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

Why I'm skeptical of Ground News

sjodle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 70 posts

Re: Why I'm skeptical of Ground News

#61

Post by krapp »

burnt-resistor wrote: post #57
goatlover wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both sides aren't the same. The right is much better at propaganda.

The right is better at propaganda, collaboration, distribution, advertising, investing, fundraising, outreach, and monetization. Thom Hartmann laments regularly that FreeSpeechTV is a close to a progressive network as there is. Meanwhile, he alleges a conservative media owner offered him multiple millions to change his tune in exchange for distribution, support, and marketing. Yes, he also took advantage of the RT Am…

I think it's more accurate that the right is better aligned with the interests of capital, and capitalists control all of those things and have the levers of government biased in their favor.

The left has always had to fight an uphill battle politically and culturally and financially, which is why they've been at their most successful when working outside of system versus trying to work within it.

Re: Why I'm skeptical of Ground News

#62

Post by krapp »

wnc3141 wrote: post #26
PeterStuer wrote: post #13

Left leaning author is of the opinion that left-leaning stories tend to have far better sourcing than right-leaning ones, and are less politically polarized. News at 11.

I think right leaning (in a traditional definition) sort of undersells the current right wing media/political sphere. Its difficult to evaluate the credibility of a movement that is fundamentally, albeit inconsistently anti-institution, anti-intellectual/ anti-education, and believes that coercion is a valid path for the homogenization of a national culture. Credible news isn't left leaning as much as it is the lefto…

They're anti-institution because they think institutions have been corrupted by the left - they trust their own institutions. Intellectualism has been corrupted by leftism/communism/feminism/secularism what have you, but they have their own intellectuals. Education is indoctrinating the youth with degenerate ideology and communist propaganda, but they trust schools that hew to their narrative. "Coercion being a valid path for the homogenization of a national culture" is soft selling some very obvious and common right-wing historical policies. IMHO This particular iteration of the right differs from tradition in its self-awareness and chaotic nature, but not in its essential core ideals. It just suffers from the same post-COVID post social media brain rot as everyone else.

As far as credibility goes, I think they're as credible as they've ever been. How credible that is is left as an exercise to the reader.

Re: Why I'm skeptical of Ground News

#63

Post by alganet »

gsf_emergency_2 wrote: post #53
alganet wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? Get your arguments together, c'mon. I expect more.

That was no argument. Those were observations ;)

That's exausting. "It's not X, it's Y". Dictionary definition claims.

Can't you grasp meaning? Even LLMs can.

Re: Why I'm skeptical of Ground News

#64

Post by hitekker »

wredcoll wrote: post #43
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a dodgy study that "establishes" a preconceived idea really all that much better than a random person's conspiracy theory?

Literally yes, we can read the study's hypothesis, its experiments, the data it collects and then actually evaluate it on the merits. Conspiracy theories are unfalsifiable.

IMO, a bad study requires a lot more effort and expertise to dismiss than a conspiracy theory. Most people, not even paid experts, don't have that time. They're more liable to accept a bad but fashionable study than an easily debunked fantasy like Pizzagate.

Hidden poison is worse than obvious manure.

Re: Why I'm skeptical of Ground News

#65

Post by hitekker »

exabrial wrote: post #23

>The data collected here shows that left-leaning stories tend to have far better sourcing than right-leaning ones In the same breath, he quotes an article about it dousing Newfoundland in microplastics; a broad sweeping conclusion from a laughably flawed study method for the given results. And to be fair, this isn't a diss on the student's effort: scientific study is the holy grail. However, that headline and what wa…

Similarly, the author's "Truth" sections are rather glib and misleading. Each one could be its own article and analysis, i.e., a proper fact-check, but he seems to have rushed to the conclusions.

Re: Why I'm skeptical of Ground News

#66

Post by jfengel »

unsignedint wrote: post #9
riskable wrote: post #3

Summary: Ground.news puts far too much faith in the legitimacy of many right-wing headlines; giving them front-page views as "blindspots". Meaning: Even though the story itself is complete BS/non-factual, the algorithm shows it as a legitimate thing that isn't being covered by left-leaning or centrist news. To fix this, Ground.news should update their algorithm to perform much more scrutiny for headlines trending on…

I believe the main purpose of Ground News—especially the Blindspot feature—is to highlight what the "other side" is reading, rather than to lend legitimacy to the reported content. I still find that information valuable, but perhaps that distinction could have been made more explicit.

I don't know what to do with that information. "The other side believes absurd new thing" is subsumed by "The other side continuously believes absurd new things", which I already knew -- and already knew that I could not alter that.

Re: Why I'm skeptical of Ground News

#67

Post by burnt-resistor »

krapp wrote: post #61
burnt-resistor wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right is better at propaganda, collaboration, distribution, advertising, investing, fundraising, outreach, and monetization. Thom Hartmann laments regularly that FreeSpeechTV is a close to a progressive network as there is. Meanwhile, he alleges a conservative media owner offered him multiple millions to change his tune in exchange for distribution, support, and marketing. Yes, he also took advantage of the RT Am…

I think it's more accurate that the right is better aligned with the interests of capital, and capitalists control all of those things and have the levers of government biased in their favor. The left has always had to fight an uphill battle politically and culturally and financially, which is why they've been at their most successful when working outside of system versus trying to work within it.

No, there is no "the left" uniform hivemind but there are many factions. The neoliberal spectrum is very much aligned with capital to where they almost mirror Republicans; that was Clinton's original sin. The Abundance neo-neoliberals are the latest incarnation of them.

The progressive spectrum rarely wants to cooperate or coordinate and is often too preciously-pure rather than pragmatic to learn about business to succeed.

Dragging the Overton Window back left won't magically happen with Che Guevara T-shirts, People's Front of Judea vs. the Judean People's Front, or pure ideals "too perfect" to be tainted by making a venture out of it.

Re: Why I'm skeptical of Ground News

#68

Post by unsignedint »

jfengel wrote: post #66
unsignedint wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the main purpose of Ground News—especially the Blindspot feature—is to highlight what the "other side" is reading, rather than to lend legitimacy to the reported content. I still find that information valuable, but perhaps that distinction could have been made more explicit.

I don't know what to do with that information. "The other side believes absurd new thing" is subsumed by "The other side continuously believes absurd new things", which I already knew -- and already knew that I could not alter that.

It’s really about understanding the broader spectrum. You could assume that what you’re reading is the whole picture—but it’s still useful to see how the existence of these so-called “absurd things” influences and shapes the narratives within the media you do choose to consume.

Re: Why I'm skeptical of Ground News

#69

Post by burnt-resistor »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #60
burnt-resistor wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd sooner setup an AWS micro instance with wireguard than use some VPN that might well be logging everything and selling it to data brokers and/or sharing with domestic/foreign intelligence services.

TBH good luck doing anything with it, you'll be blocked everywhere. But yeah I agree. You have to trust someone, somewhere. Adding layers helps tho.

Are you suggesting IP/BGP discrimination against AWS subnets? So what's the alternative, a random, cheap VPS in (country of choice)?

Re: Why I'm skeptical of Ground News

#70

Post by PeterStuer »

goatlover wrote: post #17
PeterStuer wrote: post #13

Left leaning author is of the opinion that left-leaning stories tend to have far better sourcing than right-leaning ones, and are less politically polarized. News at 11.

Both sides aren't the same. The right is much better at propaganda.

Isn't this a contradictory statement, as 'better' propaganda would entail you don't perceive it as propaganda?
Post reply on HN