A trust network can certainly be an echo chamber. Many people today foolishly design their trust networks as an echo chamber because they prefer to avoid information that contradicts what they believe to be true.
There's certainly nothing about using computers that will force people to accept information from diverse sources, for example. But computers could help you analyzethe network you're building and at least let you know that you're narrowing your sources of information. They could also inform you in cases where the vast majority of people disagree with the opinions of your trust network. What you do with that information, as always, is up to you. But if you find that your trust network is rating a lot of information incorrectly (in the sense that you find it giving a lot of wrong answers in cases where you're able to verify the truth independently) you may be incentivized to change your network in a way that makes it more useful.
Sure, but it would depend on how intricate you make it. Unfortunately, a consensus doesn't make right or true, so I see this as unnecessary and possibly doing more harm than good. Think China's social scoring...
I've tried to make clear already how completely different this is from social scoring systems. I'm not sure what else I can say on that subject.
But as to consensus, I will argue that some level of consensus is needed for any organized human activity. It doesn't have to be universal consensus, but without some local consensus, none of us will be able to accomplish much.
I've accomplished everything I've done without a consensus. I look up what I want and read all sides. I've never nor will trust another's opinion on a subject. A trust score is just another worthless waste of time that represents nothing valid in reality.
Twitter has just launched something similar and is only used to silence voices. While your idea may be a bit different, I feel it will be abused or cause the masses to limit their research. This will continue the trend of laziness tech has brought about and even cause relevant info to be skipped over, because it isn't popular enough.
This could even be used to target users similar to targeted adds with info. Freedom lovers find this to be an overreach and creepy. It could also be used to target and smear info and ppl.
Hive needs to become decentralized. Not only won't this bring us there, wasting time on such a thing will make sure it never becomes decentralized, but surely will slow down that process.
birdwatch: https://www.zdnet.com/article/twitter-introduces-community-based-birdwatch-pilot-to-address-misinformation/
we already have it: @quackwatch lol
I don't know what you do, so I can't comment on how much consensus is required between you and others to do it.
But I can say with certainty that much of the services you rely on (to do the things you do")required some consensus among other people (you're not necessarily included in that consensus but you still benefit from it). As a simple example, there had to be consensus on network standards to allow the computers you use to communicate with those of other people. You rely on consensus of this sort all the time in your daily life, whether you realize it or not. Without consensus in many areas, human technology wouldn't have advanced much.