Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google News Initiative

newsinitiative.withgoogle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 195 posts

Re: Google News Initiative

#171

Post by colordrops »

inetknght wrote: post #6

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.

I purposely blocked all news of a certain sort, and they still get pushed to the top of my feed. I'm convinced that Google is using News to push its agenda, as evidenced by both my experience and Eric Schmidt's comments [1]

1. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pa39vv/eric-schmi...

Re: Google News Initiative

#172

Post by ariwilson »

inetknght wrote: post #6

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.

I disagree; I get a lot of stuff I disagree with on Google News.

Re: Google News Initiative

#173

Post by lern_too_spel »

skrowl wrote: post #52
inetknght wrote: post #6

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.

I had a similar problem. After I stopped using gmail & google search (for privacy reasons) and started using Duck Duck Go, it almost seemed random in what news it was trying to feed me because it didn't have enough data. I messed with the little sliders, banned fake news sources like HuffPost/WashPost etc, but I couldn't get it to deliver a news feed I actually wanted to consume... so... I just gave up on it. Finally…

Are you confusing WaPo with The Washington Times?

Re: Google News Initiative

#174

Post by lern_too_spel »

kbenson wrote: post #157
skrowl wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a similar problem. After I stopped using gmail & google search (for privacy reasons) and started using Duck Duck Go, it almost seemed random in what news it was trying to feed me because it didn't have enough data. I messed with the little sliders, banned fake news sources like HuffPost/WashPost etc, but I couldn't get it to deliver a news feed I actually wanted to consume... so... I just gave up on it. Finally…

> banned fake news sources like HuffPost/WashPost etc Is the Washington Post considered fake news by most? Do you have examples of why you think it's fake? I'm curious because I actually pay for WaPo. I occasionally pull up fox news to see another side, but while I do consider WaPo liberal leaning, it seemed at least less biased than some other sources I've seen, and I would rather know the biases I'm consuming.

It has been the newspaper of record for anybody who follows the federal government for a very long time.

Re: Google News Initiative

#175

Post by danso »

nickysielicki wrote: post #139
danso wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is no such thing as fake news, there is only inaccurate news. 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 be…

> You don't think there's a distinction between "inaccurate news" and outright intentional fakery? No, I don't. When you call news fake, all you're doing is calling into question the motive of the author or outlet in addition to calling it inaccurate; You're saying, "This news is inaccurate, and the author intentionally made it so." The first part is a statement about the article itself, the second part is a useless…

Inaccurate news is news based on outdated or incomplete information.

Fake news is fake information passed off as "news", for whatever reason.

Stories, as they are reported, are constantly evolving and changing in the details. For example, in the Uber AV fatality story, news outlets initially reported the driver as a man named Rafael. The driver's actual name is Rafaela, and she is a woman. The news outlets were wrong but they got their info from a police spokesperson.

To continue reporting the story and say that it involves a driver named Rafael would be inaccurate. But the intent is not deliberate or malicious. Fake reporting would be to say Uber's driver was a 12-year old illegal immigrant, and making that fact up out of the blue.

In regards to reporting on public issues and officials, libel law gives First Amendment protection to reporting false information. A defendant is only culpable of libel/slander if gross negligence or actual malice is found: https://www.rcfp.org/category/glossary-terms/actual-malice

Re: Google News Initiative

#176

Post by ENGNR »

awakeasleep wrote: post #61
zoul wrote: post #27

As someone who runs a regional newspaper, I very much doubt that the future of healthy journalism is in the hands of a big company such as Google. We are already thinking hard what to do with the Facebook monopoly, we would be crazy to voluntarily stick our neck into another one.

First, I'm the type of person that thinks the concentration of power from monopolies could be the most pressing issue facing the USA-- But can you explain how having another choice is dangerous? It seems like it'd be a gasp of air in the face of facebook's suffocating presence.

1. Seize distribution (facebook likes, subscribe with google)

2. Muddy the waters over who's user it is (FB instant articles / AMP, FB news feed / AMP carousel)

3. Start taking higher percentages of the ad revenue

4. Laugh when the publishers try to negotiate some back with no leverage

5. Do a big song and dance about how sad it is that publishing has lost all of it's revenue

6. Rinse and repeat (instagram / google news initiative)

Re: Google News Initiative

#177

Post by e15ctr0n »

sterban wrote: post #159
e15ctr0n wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your Python scraper has a list of websites whose home pages it scrapes?

It mainly uses RSS feeds versus HTML scraping, but there are a couple of news sources where HTML is required.

You wrote elsewhere that your output HTML is highly optimized. I viewed the source of the page and I can see that it contains the CSS inside tags and images embedded as base64 encoded text - what software do you use to generate this output?

Re: Google News Initiative

#178

Post by loggedinmyphone »

inetknght wrote: post #6

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.

This perpetuates the misconception that there is a such thing as objective newsworthiness. If I only want to read stories about endangered species and polka musicians, that's no less valid than someone who wants to read about school shootings and the Olympics.

Re: Google News Initiative

#179

Post by Ntrails »

loggedinmyphone wrote: post #178
inetknght wrote: post #6

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.

This perpetuates the misconception that there is a such thing as objective newsworthiness. If I only want to read stories about endangered species and polka musicians, that's no less valid than someone who wants to read about school shootings and the Olympics.

The issue is that I don't want to only read about school shootings and Olympics - but because I spent 3 weeks following the latter closely and 2 days actively investigating the former now it dominates everything that I see and it isn't obvious that this is happening.

If I open a newspaper and skip through most of the pages to the celeb gossip one, at least it's a conscious choice. Out of sight out of mind and all that

Re: Google News Initiative

#180

Post by loggedinmyphone »

Ntrails wrote: post #179
loggedinmyphone wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This perpetuates the misconception that there is a such thing as objective newsworthiness. If I only want to read stories about endangered species and polka musicians, that's no less valid than someone who wants to read about school shootings and the Olympics.

The issue is that I don't want to only read about school shootings and Olympics - but because I spent 3 weeks following the latter closely and 2 days actively investigating the former now it dominates everything that I see and it isn't obvious that this is happening. If I open a newspaper and skip through most of the pages to the celeb gossip one, at least it's a conscious choice. Out of sight out of mind and all tha…

You can just tell Google News you're not interested in those topics. Believe me, you won't miss them. I only read news about topics I've explicitly said I'm interested in.

At first I was afraid of missing out on "general interest" news until I realized: there isn't any such thing. General uncategorized news is just a collection of topics chosen by someone else. You don't need it.

Post reply on HN