21–30 of 195 posts
Hooray anti-competitive cross-subsidies.
(edit: I tend to block cookies on desktop so I guess they don't have too much profile to tailor news)
Why is Google putting $300 million of their own money into this? Does anyone have greater than zero trust in what Google is trying to do in this space?
Google allowing video on YouTube they can't monetize kind of saids it all about Google and free speech.
What's the point of the withgoogle.com domain?
google.com is a valuable target for XSS attacks. Keeping content off this domain reduces the attack surface.
EDIT: It looks like there were 3 blog posts by Google announcing this initiative. Blog posts announcing Google News Initative: https://www.blog.google/topics/google-news-initiative/announ... Subscription payments feature: https://www.blog.google/topics/google-news-initiative/introd... Elevating quality journalism: https://www.blog.google/topics/google-news-initiative/elevat... Some news coverage on it: https://www.th…
Based on the blog article, it seems like the main thing they're trying to solve is the payment system (use Google payment to easily subscribe). If that's true, it's a much different and less exciting offer than the OP's linked page which seemed like a much larger initiative.
I used Google News for a long time. I have since blackholed it on all of my machines. By tailoring the news articles presented to be based on the interests that Google data mined from my Google profile, it became an echo chamber even worse than Facebook. It became a very bad source of news: all of the articles were self-reinforcing each other with very very little actual diversity of sources.
Could not disagree more. I am generally pretty liberal but get news stories from Breitbart, Fox news, etc all the time in my feed. I like to read all sides so love this aspect of Google news. Heck I get negative Google stories from Google. Can't ask for more neutral.
My experience with Google News isn't so much bias or a bubble as uselessness. Source quality, comprehensiveness, and coverage depth seem totally irrelevant, like I'm just getting a feed of every news site a bunch of people clicked on recently. It's the same stuff as Facebook's trending bar, at about the same level of shallow and unfocused.
And occasionally, it seems like a major story is incompatible with my profile, or has a keyword collision with other topics, or something, and so disappears almost completely.
I tried Google News and Google Now with real eagerness, but my experience with both of them was just shockingly low quality.
EDIT: It looks like there were 3 blog posts by Google announcing this initiative. Blog posts announcing Google News Initative: https://www.blog.google/topics/google-news-initiative/announ... Subscription payments feature: https://www.blog.google/topics/google-news-initiative/introd... Elevating quality journalism: https://www.blog.google/topics/google-news-initiative/elevat... Some news coverage on it: https://www.th…
Based on the blog article, it seems like the main thing they're trying to solve is the payment system (use Google payment to easily subscribe). If that's true, it's a much different and less exciting offer than the OP's linked page which seemed like a much larger initiative.
> During breaking news or crisis situations, stemming the tide of misinformation can be challenging. Speculation can outrun facts as legitimate news outlets on the ground are still investigating. At the same time, bad actors are publishing content on forums and social media with the intent to mislead and capture people’s attention as they rush to find trusted information online.
This is just yet another temper tantrum from Silicon Valley liberals who cannot rationalize recent political movements any other way, so they think censorship is the solution. They think that people seeking out content that they agree with is some kind of new problem, as if this never existed within the grocery-checkout-isle tabloids for decades. This is an excuse to elevate content that they agree with and delegitimize sources that are not owned by large media conglomerates, which lean left on the whole.
There is no such thing as fake news, there is only inaccurate news. There are plenty of accurate stories that are not covered by the mainstream media, and there are plenty of fringe outlets that release accurate stories. What Google is saying here is that they see no issues with wholly backing the entrenched media groups as the sole arbiter of what constitutes news and what shouldn't be covered. People don't have the right to seek stories they find interesting; middle America is just too stupid for their own good, I guess.
Even mentioning this will probably make this comment [dead], but Seth Rich was murdered, Julian Assange has commented about connections, his digital footprint leaves a lot of motive for being the DNC leaker, details of the leaks suggest someone locally copied the files, and it's simply discredited as a crazy conspiracy story by the media.
People don't seek out nontraditional outlets because they want to get worse news, and it has nothing to do with clickbait. It has to do with the fact that the biases within traditional media lead to them not cover real and legitimate stories, and before the internet there was nowhere else to get information, so it worked out fine. The internet changed that, but what Google employees are saying here is they'd like to return to the past.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on the blog article, it seems like the main thing they're trying to solve is the payment system (use Google payment to easily subscribe). If that's true, it's a much different and less exciting offer than the OP's linked page which seemed like a much larger initiative.
Read between the lines. > During breaking news or crisis situations, stemming the tide of misinformation can be challenging. Speculation can outrun facts as legitimate news outlets on the ground are still investigating. At the same time, bad actors are publishing content on forums and social media with the intent to mislead and capture people’s attention as they rush to find trusted information online. This is just y…
Given the bias inside of Google and the fact they have already demonstrated that they are not a neutral arbitrator, the last thing I want to have is them being the arbitrator of who or what news is seen. This is more of an attempt to consolidate their power, what you can and cannot see etc.. Hard pass.
Bias? Google is now paying the infrastructure cost for channels like Alex Jones as no advertisers to generate revenues for Google. But in the name of free speech Google allows on YouTube and foots the bill. What could be more unbias?