What We Believe
The Problem
Most conflict discourse is built to confirm what you already believe. Algorithms serve the narrative your engagement rewards. Media selects for outrage over understanding. The result: people who disagree about a conflict often disagree about what actually happened — not just what it means.
biask exists because the gap between “I disagree with you” and “I understand why you believe what you do” is the most important gap in public discourse. And almost nothing is built to close it.
The Model
Every conflict on biask is structured the same way: a timeline of pivotal events, told simultaneously from both sides. Not false balance — honest multiplicity. Both narratives are written by contributors who identify with that perspective, then cross-reviewed by contributors from the other side.
The agreed facts in the center column represent what contributors on both sides accept as true — even when they disagree about everything else. This is the foundation. Agreement on what happened creates space for disagreement about what it means.
The Principles
Cooperative flourishing compounds.
When people interact in ways that produce genuine understanding, the gains are superlinear — they compound beyond the sum of individual inputs. A community that understands two perspectives is worth more than twice a community that understands one. This is the engine biask is built on.
Negative compounding destroys faster than we can build.
It takes years to build trust and seconds to destroy it. This asymmetry means protecting the conditions for dialogue carries more weight than any individual contribution to it. Every editorial choice on biask — the cross-review requirement, the provenance bars, the bridge statements — is designed to make it harder to weaponize the platform against the understanding it exists to build.
Action must be proportional to understanding and quality of evidence.
The greater the intervention you propose against another person or position, the greater your burden of certainty. This is the epistemic governor — a structural brake on the engine. It exists because throughout history, every atrocity committed in the name of collective good was justified by people who were certain they were right. biask builds in its own brake: cross-review, provenance, transparent sourcing.
The Standard
biask is open source. The editorial model, the code, and the content are all visible. We believe transparency is the only credible foundation for a project that asks people to engage with perspectives they find uncomfortable.
We are not neutral. We believe understanding is better than ignorance, that honest multiplicity is better than false balance, and that people who disagree can still build something together. If that’s a bias, we wear it openly.
biask’s editorial principles are grounded in The Superlinear Framework — an ethical architecture developed by KYL Solutions. The framework articulates how cooperative systems produce compounding returns — and why protecting those systems from bad actors is a structural duty, not just a preference.