←back to thread

657 points tantalor | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
magicalhippo ◴[] No.43538715[source]
A couple of YouTubers I watch promoted this and given what I assumed it did, I'm surprised that's all it does.

If it seems to good to be true, it probably is.

replies(4): >>43538952 #>>43539459 #>>43540241 #>>43540665 #
willy_k ◴[] No.43539459[source]
Something that has been making the sponsorship rounds now is Ground News[0] which I have found very useful with just the free tier. But given how many people I have seen sponsored by them, I wonder if there is some catch, especially because I can’t imagine that many people sign up for the paid service. I can’t think of what that catch would be though, they do not have unique access to personal data, and I haven’t seen anything that would indicate that they have any information agenda.

[0] https://ground.news

replies(13): >>43539700 #>>43539913 #>>43539928 #>>43539942 #>>43540062 #>>43540063 #>>43540180 #>>43540254 #>>43540255 #>>43541541 #>>43541747 #>>43545250 #>>43550545 #
ThalesX ◴[] No.43539913[source]
I've built a local (for my country) news aggregator that basically clusters news and summarizes them based on multiple sources and gives me the rundown of the most important things, and things that can be found between conflicting sources. It's mostly a pet project for myself as it doesn't seem to have a lot of stickyness without the clickbait.

I gave the 'product' to friends and some of them told me "oh, you should do it like ground.news where I can see left, center, right". This idea turns me off so much. Why would I care if it's deemed left, center or right by some commitee. Just give me the information that's there in most sources and it's probably be going to be close to some objective overview of the situation.

replies(4): >>43540056 #>>43540080 #>>43540268 #>>43540286 #
quickymonster ◴[] No.43540268[source]
I think you misunderstand the feature.

Ground news tells you the bias of publications that have published the news item not the slant of the news item itself. It lets you see how much news gets completely ignored by the right and left (the right is way worse) when it isn't favorable to their cause. It's also really interesting to sample both sides and see how wildly the facts get slanted as you get further from center.

The publishers are biased, not the news item.

replies(2): >>43540302 #>>43542405 #
ThalesX ◴[] No.43540302[source]
I think I understand this feature pretty well. What I'm arguing for is taking the common information between all news sources (without having to place them in left / right / center) is much higher signal to noise.

Honestly your paranthesis that "the right is way worse" is already too political for my taste. It makes me feel dumb for even writing this reply. Alas, these are my thoughts. News should be news. What happened and when. Not some attack vector against a group of people or another.

replies(3): >>43540683 #>>43540840 #>>43541376 #
1. ropable ◴[] No.43541376{5}[source]
> Honestly your paranthesis that "the right is way worse" is already too political for my taste.

They're not wrong, though.