31–40 of 195 posts
I got fed up with Google News a year or so ago, over the echo chamber that the news site has become. It motivated me to create https://statesreport.com , with no ads and no tracking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Is there some feedback feature or something you use to get a helpful range of stories? 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 u…
You can find those sliders in your settings. Also they ask you periodically on the desktop homepage.
Pro tip: if you hate the mobile or new UI as much as I do, set your user agent to iPhone and go to google.com/nwshp. For whatever reason that magical incantation gives you the classic home page (with the sliders I mentioned in easy access/obvious places). I’ll be really excited if someone knows how to just set that globally in settings. I haven’t found it.
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?
Can't think of anyone I would trust more. Can you? Who? Google allowing video on YouTube they can't monetize kind of saids it all about Google and free speech.
Huh? You mean video that doesn't contain ads? If those videos attract users to YouTube, then those users are more likely to start watching some videos that do contain ads. Seems pretty straight forward, and says basically nothing about whether or not Google can be trusted.
I got fed up with Google News a year or so ago, over the echo chamber that the news site has become. It motivated me to create https://statesreport.com , with no ads and no tracking.
I got fed up with Google News a year or so ago, over the echo chamber that the news site has become. It motivated me to create https://statesreport.com , with no ads and no tracking.
I’d never heard of your site but I just checked it out. I’ve got to say it looks really nice. I’ll bookmark it and try to use it. Thanks for making it!
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…
I'd be the first to agree that "fake news" is a term thrown around too loosely, and that fake news is one of the hardest problems for algorithms to attempt to solve, because it's just as hard for humans. For instance, pushing the story that Bill Cosby has been accused of rape would've been considered by many journalists to be "fake news", either because they didn't think it was true or because they thought it was old news that was settled. Cosby's biographer was a well-regarded CNN senior editor but chose to omit rape details because he thought they were all old allegations [0].
But to say that there is literally no "fake news" is ignorant of what we've already seen come to pass. One of the better known examples was the "El Chapo escapes (again)" story that was created by a site deliberately designed to look like ABC News by stealing its trademarks and mimicking its domain: abcnews.com.co [1]. You don't think there's a distinction between "inaccurate news" and outright intentional fakery? Seriously?
[0] https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-agony-of-cosbys-biographer...
[1] https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/No-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Facebook will be overjoyed to learn that they are not allowing a right-of-center voice into the process. You should probably bring that to the attention of British and US authorities; they'll be eager to know, given the recent news.
Your uncle sharing InfoWars doesn't count.