61–66 of 66 posts
I don't want personalized news, I use Google News for the exact opposite reason. I want to see semi-random headlines from a variety of source to increase my exposure to stories I might not have seen otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> see semi-random headlines from a variety of source to increase my exposure to stories I might not have seen otherwise Isn't that exactly personalized news? But you can just load it on incognito or signed out and not have any personalization other than location/country.
Personalization does not arise from passive use. Consider the converse, articles from a list of user selected sources. That sounds more like personalized news. Besides Google News used to function that way so I think I should be entitled to my opinion of how it should function.
I opened the app and found it weird that there were news about Taylor Swift, the British royal wedding and a lot of other topics that I'm not interested in. Then I noticed I was in the "headlines" section, and not the "for you" section.
I'm glad they split both up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find that they include their interpretation of a statement when it suits a particular point of view, whereas other times they take things very literally, without a measured reading. One example is this case: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-compliant-citizenr... There's also the fact that the team behind the website does not have a stellar reputation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/th…
I don't understand what you are trying to show. Snopes debunked Infowars' absurd mischaracterization of the Ivey email (which was however poorly written in confusing pretentious wording), and produced the evidence in full to justify its position. Regarding your second link, I read it and don't see what you are driving at. It says that Snopes has some politically engaged staff members, and doesn't do individual byline…
https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-al...
The very first sentence of this content illustrates the kind of shady journalism that I would not expect to see from anyone entrusted to be a "Fact checker". They make a reference to "violence in Charlottesville" and the deaths of three people. Two of those deaths are the consequences of a completely unrelated helicopter accident. Here is a news story about the helicopter accident: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/08/1...
The title is "FACT CHECK: Are Antifa and the Alt-Right equally violent". This content goes on to make the suggestion to the reader that Antifa is not organizing any violence (this basis on which the author forms this opinion is categorically false, based on ample evidence around the internet showing cases of organized violence, not in response to "alt right rallies").
Furthermore, there are consequences to what Snopes does when they rate you false. For example:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cnn-washing-machine/
i.e. Did CNN Purchase an Industrial-Sized Washing Machine to Spin News?
resulted in this:
https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/969405110324523008/
In the abstract, "fact checking" is not a reliable solution. It is the same problem - if the journalists are not trustworthy, why are the fact checkers trustworthy? Furthermore, Snopes is not reliable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the article: > We’ve also built easy-to-use and easy-to-access controls > so you can decide if you want to see more or less of a topic or publisher.
You didn't really answer the problem? The person above was complaining that "17 apps to take a better selfie" is under the "Android" topic. Your only other choice is to block the entire publisher, which may be good if all that publisher posts is similar bad articles, but it's hard for you to know. A far better way would be to get upvote/downvote per article, and then have the AI figure what your interests are, rather…
1. subtopics (your example) where he was interested in Android but not selfie apps
2. by publisher: "I might dislike an article because the publisher is low quality"
I was replying with a solution to problem #2 only.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Snopes is very quick to claim things as "False" if it goes against their left leaning lens of the world. As an example arguments used by pro-gun advocates are marked as false. Here's a specific example: They falsify a claim that doctors kill more people than guns https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/doctors-kill-more-people-t... Yet this article linked on hacker news article states that medical error is the third bigges…
IIRC, that "250K people killed by medical error" includes every time a medical caregiver failed to prevent an already sick or injured individual from dying and didn't follow ideal procedures in retrospect. One of the examples was "the doctor didn't tell a patient with heart disease that jogging would be dangerous, and then the guy had a heart attack while jogging". That's like saying that "hospitals cause most cancer…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand what you are trying to show. Snopes debunked Infowars' absurd mischaracterization of the Ivey email (which was however poorly written in confusing pretentious wording), and produced the evidence in full to justify its position. Regarding your second link, I read it and don't see what you are driving at. It says that Snopes has some politically engaged staff members, and doesn't do individual byline…
I am trying to show a double standard and agenda driven content. https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-al... The very first sentence of this content illustrates the kind of shady journalism that I would not expect to see from anyone entrusted to be a "Fact checker". They make a reference to "violence in Charlottesville" and the deaths of three people. Two of those deaths are the consequences of a…
In the opt link, it's a "news" item, not a "Fact-check" with a ruling. You pick out mild vague statements as "discrediting", while ignoring all the major points and claims in the Snopes articles.
The second link is a fact-check, which we can all agree (right") is an accurate fact-check
FB banned a self-identified obvious satire article being reposted out of context as non-satire. Can you find an example of FB banning a non-fake article based on Snopes' ruling?
Again, what's the problem here?