument to the contrary.
More to the point, a trust network doesn't really tell you what to believe. It only helps you do math calculations and make inferences based on what you tell it that you believe already. And if you don't like the results of the calculations, you can change the inputs you feed it (or even the algorithms it uses). It's a mental aid, like a calculator, not an arbiter of information.
This diagram limits space where "truth" applies. Quadrants in the second pic have levels describing areas in the first one.
And seeing that "objective" truth from the perspective of different levels of mind narrows the space of truth even further.
And how would this perspective (which is sort of scientific but not always might be true) be assessed by an algorithm?
What I meant, in general, is that truth is so narrow, the task gets complicated beyond applicability. It can't be apolitical. Misunderstandings and using an algorithm outside of its scope of usability might cause more damage than good.
This is just an opinion :)
If I understand you correctly, you're assuming that a trust network is only useful for rating things that have an absolute (but potentially unknown) truth. And you're concerned that this system would then be applied to topics that don't have an absolute truth, such as "ketchup tastes good", and this would result in damage of some sort (maybe ketchup would be eliminated from our choice of condiments because there are more Chinese people than Japanese people).
If that's the case, then I hope I can alleviate your concern. Although I've mostly talked about trust networks in terms of their ability to rate truth, its application extends to rating quality as well as truth, because it is just an extension of our normal methods for rating both.
You can use a trust network to rate the likely reliability of a car model, just like you might read a consumer report to help you when selecting a car to buy. And just like reading a consumer report doesn't force you to buy one car or another, this system wouldn't either. It would just provide you more information to help you make a decision, as you weigh the various pros and cons of each car with respect to your personal needs.
I see. It's much clearer with an example now. Thank you. Can it be seen as some sort of reputation/opinion system?
Yes, it is in essence a means for creating a personalized form of that.
Yup...