The Broader View is a single, recognizable button — like closed captions, but for perspective. Press it on a news article or a social post, and see how differently the same story is understood: what each side emphasizes, where they disagree, and where they quietly agree.
Nothing is removed. Nothing is pushed into anyone's feed. More speech, not less — a voluntary layer in the web's infrastructure, owned by no one, adopted by choice rather than mandate.
Much of what hardens division online is not false. It is partial: one true piece of a bigger story, shown to people who never see the rest. Taking posts down can't fix that, and labels ask readers to trust someone else's verdict.
What's missing is simpler — a way for any reader to turn on the lights.
Feeds reward the most extreme telling of every story, and a small, hyperactive minority produces most of what everyone sees. Thoughtful voices — on every side — go largely unseen.
Accurate fragments circulate as whole truths. On genuinely contested questions, "true or false" is the wrong test — and it's the only test the current tools can run.
Removal and labels appoint one referee for everyone, and much of the public has tuned the referee out. Adding perspective asks for no referee at all.
The web's plumbing hardened piece by piece, often by accident, and its accidents became everyone's defaults. Building the perspective layer deliberately — open, opt-in, owned by no one — is a rare chance to put prosocial infrastructure into the web itself, and to make curiosity the easy choice on any page.
The closed-captioning mark works on virtually every screen, no matter who made the video. It is owned by no single company, and it turns on only when the viewer wants it. A single recognizable symbol made an optional layer of the screen usable by everyone.
We propose the same for perspective: one universal mark that any platform, publisher, or browser can adopt — and that readers press only when they want the fuller picture.
The distinct schools of thought around a story — each presented in its strongest, fairest form, framed around ideas rather than left/right labels.
How each community tells it: what gets emphasized, what gets left out, and why it makes sense to the people saying it.
Where people who usually disagree actually agree — the part of the conversation feeds almost never surface.
Every quoted claim traces to a verifiable source, so readers can check the work and draw their own conclusions.
A button students press on whatever they're already reading — plus printable handouts for classrooms without devices. Adjustable by grade level, with discussion questions and self-reflection built in. K–12 first, universities alongside.
An open, opt-in standard any platform, publisher, or browser can adopt — with reader-chosen providers and baseline trust-and-safety rules built into the specification, not bolted on by one company.
Independent classroom studies are in development with school-of-education researchers focused on K–12, and with university research labs studying civic life, social change, and AI in the public interest. The question is simple: does seeing a story more fully change how students reason about it — and how they treat the people who see it differently?
A working prototype, a formal endorsement, and study designs ready to run. Support goes directly to classroom pilots, independent research on outcomes, and open standards work — the unglamorous infrastructure a shared layer of the web requires.
Get in touch →