71–80 of 94 posts
What I’d planned to do with news might be a good addition to this system though. If you can, collect news articles from different sources and try to highlight what is left out. I’ve noticed that 99% of news bias isn’t factual incorrectness, but intentional omission of details to frame the story in a specific context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why chase engagement? If policy is slow-moving then people can visit weekly. Or make an RSS feed. Unless you're planning to go ad monetized or worse...
There's nuance between wanting to build something people use regularly vs "chasing engagement". Even if he decides to run this as a non-profit, individuals are more likely to donate to something they use regularly and institutions are more likely to fund something with active usage. I would assume that the costs to make all these LLM-API costs are not insignificant. I agree with the previous comment that the policy i…
There is no legitimate reason for a project like this to prioritize a general newsfeed, as opposed to a very specific newsfeed focused on legislation, regulation activity, and court cases. I can think of many interesting and useful ways to integrate the news into a government activity tracker. Yet another slopfeed of whatever nonsense is trending in the news, is not one of them.
It's a shame because I love the idea, but I can't say I trust the creator much at all. I guess now with AI it's easy enough for me to go whip up my own.
I have long thought about doing something like this with news in general, but I like the specific focus on bills. What I’d planned to do with news might be a good addition to this system though. If you can, collect news articles from different sources and try to highlight what is left out. I’ve noticed that 99% of news bias isn’t factual incorrectness, but intentional omission of details to frame the story in a speci…
- Report on stuff that helps the positions you support
- Report on stuff that hurts the positions you don't support
- Don't report on stuff that hurts the positions you support
- Don't report on stuff that helps the positions you don't support
It's one of the many, many, fake news tactics that allows them to manipulate and present a false picture of reality, without having to tell a lie.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's nuance between wanting to build something people use regularly vs "chasing engagement". Even if he decides to run this as a non-profit, individuals are more likely to donate to something they use regularly and institutions are more likely to fund something with active usage. I would assume that the costs to make all these LLM-API costs are not insignificant. I agree with the previous comment that the policy i…
That doesn't make sense to me. I don't need to "engage" daily with MSF to feel like my donation is valuable. I can go days or weeks at a time without using or even thinking much about the Internet Archive, Wikipedia, or my local classical radio station. I almost never hear or see anything about my local food bank/drive organization except when I begrudgingly check a local Facebook group and happen to scroll past a po…
The idea is to have ordinary people read their news with the facts and the impacts. You don't need to engage with MSF or your food bank for them to make an impact. Bringing policy impact to news does require engagement - it requires interest. This tool isn't for policy researchers and that is exactly why it's not the exact thing you described. Every day people need to use it not people starving or in a war zone.
The current summary on the home page contains bias / one-sided reporting. > While the administration describes the strikes as a necessary move to stop nuclear weapons, the conflict has already seen accidental friendly fire and threats of a ground invasion. The balance to the assertion "this was necessary" isn't "but there's been some consequences" -- it is an exploration of the truth of the assertion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Love the idea. Thoughts from a UI/UX point of view, on mobile: * Focus on the policy stuff since that's your differentiator. Put it front and center, currently it's below the "trending news". Nobody needs another trending news feed. I'd cut it entirely. * Make your differentiator hyper-obvious at a glance on the front page. Right now your above-the-fold is dominated by a wall of AI generated text. It should include a…
Thanks! I'll look into these UX/UI ideas. As for the news, it's front and center because I want Govbase to be a site/app people regularly visit and policy does move slow. Even when a bill is introduced it can take weeks for the actual text content of the bill to show up on congress.gov. Plus on weekends/recess the government doesn't move. I am planning to bring out more of the impact highlights from the policies to s…
Rather than try to compete in the "current events" space you might have more success in more differentiated channels like having people subscribe to issues, subscribe to reps... News should be part of it but you should lead as much as possible with your differentiator. I bet you could sell enterprise level subscriptions for industry-relevant regulatory news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks! I'll look into these UX/UI ideas. As for the news, it's front and center because I want Govbase to be a site/app people regularly visit and policy does move slow. Even when a bill is introduced it can take weeks for the actual text content of the bill to show up on congress.gov. Plus on weekends/recess the government doesn't move. I am planning to bring out more of the impact highlights from the policies to s…
In this case, I'd say only share news where you have some kind of structured regulatory stuff attached to it. Like sure, Trump started a war, that's noteworthy. Follow that up directly with a link out to structured tally of what reps have said, when was the last time a President did something similar, what are the relevant regulations, etc. Rather than try to compete in the "current events" space you might have more…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are the consequences of war not germane to its necessity?
They are, of course, but there are two different consequences involved in this assessment. One is "stop nuclear weapons" (the converse would be "do not stop nuclear weapons") and the other is "friendly fire incidents" (the converse would be "no friendly fire incidents"). Neither are directly related to the other, since the former is specific to this engagement and the latter happens in any combat.
* The war is necessary, regardless of friendly fire
* The friendly fire happened, regardless of whether the war is necessary
They're just totally orthogonal.
The current summary on the home page contains bias / one-sided reporting. > While the administration describes the strikes as a necessary move to stop nuclear weapons, the conflict has already seen accidental friendly fire and threats of a ground invasion. The balance to the assertion "this was necessary" isn't "but there's been some consequences" -- it is an exploration of the truth of the assertion.
Given there is an "AI pipeline" in play, I suspect this is just the typical compulsive equivocation from an LLM. Never assert strong opinions. Find something to say while actually saying nothing. Always give "both sides" equal treatment and consideration no matter what the sides actually are.
US & Israel illegally assassinate Iranian leader in bombing campaign, calling agression "necessity".
Now, if you'd like to lean to one side or the other, you can either:
- remove information about legality and the fact that they are the authors of the agression, add something about Iran being a threat to its neighbors
- or insist that any excuses provided by USA or Israel about nuclear weapons is 100% bogus as they have been claiming this for over 20 years
"We have no choice to do this horrible thing, but it may have slightly bad consequences for us" does not take the second side into consideration at all. It's very biased, and it's a very strong opinion in itself.