Can This TikTok-Style Debate App Fix the Internet’s Trust Problem?

7 in 10 people worldwide are wary of trusting anyone whose values or information sources differ from theirs. Most think this distrust runs deep enough for people to work against one another. This is also very evident in the comment section of any tweet about controversial topics or opinions.

Those findings come from the 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer, which polled nearly 34,000 people in 28 countries. The wariness held across age groups, income levels, and both developed and developing markets.

The same distrust shows up on the platforms people now use most for news. Social and video networks are now the most widely used way to reach online news, the Reuters Institute found. Yet, only 22% of people trust the news they find on social media. 

Geo, the knowledge network founded by The Graph co-founder Yaniv Tal, launched Geo Debates on September 22. The app puts two people who disagree on screen together, in the same short vertical format that those feeds run on.

Geo Debates Hands Each Side a Clock and Mutes the Other Mic

Each debate centers on one claim, and users must go on record with their stance before Geo will match them. The app then pairs each person only with someone who took the opposite side.

The two argue on video in timed, alternating turns. While one person speaks, the other’s microphone stays off, so neither can talk over the other.

Geo then stitches both recordings into one subtitled split-screen clip and publishes it to a vertical feed. Viewers vote on who made the stronger case and can open each claim to see what supports it. Claims are tagged as factual or opinion, but the platform does not rule on which ones are true.

The short-video format matches how audiences already take in information. Reuters Institute data shows 77% of people now watch online news videos every week. On TikTok, news viewing skews toward clips under two minutes.

Early debates cover crypto, markets, AI, politics, and culture, including whether Bitcoin (BTC) beats gold as a store of value. Tal ties the format to the democratic and scientific traditions of debate.

“In order to get closer to the truth, we have to be able to examine issues from different sides. Democracies have a rich tradition of debate, as does the scientific community. Any institution that seeks to find truth or alignment requires healthy debate, and I think we need to bring this into the internet age,” said Yaniv Tal.

Geo Files Each Claim in a Knowledge Graph With Web3 Roots

When a debate ends, Geo extracts each speaker’s claims and logs them under that person’s name. Other users can then pick up any of those claims and challenge them in turn.

Geo describes its network as knowledge for people and AI, with sources kept visible. Much of that sourcing depends on users, as Geo’s site asks visitors to add sources and context in their roles as curators.

The knowledge graph is also where Geo’s crypto roots show. The Graph’s blog describes Geo as a core developer on the protocol. Its earlier app, Geo Genesis, used The Graph’s GRC-20 standard for shared knowledge graphs to publish data onchain. Geo has not said whether debate claims are written onchain the same way.

Tal traces the project to misinformation around the 2016 US election and the clouded public debate over COVID.

A Crowd Vote Can Crown the Better Performer

The vote reflects who viewers think made the stronger case. That leaves room for a confident speaker to win on weaker evidence.

Reuters Institute data shows audiences already separate appeal from trust when judging news creators. Audiences rate them as more entertaining and relatable than traditional outlets, but less trustworthy and less impartial. A vote on the stronger case may reward the first set of traits over the second.

Recent research suggests the format matters. A 2024 study matched 582 UK Labour and Conservative voters for 10-minute unmoderated chats. 

Sympathy for the other side rose afterward, but mainly when pairs agreed or found common ground. Where they only disagreed, sympathy did not rise. Across the sample, the chats did not shift opinions.

Geo matches only people who disagree, the condition where that effect was weakest. Still, willingness to talk across party lines rose even among pairs who disagreed, and lasted two to three weeks.

Meanwhile, X’s Community Notes handles crowd judgment differently. A note appears publicly only after enough contributors from different points of view rate it helpful. Geo has not said whether its votes account for where viewers already stand.

Each debate also needs two people willing to argue on camera, and the record needs curators to add sources. That runs against a shift the Reuters Institute flagged, as fewer people post on social platforms and more simply scroll.

A split-screen clip could also be cut down to one side once it spreads beyond Geo. Tal built the app so arguments outlast the feed. First, Geo has to get enough people to stop scrolling and step in front of the camera.