181–190 of 195 posts
'journalism' and 'news' are obsolete concepts. A journalist was an employee of a large entity who wrote articles and made videos that complied with the reality and perspective the company they work for wanted to promote. (There are still a few of these employees left working for what's left of these entities) 'News' was selective packaged information to influence and inform the broadest reach, with a goal of selling…
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.
Out of similar concern, could you share your blackhole list?
0.0.0.0 news.google.com
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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 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 think all of google search results are increasingly becoming more and more "filter bubbly" too, I have to anonymize completely or I know I'm just going to get bullshit results. This announcement is hilarious, their products harm journalism bigly. It's like McDonald's putting a nice little leaf drawing about the environment on their cups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The python scraper base64 encodes all the images, so that data is prepared for the web server. The python library being used is PIL. The CSS is hand-written in a Go template. The goal was to have all the rendering done in a single request, so I choose to embed the CSS and relax the CSP on styles.
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.
This looks great, thank you. Consider a donation button.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
What is "fake information"? The word 'fake' has been transformed recently to mean something that is not well defined. Everyone knows that a 'fake' watch is a counterfeit watch, and the same goes for a 'fake' id. It's fraudulent, and that usage is well established. Past that, lines get blurry. A "fake" person is someone who is superficial and cares a lot about appearances. Where does "fake" information fit in here? If we photoshop freckles out of a photo or slim down a waistline, we might call that a "fake" photo, but the picture is still mostly accurate.
Does true information that has been stretched or selectively omitted fall under "fake"? Does it have to be completely made up?
> [...] But the intent is not deliberate or malicious. [...]
So it comes down to intent of the author in your mind? Wouldn't you agree that calling some news "fake" is primarily a statement about the author, then? You're saying, "the information is inaccurate, and the author did so with intent."
Have you disagreed with me?
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?
Google has fact checked a claim that was not made in right leaning Daily Caller website : http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/09/googles-new-fact-check-fea... Although it may be bugs and not bias : https://www.poynter.org/news/blame-bugs-not-partisanship-goo... Google continuing to host Alex Jones may not be be 'in the name of free speech', they may not want people to go to other platforms to get their content. They can l…
Google does not have to play the cost for more left leaning content like they have to do with alt right content.