71–80 of 189 posts
If only there was a system to create "feeds" of website entries (such as news sites), aggregate them, and then read them at our discretion. Then we could each create our own personal Google homepage. Google could brand such an offering as "Google reader" and "Google personalized homepage"... (For those who don't remember: these both used to be a thing!)
They don't want it to be your choice.
The "newsfeed" pattern is one of the worst ideas humanity has ever had. Never has it been so easy to manipulate public opinion at will. 10 years ago there was a such thing as standards in journalism. Now anypoliticalblog.com's headline has been promoted to the equal status of an actual news organisation by means of the implicit legitimacy of appearing in a news feed. This insanity has reached a crescendo with the off…
"Actual news organizations" don't exist in the sense we'd like. They're all agenda driven and constantly lie by omission. Breitbart is shamelessly pro-Trump. They will publish stories that others won't but also won't publish anything counter to their narrative. The Guardian, which someone else mentioned, is massively left-leaning and is also very selective about what they cover. Their articles are often poorly though…
My dad explained this to me very crudely some years ago, (but as he's a Daily Mail reader I dismiss everything he says by default).
In this case though, it really does require you to read broadly to get out of your opinion bubble.
The BBC is a perfect case study of this. It's got a charter that is supposed to make it explicitly neutral, but of course that's unenforceable in reality (what's biased and not is going to be a matter of opinion), as evidenced by their approach anytime the question of the license fee comes up in public discourse.
There's probably money to be made by crawling a variety of news sources, throwing the output into an AI fanoogler, and using it to write a separate article that balances the views on the given topic as a separate news site.
Obviously I'll require majority equity. Fanoogler R&D isn't cheap you know.
The "newsfeed" pattern is one of the worst ideas humanity has ever had. Never has it been so easy to manipulate public opinion at will. 10 years ago there was a such thing as standards in journalism. Now anypoliticalblog.com's headline has been promoted to the equal status of an actual news organisation by means of the implicit legitimacy of appearing in a news feed. This insanity has reached a crescendo with the off…
"Actual news organizations" don't exist in the sense we'd like. They're all agenda driven and constantly lie by omission. Breitbart is shamelessly pro-Trump. They will publish stories that others won't but also won't publish anything counter to their narrative. The Guardian, which someone else mentioned, is massively left-leaning and is also very selective about what they cover. Their articles are often poorly though…
edit: But yeah, organizations of people with biases can't be perfectly neutral
Who visits google.com anyway? I am pretty sure majority of those users who aren't interested in seeing these news are already using google search via browser address bar. Only those who go to google.com will see these news , and they seem to be an exact type of people who would enjoy such content and spend hours browsing it generating more revenue to google
And it goes without saying that the news sources preferences will reflect those of Google's predominantly liberal top brass.
If only there was a system to create "feeds" of website entries (such as news sites), aggregate them, and then read them at our discretion. Then we could each create our own personal Google homepage. Google could brand such an offering as "Google reader" and "Google personalized homepage"... (For those who don't remember: these both used to be a thing!)
See but that gives you, the consumer, toouch control over what you see. They don't want it to be your choice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they don’t track you so can’t make assumptions about what you want/mean. Trade offs.
I like what Google gives me in return for consuming my data, personally.
The "newsfeed" pattern is one of the worst ideas humanity has ever had. Never has it been so easy to manipulate public opinion at will. 10 years ago there was a such thing as standards in journalism. Now anypoliticalblog.com's headline has been promoted to the equal status of an actual news organisation by means of the implicit legitimacy of appearing in a news feed. This insanity has reached a crescendo with the off…
People need to develop their own critical thinking skills and not rely on e.g. a specific newspaper they believe to have standards to do their thinking for them. I mean do you personally have an issue with identifying inaccurate news stories? If not, why not? People that want to believe obviously made up news are going to find some way to get their fix of news like that whether Google or Facebook filter it out for them or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Was there? Because last I checked all that these so called 'reputable' sources of news seem to put out is biased garbage full of misleading data and often blatant lies. The inculcation of this sentiment is precisely the effect I'm referring to. The waters have become so muddied with nonsense that no one can tell right from wrong anymore. And thus, actual news organizations with trained reporters and fact checkers an…
Is there a reason most of the MSM attacks Trump's credibility on a daily basis? The reasons are ratings and political ideology. They know that a lot of people hate Trump so they attack him. Any evidence of wrongdoing on Trump's part is merely a happy extra for the MSM. If Obama did the same things that Trump does, do you think the MSM would behave the same way? The MSM have cried wolf so many times that now half the…