Postings Audit Program and Postings Audit Method

Abstract

To provide a contribution content audit program that inhibits spread of misinformation and disinformation within a social platform.SOLUTION: On a server that performs a contribution content audit program, a deposit management unit 20 imposes a deposit when a contributor contributes a contribution content on a social platform and imposes a deposit even when an auditor contributes a counterargument content to the contribution content, and an audit reception unit 14 receives a vote on whether or not a counterargument content is valid to evaluate whether or not the counterargument content is valid, and returns, when the counterargument content is evaluated as valid as a result of voting, the deposit and an incentive to the auditor. In this case, even if the auditor commits fraud by bribing a voter against a condition for evaluating whether a counterargument content is valid or an incentive return content, no profit will be generated.SELECTED DRAWING: Figure 3

Description

[Technical field]

[0001] The present invention relates to a posted content audit program and a posted content audit method. [Background technology]

[0002] In recent years, the spread of false information due to the posting of misinformation or disinformation (intentional misinformation, so-called fake news) on social platforms has become a social problem.

[0003] 2. Description of the Related Art Conventionally, there is known a technique in which other users can evaluate content such as images and music that a user has created and posted (see, for example, Patent Document 1, etc.). [Prior art documents] [Patent documents]

[0004] [Patent Document 1] JP 2014-174912 A Summary of the Invention [Problem to be solved by the invention]

[0005] Patent Document 1 discloses an example of providing rewards to users who make comments on content. In this example, votes for or against a comment are accepted, and a reward is provided to the user who made the comment according to the approval rating (number of votes for / number of votes).

[0006] However, in the technology described in Patent Document 1, for example, if a user who has made an inappropriate comment on a legitimate posted content conspires with other users by paying a bribe, it is possible for the inappropriate comment to be spread as correct information. This also allows the user who made the inappropriate comment to receive a reward. Therefore, the technology described above may further encourage the spread of incorrect information.

[0007] In one aspect, the present invention aims to provide a program and a method for auditing posted content that can suppress the spread of incorrect information and false information within a social platform. [Means for solving the problem]

[0008] In one embodiment, the posting audit program imposes a first deposit when a first user posts a posting on a social platform, imposes a second deposit when a second user posts a rebuttal to the posting, and accepts votes on whether the rebuttal is valid or not; If the number of votes that say it is legitimate is greater than the number that say it is illegitimate, the rebuttal will be deemed legitimate. Evaluate, before If the content of the rebuttal is evaluated as valid, the second deposit is returned to the second user and an incentive is given. do, Have the computer carry out the process , where p is the amount of the first deposit, αp is the amount of the second deposit, βp is the total amount of the second deposit and the incentive, X is the minimum number of votes required to perform the evaluation, and q is the amount of a bribe that the second user will give to one of the voting users to commit fraud, then determine the minimum number of votes X so that X>2(β-α)p / q; It is a program. Effect of the Invention

[0009] It can help curb the spread of misinformation and disinformation on social platforms. [Brief description of the drawings]

[0010] [Figure 1] 1 is a diagram illustrating an outline of a configuration of an information processing system according to a first embodiment. [Diagram 2] FIG. 2(a) is a diagram showing a hardware configuration of a terminal device, and FIG. 2(b) is a diagram showing a hardware configuration of a server; [Diagram 3] FIG. 2 is a functional block diagram of a server. [Figure 4] 4(a) and 4(b) are diagrams for explaining an overview of the processing in the social platform. [Diagram 5] FIG. 5(a) is a flowchart showing the process of the posting receiving unit, and FIG. 5(b) is a diagram showing an example of a posting screen. [Figure 6] 13 is a flowchart showing a process of an inspection receiving unit. [Figure 7] FIG. 7(a) is a diagram showing an example of a rebuttal reception screen, and FIG. 7(b) is a diagram showing an example of a rebuttal posting screen. [Figure 8] 13 is a flowchart showing a process of a vote acceptance unit. [Figure 9] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of a voting screen. [Figure 10] 13 is a flowchart showing a process of an adoption determination unit. [Figure 11] FIG. 13 is a diagram showing an example of an adopted screen. [Figure 12] 13 is a flowchart showing a process of a deposit management unit. [Figure 13] 13(a) and 13(b) are diagrams for explaining the countermeasure against conspiracy fraud in the first embodiment. [Figure 14] 13 is a flowchart showing a process of an adoption determination unit in the second embodiment. [Figure 15] FIG. 11 is a diagram for explaining a countermeasure against conspiracy fraud in the second embodiment. [Figure 16] FIG. 16(a) is a diagram showing an example of a voting screen in the third embodiment, and FIG. 16(b) is a diagram showing an example of an adopted screen in the third embodiment. [Figure 17] 13 is a flowchart showing a process of an adoption determination unit in the third embodiment. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

[0011] First Embodiment Hereinafter, the first embodiment of the information processing system will be described in detail with reference to Figs. 1 to 13(b).

[0012] FIG. 1 shows a schematic configuration of an information processing system 100 according to a first embodiment. As shown in FIG. 1, the information processing system 100 includes a server 10 and a plurality of terminal devices 70. The server 10 and the terminal devices 70 are connected to each other via a network 80 such as the Internet. The terminal devices 70 are devices that allow users to post and view character string information and image information on a social platform provided by the information processing system 100. The terminal devices 70 are also used by users to make counterarguments against posted content and to vote on whether or not the counterarguments are valid.

[0013] FIG. 2(a) shows the hardware configuration of the terminal device 70. As shown in FIG. 2(a), the terminal device 70 includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 190, a ROM (Read Only Memory) 192, a RAM (Random Access Memory) 194, a storage unit (here, an SSD (Hard Disk Drive)) 196, a network interface 197, a display unit 193, an input unit 195, and a portable storage medium drive 199. These components of the terminal device 70 are connected to a bus 198. The display unit 193 includes a liquid crystal display, and the input unit 195 includes a keyboard, a mouse, a touch panel, and the like. The portable storage medium drive 199 is a device that reads information from the portable storage medium 191 and writes information thereto.

[0014] The server 10 has a hardware configuration as shown in FIG. 2(b). Specifically, the server 10 includes a CPU 90, a ROM 92, a RAM 94, a storage unit (e.g., SSD) 96, a network interface 97, and a portable storage medium drive 99. These components of the server 10 are connected to a bus 98. In the server 10, the CPU 90 executes a program (including a posted content audit program) stored in the ROM 92 or the storage unit 96, or a program (including a posted content audit program) read by the portable storage medium drive 99 from the portable storage medium 91, thereby realizing the functions of the components shown in FIG. 3. The functions of the components in FIG. 3 may be realized by an integrated circuit such as an ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) or an FPGA (Field Programmable Gate Array).

[0015] In the server 10, the CPU 90 executes a program to cause the server 10 to function as a submission receiving unit 12, an inspection receiving unit 14, a vote receiving unit 16, an adoption determination unit 18, and a deposit management unit 20, as shown in FIG.

[0016] The posting acceptance unit 12 executes a process of accepting and displaying information (posting contents) posted by a first user (hereinafter, referred to as a "poster") from a terminal device 70.

[0017] The inspection receiving unit 14 receives a rebuttal from a second user (hereinafter, referred to as an "auditor") to the posted content already posted by the poster, and executes a process of displaying the received rebuttal in association with the posted content.

[0018] The vote acceptance unit 16 accepts the results of votes made by users other than the first and second users via the terminal device 70. The users who make this vote are hereinafter referred to as "voters." Voters vote on whether or not a rebuttal posted by an auditor is valid. The vote acceptance unit 16 executes a process of displaying the accepted voting results in association with the rebuttal.

[0019] The adoption judgment unit 18 judges whether the auditor's rebuttal can be evaluated as valid based on the voter's voting results for the auditor's rebuttal. If the rebuttal can be evaluated as valid, the adoption judgment unit 18 notifies the deposit management unit 20 of that effect.

[0020] The deposit management unit 20 executes a process to receive a deposit (money, points, coin tickets, etc.) when a poster posts and when an auditor refutes a post. In the first embodiment, the deposit management unit 20 manages the money (yen) used by each user within the social platform in each user's account. When a user posts or refutes a post, the deposit management unit 20 executes a process to deduct the deposit amount from the user's account and transfer it to a management account.

[0021] The deposit management unit 20 also determines to which user (contributor or auditor) the deposit should be returned and the incentive should be given. The deposit management unit 20 then executes the process of returning the deposit from the management account to the account of the determined user and transferring the incentive amount.

[0022] (Overview of the process) An overview of the processing in a social platform is shown in Fig. 4(a) and Fig. 4(b). Fig. 4(a) shows an example of a case where a poster makes a bad post, and Fig. 4(b) shows an example of a case where a poster makes a good post.

[0023] (If you make a bad post) As shown in FIG. 4(a), a poster pays a deposit to post on a social platform. The server 10 solicits rebuttals to the posted content for a predetermined period of time. If the post is misleading and bad (S1), an auditor with a rebuttal pays a deposit and posts a rebuttal based on correct grounds (S2). When a rebuttal is posted, the server 10 solicits votes for the rebuttal (votes on whether the rebuttal is valid or not). When a voter votes in response to the solicitation (S3), the server 10 evaluates whether the rebuttal is valid or not based on the voting results, and if the rebuttal is evaluated as valid as a result of the evaluation, the server 10 returns the deposit to the auditor and grants (returns) an incentive (S4). On the other hand, if the server 10 evaluates the rebuttal as invalid, it solicits rebuttals again for a predetermined period of time.

[0024] (If you make a good post) As shown in FIG. 4(b), a poster pays a deposit and posts to a social platform. If the post is good (S5), even if the server 10 solicits rebuttals for a predetermined period of time, in many cases no rebuttals are posted. If no rebuttals are posted in this way, the server 10 grants an incentive to the poster after the predetermined period has elapsed (S6). Also, if the post is good, even if an auditor posts a rebuttal, the rebuttal will be deemed invalid based on the voting results. In this case, the server 10 solicits rebuttals again for a predetermined period of time, and if no rebuttals are posted, the server 10 returns the deposit to the poster and grants (returns) an incentive (S6).

[0025] (Regarding the processing of each part of Server 10) The processing contents executed by each unit of the server 10 will be described in detail below.

[0026] (Processing of submission reception unit 12) Fig. 5(a) is a flowchart showing the processing of the post receiving unit 12. In step S10, the post receiving unit 12 displays a post screen in response to a request from a user (poster). Fig. 5(b) shows an example of the post screen. The post screen has an input field for inputting the post content, as well as an input field for the deposit amount and a "Post" button. The poster can post the entered post content to the social platform by inputting the post content in the input field and the deposit amount, and then pressing the "Post" button.

[0027] After step S10, in step S12, the posting acceptance unit 12 waits until the "Post" button in the posting screen is pressed. When the poster presses the "Post" button, the process proceeds to step S14, where the posting acceptance unit 12 accepts and displays the posted content (makes it public to other users).

[0028] Next, in step S16, the posting receiving unit 12 notifies the deposit management unit 20 of the deposit amount, and notifies the audit receiving unit 14 that a posting has been made. This completes the entire process of FIG. 5(a). Note that the process of FIG. 5(a) is executed repeatedly.

[0029] (Processing of the audit reception unit 14) Next, the process of the inspection receiving unit 14 will be described with reference to FIG. 6. The process of FIG. 6 is started when a notification is received from the posting receiving unit 12, that is, when the process of step S16 of FIG. 5(a) is executed. When the process of FIG. 6 is started, the terminal device 70 of the user (auditor) is capable of displaying a rebuttal receiving screen as shown in FIG. 7(a). The rebuttal receiving screen of FIG. 7(a) displays the posting content by the poster, the deposit amount (amount is fixed) when posting a rebuttal, and the amount (amount is fixed) when the deposit is returned and the incentive is returned. The screen of FIG. 7(a) also has a "Post a rebuttal" button.

[0030] 6 is started, the inspection receiving unit 14 starts a timer in step S20. This timer is for measuring the deadline for a poster to make a rebuttal to the post (rebuttal receiving period).

[0031] Next, the process proceeds to step S22, where the inspection receiving unit 14 judges whether or not the "Post a rebuttal" button has been pressed by the user (auditor). If the judgment in step S22 is negative, the process proceeds to step S24, where the inspection receiving unit 14 judges whether or not a predetermined time (rebuttal acceptance period) has elapsed. If the judgment in step S24 is negative, the process returns to step S22.

[0032] On the other hand, if the determination in step S22 is affirmative and the process proceeds to step S26, the inspection receiving unit 14 displays a rebuttal posting screen. The rebuttal posting screen is as shown in Fig. 7(b). The rebuttal posting screen has a field for inputting the content of the rebuttal and a "Post" button.

[0033] Next, in step S28, the inspection receiving unit 14 waits until the "Post" button is pressed. When the user (auditor) presses the "Post" button, the process proceeds to step S30, where the inspection receiving unit 14 accepts the rebuttal content and enables a voting screen such as that shown in FIG. 9 to be displayed on each user's terminal device 70. The voting screen in FIG. 9 displays the posted content and the rebuttal content in an associated state. The voting screen also has a field for selecting either "Accept (I think it is a valid rebuttal)" or "Reject (I think it is a skeptical rebuttal)" for the rebuttal content, and a "Vote" button to be pressed when voting for the selected opinion.

[0034] Next, in step S32, the inspection receiving unit 14 notifies the vote receiving unit 16 that the objection content has been received and that vote reception should begin. The inspection receiving unit 14 also notifies the deposit management unit 20 that a objection has been posted. After that, all the processing in FIG. 6 ends.

[0035] On the other hand, if the determination in step S24 is positive before step S22 is positive (before the "Post a rebuttal" button is pressed on the screen of FIG. 7(a)), the inspection receiving unit 14 proceeds to step S34. Upon proceeding to step S34, the inspection receiving unit 14 ends the acceptance of rebuttals and notifies the deposit management unit 20. This transition to step S34 means that there has been no rebuttal to the posted content. After the processing of step S34, all processing in FIG. 6 ends.

[0036] (Processing of the voting reception unit 16) Next, the process of the vote receiving unit 16 will be described with reference to Fig. 8. The process of Fig. 8 is started when a notification is received from the inspection receiving unit 14, that is, when the process of step S32 in Fig. 6 is executed. When the process of Fig. 8 is started, the terminal device 70 of the user (voter) is capable of displaying the voting screen of Fig. 9.

[0037] When the process of Fig. 8 is started, in step S40, the vote acceptance unit 16 judges whether or not an evaluation condition is satisfied. The evaluation condition is, for example, when the total number of votes for the counterargument becomes equal to or exceeds a predetermined number, or when a predetermined period (vote acceptance period) has elapsed since the process of Fig. 8 was started. In the first embodiment, as an example, the judgment in step S40 is deemed to be positive when the total number of votes becomes equal to or exceeds a predetermined number (a minimum number of votes, for example, 100 voters).

[0038] If the determination in step S40 is negative, the process proceeds to step S42, where the vote acceptance unit 16 determines whether or not the "Vote" button has been pressed on the voting screen in FIG. 9. If the determination in step S42 is negative, the process returns to step S40. On the other hand, if the determination in step S42 is positive, the process proceeds to step S44, where the vote acceptance unit 16 counts the number of votes. For example, if the "Vote" button is pressed with "Accept" selected on the voting screen, the vote acceptance unit 16 increments the number of "Accept" votes and the total number of votes by +1. If the "Vote" button is pressed with "Reject" selected on the voting screen, the vote acceptance unit 16 increments the number of "Reject" votes and the total number of votes by +1. After executing step S44, the vote acceptance unit 16 returns to step S40.

[0039] On the other hand, if the determination in step S40 is positive, the vote acceptance unit 16 notifies the adoption determination unit 18 of the voting result. Here, the vote acceptance unit 16 notifies the adoption determination unit 18 of the number of "Accept" votes and the number of "Reject" votes as the voting result. After the processing in step S46 is performed, all the processing in FIG. 8 is completed.

[0040] (Processing of the adoption determination unit 18) Next, the process of the adoption determination unit 18 will be described with reference to Fig. 10. The process of Fig. 10 starts when the vote result is notified from the vote receiving unit 16, that is, when the process of step S46 in Fig. 10 is executed.

[0041] When the process of FIG. 10 starts, the adoption determination unit 18 receives (acquires) the voting result notified from the vote acceptance unit 16 in step S50.

[0042] Next, in step S52, the adoption decision unit 18 judges whether or not the number of Accept votes (votes that the counterargument is valid) is greater than the number of Reject votes (votes that the counterargument is skeptical). If the judgment in step S52 is positive, the adoption decision unit 18 proceeds to step S54.

[0043] Proceeding to step S54, the adoption determination unit 18 notifies the deposit management unit 20 that the rebuttal is valid. Next, in step S56, the adoption determination unit 18 generates a screen reflecting the evaluation result (see the adopted screen in FIG. 11) and makes it possible to display it on the terminal device 70. The adopted screen in FIG. 11 displays the posted content and the rebuttal content in association with each other. The adopted screen also displays a message that voting has ended, and the voting results (the number and percentage of each of the Accept votes and Reject votes). After the processing of step S56 has been performed, all processing in FIG. 10 ends.

[0044] On the other hand, if the judgment in step S52 is negative, the process proceeds to step S58, where the adoption determination unit 18 notifies the inspection receiving unit 14 that the objection is doubtful. After that, all the processes in FIG. 10 are terminated. Note that the inspection receiving unit 14 executes the process in FIG. 6 even when it receives a notification from the adoption determination unit 18. That is, the inspection receiving unit 14 waits for a new objection to be posted until a predetermined time (objection acceptance period) has elapsed. Then, when the objection acceptance period has elapsed, the inspection receiving unit 14 ends the objection acceptance and notifies the deposit management unit 20 (S34). Also, when a new objection is posted, the inspection receiving unit 14 notifies the vote receiving unit 16 (S32). As a result, the process by the vote receiving unit 16 (FIG. 8) and the process by the adoption determination unit 18 (FIG. 10) are executed again, as described above.

[0045] (Processing of deposit management unit 20) Next, the process of the deposit management unit 20 will be described with reference to FIG.

[0046] In step S60, the deposit management unit 20 judges whether or not a notification has been received from the posting acceptance unit 12. In other words, it judges whether or not the process of step S16 in FIG. 5(a) has been executed. If the judgment in step S60 is positive, the process proceeds to step S62, where the deposit management unit 20 executes a process to receive a deposit from the poster. Specifically, the deposit management unit 20 executes a process to deduct the deposit amount entered by the poster on the posting screen in FIG. 5(b) from the poster's account and transfer the amount to a management account. Then, the process proceeds to step S64. On the other hand, if the judgment in step S60 is negative, the process proceeds to step S64 without going through step S62.

[0047] When the process proceeds to step S64, the deposit management unit 20 judges whether or not a notice of a rebuttal has been received from the inspection receiving unit 14. In other words, the process proceeds to step S66, where the deposit management unit 20 executes a process to receive a deposit from the auditor. Specifically, the deposit management unit 20 executes a process to deduct the deposit amount displayed on the rebuttal receiving screen in FIG. 7(a) from the auditor's account and transfer it to an account for management. The process then proceeds to step S68. On the other hand, when the process proceeds to step S64, the process proceeds to step S68 without going through step S66.

[0048] When the process proceeds to step S68, the deposit management unit 20 judges whether or not a notification has been received from the adoption judgment unit 18. That is, the process judges whether or not the process of step S54 in FIG. 10 has been executed. If the judgment in step S68 is positive, the process proceeds to step S70, where the deposit management unit 20 executes a process of returning the deposit to the auditor and returning the incentive. Specifically, the deposit management unit 20 executes a process of deducting the amount (deposit + incentive) displayed on the objection acceptance screen in FIG. 7(a) from the management account and transferring it to the auditor's account. Then, the process proceeds to step S72. On the other hand, if the judgment in step S68 is negative, the process proceeds to step S72 without going through step S70.

[0049] When the process proceeds to step S72, the deposit management unit 20 judges whether or not there has been a notice from the inspection receiving unit 14 indicating that no objection has been made. In other words, the process judges whether or not the process of step S34 in FIG. 6 has been executed. If the determination in step S72 is positive, the process proceeds to step S74, where the deposit management unit 20 executes a process of returning the deposit to the poster and giving back the incentive. Specifically, the deposit management unit 20 executes a process of deducting a predetermined amount (deposit + incentive) from the management account and transferring it to the poster's account. Thereafter, the process returns to step S60. On the other hand, if the determination in step S72 is negative, the process returns to step S60 without going through step S74.

[0050] (Countermeasures against collusion and fraud) In the first embodiment, there is a possibility that the auditor and the voter may collude to commit fraud. Figure 13(a) shows the procedure for collusion to commit fraud. Collusion to commit fraud is carried out as follows.

[0051] (1) Even if a poster makes a good post, an auditor who wants to spread false information posts an inappropriate rebuttal. (2) The auditor bribes the conspirator, who, as voters, votes (evaluates) the audit results as legitimate. (3) If the auditor's rebuttal is deemed to be valid, the auditor will receive a refund of the deposit and an incentive. This will lead to the spread of invalid rebuttals as valid information.

[0052] In the first embodiment, even if such a collusive fraud occurs, the auditor is designed not to gain anything, that is, to incur a loss. A specific explanation is given below. As shown in FIG. 13(b), the contributor's deposit amount is p, the auditor's deposit amount is αp, the total amount of the deposit return and incentive return to the auditor is βp, and the total number of votes (minimum number of votes) that satisfies the evaluation condition (step S40 in FIG. 8) is X. In addition, the amount that the auditor will pay to bribe one contributor is q (≧1) [yen / person].

[0053] In this case, the total number of votes X that satisfies the evaluation condition is set as shown in the following equation (1). X>2(β-α)p / q …(1)

[0054] As a result, even if the auditor bribes the majority of voters (>X / 2 [people]) to establish fraud, the auditor's profit βp-(αp+q×X / 2) [yen] will be less than 0 yen, making it possible to prevent collusion fraud. The total number of votes X can be set (determined) by the server 10 (vote receiving unit 16). However, this is not limited to the above, and the total number of votes X may be set by a system administrator or the like based on the above formula (1).

[0055] The above content will be explained using a concrete example.

[0056] For example, let the auditor's deposit amount be half of the contributor's deposit (α = 0.5), and the total amount of the auditor's deposit return and incentive return be the full amount of the contributor's deposit (β = 1.0). Also, let the amount q that the auditor pays to bribe one contributor be 1 [yen / person].

[0057] In this case, if the poster's deposit amount p is 100 yen, the total number of votes X that satisfy the evaluation conditions is set to a number greater than 100 (101) using the following formula (2). X>2(β-α)p / q=(2×(1.0-0.5)×100) / 1=100 …(2)

[0058] In this case, the auditor needs to bribe at least half of all voters (51) to commit fraud. However, the auditor's income is 100 yen, and his expenses are 50 yen in deposits and 51 yen in bribes, so his profit is negative.

[0059] In the above example, the purchase amount q is set to a minimum of 1 yen, but the amount is not limited to this and calculations may be performed by appropriately changing the amount q in accordance with the market price for purchases.

[0060] As described above in detail, according to the first embodiment, the deposit management unit 20 imposes a deposit when a poster posts a post on a social platform, and also imposes a deposit when an auditor posts a rebuttal to the post. In addition, when the adoption determination unit 18 evaluates that the rebuttal is legitimate based on the voter's voting results, it returns the deposit to the auditor and returns an incentive. In the first embodiment, the condition (total number of votes X in this embodiment) when the adoption determination unit 18 performs the evaluation is determined so that the auditor does not benefit even if the auditor commits fraud by bribing the voter. This makes it possible to prevent an auditor who wants to spread a false rebuttal from bribing the voter to increase the number of Accept votes and spreading false information disguised as legitimate information. This makes it possible to prevent the spread of false information. In addition, in this embodiment, an incentive is returned to an auditor who performed a legitimate audit, so that self-cleaning of false information posted on the social platform can be promoted. Additionally, auditors and contributors pay a deposit when posting, which helps reduce the posting of incorrect information or false rebuttals.

[0061] In addition, in the first embodiment, if there is no rebuttal to the posted content by the poster for a predetermined period of time, or if a rebuttal is posted but is not evaluated as legitimate, the deposit is returned to the poster and an incentive is given (step S74 in FIG. 12). This can motivate the poster to post correct information, and can prevent the poster from posting incorrect information.

[0062] Second Embodiment Next, a second embodiment will be described. In the second embodiment, the determination method of the adoption determination unit 18 is different from that in the first embodiment, and accordingly, the method of preventing collusion fraud is also different from that in the first embodiment.

[0063] Fig. 14 is a flowchart showing the processing of the adoption determination unit 18 in the second embodiment. In the present second embodiment, the adoption determination unit 18 evaluates that the auditor's rebuttal is valid when the difference between the Accept votes and the Reject votes is greater than X, as in step S52' in Fig. 14. Note that in the present second embodiment, the case where the vote acceptance unit 16 satisfies the evaluation condition (step S40 in Fig. 8: Yes) is considered to be the case where a predetermined vote acceptance period has elapsed.

[0064] (Countermeasures against collusion and fraud) In the second embodiment, even if a conspiracy to commit fraud occurs, the auditor does not gain any profit. A specific explanation will be given below. As shown in FIG. 15, the contributor's deposit amount is p, the auditor's deposit amount is αp, and the total amount of the deposit return and incentive return to the auditor is βp. In addition, the amount that the auditor pays to bribe one contributor is q (≧1) [yen / person].

[0065] In this case, the difference X between the Accept votes and the Reject votes for determining that the objection is valid is set as shown in the following equation (3). X>(β-α)p / q …(3) The difference X can be set (determined) by the server 10 (adoption determination unit 18). However, this is not limiting, and the total number of votes X may be set by a system administrator or the like based on the above formula (3).

[0066] In this case, in order for the conspiracy to be established, the auditor needs to collude with at least X [people]. In this case, the auditor's profit is at most βp-(αp+q×X) [yen], which is less than 0 yen under the conditions of the above formula (3).

[0067] If Y people cast a Reject vote, then (X+Y) people would need to be bribed in order for the conspiracy to be established, and the auditor's profit would be βp-(αp+q×(X+Y)) yen. In this case, even if Y is 0 people, as mentioned above, the auditor's profit is less than 0 yen, so the more Y there is, the greater the deficit will be.

[0068] The above content will be explained using a concrete example.

[0069] For example, let the auditor's deposit amount be half of the contributor's deposit (α = 0.5), and the total amount of the auditor's deposit return and incentive return be the full amount of the contributor's deposit (β = 1.0). Also, let the amount q that the auditor pays to bribe one contributor be 1 [yen / person].

[0070] In this case, if the poster's deposit amount p is 100 yen, the difference X between the Accept votes and the Reject votes for determining that the rebuttal is valid is set to a number greater than 50 (51 people) using the following equation (4). X>(β-α)p / q=((1.0-0.5)×100) / 1=50 …(4)

[0071] In this case, the auditor would need to bribe at least 51 people to commit the conspiracy, so the auditor's income would be 100 yen, and his expenses would be the 50 yen deposit plus the 51 yen bribe, resulting in a negative profit.

[0072] Also, if there are 30 reject votes, it would be necessary to bribe 81 people to conspire to commit fraud. In this case, the auditor's income would be 100 yen, and his expenses would be a deposit of 50 yen plus bribes of 81 yen, further increasing the deficit.

[0073] As described above in detail, according to the second embodiment, the adoption judgment unit 18 evaluates the content of the rebuttal as valid when the number of Accept votes is greater than the number of Reject votes by at least a predetermined number X. The predetermined number X is determined so that the auditors will not gain any profit even if they collude to commit fraud. This makes it possible to prevent collusion between the auditors and voters to commit fraud, as in the first embodiment.

[0074] Third embodiment Next, a third embodiment will be described. In the third embodiment, the determination method of the adoption determination unit 18 is different from that of the first and second embodiments, and accordingly, the method of preventing collusion fraud is also different from that of the first and second embodiments.

[0075] In this third embodiment, a voting screen such as that shown in FIG. 16(a) is used. If the voter believes that the auditor's rebuttal is valid, he / she checks the Accept checkbox and presses the "Vote" button. On the other hand, if the voter believes that the auditor's rebuttal is skeptical, he / she will not vote. In this third embodiment, it is also possible to vote "Like" (heart mark in FIG. 16(b)) on the content posted by the poster.

[0076] FIG. 17 is a flowchart showing the processing of the adoption determination unit 18 in the third embodiment. In this third embodiment, the adoption determination unit 18 determines that the auditor's rebuttal is valid when the number of Accept votes is equal to or greater than the number of Likes (X), as in step S52'' in FIG. 17. Note that in this third embodiment, the vote acceptance unit 16 satisfies the evaluation condition (step S40 in FIG. 8: Yes) when a predetermined vote acceptance period has elapsed.

[0077] (Countermeasures against collusion fraud) In the third embodiment, even if a conspiracy to commit fraud occurs, the auditor does not gain any profit. For example, the contributor's deposit amount is p, the auditor's deposit amount is αp, and the total amount of the deposit return and incentive return to the auditor is βp. The amount that the auditor pays to bribe one contributor is q (≧1) [yen / person].

[0078] Then, the rebate rate β for the auditor is set as shown in the following equation (5). α<β<α+qX / p …(5) The payout rate β can be set (determined) by the server 10 (vote acceptance unit 16). However, this is not limiting, and the payout rate β may be set by a system administrator or the like based on the above formula (5).

[0079] In this case, in order for the collusive fraud to be established, the auditor needs to collude with at least the number of likes = X [people]. However, the auditor's profit in this case is βp-(αp+q×X) [yen], which is less than 0 yen under the condition of the above formula (5).

[0080] The above content will be explained using a concrete example.

[0081] For example, the auditor's deposit amount is set to half the contributor's deposit (α=0.5).

[0082] In this case, if the poster's deposit amount p is 100 yen and the number of likes X is 50 [people], the rebate rate β for the auditor can be set as shown in the following equation (6) using the above equation (5). 0.5<β<1.0 …(6)

[0083] In this case, the auditor would need to bribe at least 51 people to commit the conspiracy, so the auditor's income would be 100 yen, and his expenses would be the 50 yen deposit plus the 51 yen bribe, resulting in a negative profit.

[0084] In the third embodiment, when the voting period has elapsed, if the number of Accept votes is equal to or greater than the number of Likes (X), an adopted screen such as that shown in FIG. 16(b) is displayed.

[0085] As described above in detail, according to the third embodiment, the adoption determination unit 18 evaluates the content of a counterargument as valid when the number of Accept votes for the counterargument is greater than the number of Likes for the posted content. The payout rate β for the auditor is determined so that the auditor does not gain any profit even if the auditor commits collusion and fraud. This makes it possible to prevent collusion and fraud by the auditor and the voter, as in the first and second embodiments.

[0086] In the above first to third embodiments, it is assumed that ordinary voters who are not involved in the collusion fraud cast a Reject vote (or do not cast an Accept vote) for an unjust objection. However, in reality, even ordinary voters may cast an Accept vote for an unjust objection. For example, they may mischievously cast an Accept vote for an unjust objection, or they may cast an Accept vote for an unjust objection because they believe or mistakenly believe that the unjust objection is a legitimate objection.

[0087] Therefore, when actually operating the information processing system of the first to third embodiments, it is preferable to take into consideration the bias and noise contained in such general voters. In this case, it is preferable to adjust the number of votes that is the evaluation condition (step S40 in FIG. 8) and the return rate to the auditor, taking into consideration the bias contained in the voters.

[0088] For example, if the attributes of voters are biased, or if there is a close or hostile relationship between the auditor and the voter even if there is no collusion, the evaluation may include organized votes, favoritism, or bias. In such cases, it is preferable to make the following adjustments.

[0089] (Adjusted based on voter follow relationships) For example, when the cluster coefficient (one of the indices that indicates the density of the relationship between nodes in a network) of a set of voters is large, it can be said that the relationship between the voters is dense. In such a case, it is preferable to set the required number of votes even larger than that in the first embodiment.

[0090] (Adjusted based on auditor-voter relationship) It is preferable to weight votes from voters who have previously voted for the same auditor's rebuttal by referring to the poster's posting history, so that their influence is reduced. For example, one vote from such a voter can be considered to be 0.5 vote.

[0091] The above processing functions can be realized by a computer. In that case, a program is provided that describes the processing contents of the functions that the processing device should have. The above processing functions are realized on the computer by executing the program on the computer. The program that describes the processing contents can be recorded on a computer-readable storage medium (excluding carrier waves).

[0092] When a program is distributed, it is sold in the form of a portable storage medium on which the program is recorded, such as a DVD (Digital Versatile Disc), a CD-ROM (Compact Disc Read Only Memory), etc. The program can also be stored in a storage device of a server computer and transferred from the server computer to other computers via a network.

[0093] A computer that executes a program stores, for example, a program recorded on a portable storage medium or a program transferred from a server computer in its own storage device. The computer then reads the program from its own storage device and executes processing in accordance with the program. The computer can also read the program directly from a portable storage medium and execute processing in accordance with that program. The computer can also execute processing in accordance with the received program each time a program is transferred from the server computer.

[0094] The above-described embodiment is a preferred example of the present invention, but the present invention is not limited to this embodiment and can be modified in various ways without departing from the scope of the present invention.

[0095] In addition, the following supplementary notes are disclosed in relation to the above description of the first to third embodiments. (Note 1) A first deposit is charged when a first user posts content on a social platform; levying a second deposit when a second user posts a rebuttal to the posted content; Accepting votes on whether the content of the objection is valid or not, and evaluating whether the content of the objection is valid or not; If the content of the objection is evaluated as valid as a result of the voting, the second deposit is returned to the second user and an incentive is given to the second user; A posting content auditing program that causes a computer to execute a process to determine conditions for evaluating whether the rebuttal is legitimate or the content of the incentive return, so that the second user will not benefit even if the second user bribes the voting user and commits fraud. (Appendix 2) In the evaluation process, if the number of votes for validity is greater than the number of votes for invalidity, the content of the rebuttal is evaluated as valid, A posting content auditing program as described in Appendix 1, characterized in that a minimum number of votes required when making an evaluation is determined so that the second user will not benefit even if the second user commits the fraudulent act. (Note 3) In the evaluation process, if the difference between the number of votes for validity and the number of votes for invalidity is greater than a predetermined number, the content of the objection is judged to be valid; The posting content auditing program according to claim 1, further comprising determining the predetermined number so that the second user will not benefit even if the second user commits the fraudulent act. (Appendix 4) The computer further executes a process of receiving votes regarding whether the posted content is valid or not, In the evaluation process, when the number of votes for the content of the rebuttal being valid is greater than the number of votes for the content of the post being valid, the content of the rebuttal is judged to be valid; The posting content auditing program described in Appendix 1, characterized in that the rebate content is determined so that the second user does not benefit even if the second user commits the fraudulent act. (Appendix 5) A posting content audit program described in any of Appendices 1 to 4, further causing the computer to execute a process of returning the first deposit to the first user and giving back an incentive if the rebuttal content is evaluated to be invalid as a result of the evaluation, or if the rebuttal content has not been posted for a specified period of time. (Appendix 6) A posting content audit program as described in any of Appendices 1 to 5, characterized in that in the determination process, the conditions for evaluating whether the rebuttal content is legitimate or the content of the incentive repayment are determined based on at least one of the attributes and posting history of the user casting the vote. (Appendix 7) Let p be the amount of the first deposit, αp be the amount of the second deposit, βp be the sum of the second deposit and the incentive, X be the minimum number of votes, and q be the amount of the bribe that the second user gives to one of the voting users to commit the fraud. The minimum number of votes X is X>2(β-α)p / q The posting content auditing program according to claim 2, wherein the posting content auditing program determines whether the posting content is equal to or greater than the predetermined number of posts. (Appendix 8) Let p be the amount of the first deposit, αp be the amount of the second deposit, βp be the sum of the second deposit and the incentive, X be the predetermined number, and q be the amount of the bribe that the second user gives to one of the voting users to commit the fraud. The predetermined number X is X>(β-α)p / q The posting content auditing program according to claim 3, wherein the posting content auditing program determines whether the posting content is equal to or greater than the predetermined number of posts. (Appendix 9) Let p be the amount of the first deposit, αp be the amount of the second deposit, βp be the sum of the second deposit and the incentive, X be the number of votes that the post content is valid, and q be the amount of a bribe that the second user gives to one of the voting users to commit the fraud. α<β<α+qX / p The posting content audit program according to claim 4, wherein the value of β is determined so that (Appendix 10) A first deposit is charged when a first user posts a post on a social platform; levying a second deposit when a second user posts a rebuttal to the posted content; Accepting votes on whether the content of the objection is valid or not, and evaluating whether the content of the objection is valid or not; If the content of the objection is evaluated as valid as a result of the voting, the second deposit is returned to the second user and an incentive is given to the second user; A method for auditing posted content, characterized in that a computer executes a process to determine conditions for evaluating whether the rebuttal is legitimate or the content of the incentive return, so that the second user will not benefit even if the second user bribes the voting user and commits fraud. (Appendix 11) A first deposit is charged when a first user posts a post on a social platform; levying a second deposit when a second user posts a rebuttal to the posted content; Accepting votes on whether the content of the objection is valid or not, and evaluating whether the content of the objection is valid or not; causing a computer to execute a process of returning the second deposit and giving an incentive to the second user when the content of the objection is evaluated as valid as a result of the voting; A posting content auditing program characterized in that the conditions for evaluating whether the rebuttal content is legitimate or the content of the incentive return are determined so that the second user does not benefit even if the second user commits fraud by bribing the voting user. (Appendix 12) A first deposit is charged when a first user posts a post on a social platform; levying a second deposit when a second user posts a rebuttal to the posted content; Accepting votes on whether the content of the objection is valid or not, and evaluating whether the content of the objection is valid or not; if the content of the objection is evaluated as valid as a result of the voting, the computer executes a process of returning the second deposit to the second user and giving an incentive to the second user; A method for auditing posted content, characterized in that the conditions for evaluating whether the rebuttal is legitimate or the content of the incentive return are determined so that the second user will not benefit even if the second user commits fraud by bribing the voting user. [Explanation of symbols]

[0096] 10 Server 12 Submission Reception Department 14 Audit Reception Department 16 Voting Office 18. Adoption Judgment Department 20 Deposit Management Department 70 Terminal Equipment 100 Information Processing Systems

Claims

1. Charging a first deposit when a first user posts a post on the social platform; levying a second deposit when a second user posts a rebuttal to the posted content; accepting votes on whether the content of the rebuttal is valid or not, and if the number of votes for validity is greater than the number of votes for invalidity, evaluating the content of the rebuttal as valid; causing a computer to execute a process of returning the second deposit to the second user and giving an incentive to the second user when the objection is evaluated as being valid; Let p be the amount of the first deposit, αp be the amount of the second deposit, βp be the total amount of the second deposit and the incentive, X be the minimum number of votes required to perform the evaluation, and q be the amount of a bribe that the second user gives to one of the voting users in order to cheat. The minimum number of votes X is X>2(β-α)p / q Determine so that A posting content audit program characterized by:

2. A method for providing a social platform to a first user, the method comprising: charging a first deposit when the first user posts a post; levying a second deposit when a second user posts a rebuttal to the posted content; accepting votes on whether the content of the rebuttal is valid or not, and evaluating the content of the rebuttal as valid if the difference between the number of votes for validity and the number of votes for invalidity is greater than a predetermined number; causing a computer to execute a process of returning the second deposit to the second user and giving an incentive to the second user when the objection is evaluated as being valid; Let p be the amount of the first deposit, αp be the amount of the second deposit, βp be the total amount of the second deposit and the incentive, X be the predetermined number, and q be the amount of the bribe that the second user gives to one of the voting users in order to cheat. The predetermined number X is X>(β-α)p / q Determine so that A posting content audit program characterized by:

3. A method for providing a social platform to a first user, the method comprising: charging a first deposit when the first user posts a post; levying a second deposit when a second user posts a rebuttal to the posted content; accepting votes on whether the rebuttal content is valid or not and whether the posted content is valid or not, and evaluating the rebuttal content as valid when the number of votes for the rebuttal content being valid is greater than the number of votes for the posted content being valid; causing a computer to execute a process of returning the second deposit to the second user and giving an incentive to the second user when the objection is evaluated as being valid; Let p be the amount of the first deposit, αp be the amount of the second deposit, βp be the total amount of the second deposit and the incentive, X be the number of votes that the posting content is valid, and q be the amount of a bribe that the second user gives to one of the voting users in order to commit fraud. α<β<α+qX / p Determine the value of β so that A posting content audit program characterized by:

4. A posting content audit program as described in any one of claims 1 to 3, further causing the computer to execute a process of returning the first deposit to the first user and giving an incentive if the rebuttal content is evaluated to be invalid as a result of the evaluation, or if the rebuttal content is not posted for a specified period of time.

5. Charging a first deposit when a first user posts a post on the social platform; levying a second deposit when a second user posts a rebuttal to the posted content; accepting votes on whether the content of the rebuttal is valid or not, and if the number of votes for validity is greater than the number of votes for invalidity, evaluating the content of the rebuttal as valid; a computer executes a process of returning the second deposit to the second user and giving an incentive to the second user when the content of the objection is evaluated as being valid; Let p be the amount of the first deposit, αp be the amount of the second deposit, βp be the total amount of the second deposit and the incentive, X be the minimum number of votes required to perform the evaluation, and q be the amount of a bribe that the second user gives to one of the voting users in order to cheat. The minimum number of votes X is X>2(β-α)p / q Determine so that A method for auditing posted content.

6. A method for providing a social platform to a first user, the method comprising: charging a first deposit when the first user posts a post; levying a second deposit when a second user posts a rebuttal to the posted content; accepting votes on whether the content of the rebuttal is valid or not, and evaluating the content of the rebuttal as valid if the difference between the number of votes for validity and the number of votes for invalidity is greater than a predetermined number; a computer executes a process of returning the second deposit to the second user and giving an incentive to the second user when the content of the objection is evaluated as being valid; Let p be the amount of the first deposit, αp be the amount of the second deposit, βp be the total amount of the second deposit and the incentive, X be the predetermined number, and q be the amount of the bribe that the second user gives to one of the voting users in order to cheat. The predetermined number X is X>(β-α)p / q Determine so that A method for auditing posted content.

7. A method for providing a social platform to a first user, the method comprising: charging a first deposit when the first user posts a post; levying a second deposit when a second user posts a rebuttal to the posted content; accepting votes on whether the rebuttal content is valid or not and whether the posted content is valid or not, and evaluating the rebuttal content as valid when the number of votes for the rebuttal content being valid is greater than the number of votes for the posted content being valid; a computer executes a process of returning the second deposit to the second user and giving an incentive to the second user when the content of the objection is evaluated as being valid; Let p be the amount of the first deposit, αp be the amount of the second deposit, βp be the total amount of the second deposit and the incentive, X be the number of votes that the posting content is valid, and q be the amount of a bribe that the second user gives to one of the voting users in order to commit fraud. α<β<α+qX / p Determine the value of β so that A method for auditing posted content.

Images