11–20 of 35 posts
I'm not sure how you can do this without getting sued for copyright infringement.
lol “perspective of the ML developer” maybe Something like this can be great, but feel a hand curation would probably be better served. Here’s a quick one, read Vox and then Breitbart. It’s an intellectual rollercoaster ride.
I agree, this is the best approach by far. You should read fox news and cnn to get a balanced perspective. Though few minds can handle the cognitive dissonance, sadly.
I'm not sure how you can do this without getting sued for copyright infringement.
There are a team of human journalists and editors producing our coverage; the ML side of things is akin to a research assistant who's always awake and following what's going on.
https://knowherenews.com/event/51fd8dac-6a58-4d8b-ba14-83f0c...
Compared to the story in Time.
http://time.com/5389781/elon-musk-smokes-marijuana-podcast/
The first paragraph is the same.
And that was just the first one I tried.
lol “perspective of the ML developer” maybe Something like this can be great, but feel a hand curation would probably be better served. Here’s a quick one, read Vox and then Breitbart. It’s an intellectual rollercoaster ride.
I agree, this is the best approach by far. You should read fox news and cnn to get a balanced perspective. Though few minds can handle the cognitive dissonance, sadly.
If you absolutely must approach this with a false-equivalence (or "fake-balance") mindset, the WSJ and NYT are two much better sources, and have a better claim of being equidistant from something approaching a political center (CNN, at least when I used to watch it, was nowhere near as insane as FOX at the time).
I you don't have much time, just read the NYT. It's the pinnacle of journalistic integrity, and, despite repeat assertion to the opposite, they are better today than they have ever been.
But still: the idea that truth is somehow subject to voting, as expressed in your slider, is far too post-modern for my tastes.
lol “perspective of the ML developer” maybe Something like this can be great, but feel a hand curation would probably be better served. Here’s a quick one, read Vox and then Breitbart. It’s an intellectual rollercoaster ride.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, this is the best approach by far. You should read fox news and cnn to get a balanced perspective. Though few minds can handle the cognitive dissonance, sadly.
Isn't this rather like suggesting you read anti-vax and vaccination proponents or climate scientists and climate change deniers in order to get a 'balanced' perspective?
While you’re right that they aren’t equidistant from the political center, the bigger issue is that they’re both incredibly dumb.
But I think it's really important to replace the "left bias""right bias" slider with a button and text field that simply requests users to report non-neutrality in the write-up, without identifying it as "left" or "right".
Reduction to left/right is rarely helpful and often unhelpful. For most issues complex/significant enough to warrant headline, there isn't -- or shouldn't be -- a monolithic "left" or "right" position one could be biased towards.
Is an authoritarian bias left or right? Is a populist bias left or right? Or is a pro-universal-income bias left or right? Is legislative supremacy as opposed to judicial supremacy a left or right bias?
Better to get the yes/no data about perceived non-neutrality and then analyze the qualitative comment.