Google will one day be the arbitrators of news. If it doesn't fit in their world view, whether it's true or not. Will be removed from the results.

I think now is the time to setup a different model and remove their monopoly. Internet freedoms are at stake here.

Do no evil? Yeah right.

Using the scientific method, meta-studies and suchlike our species has built an enormous corpus of knowledge, I'm happy to let that evolving concensus be the basis of our decisions.

For example the fact that vaccines do a more good than harm by an order of magnitude is no longer up for debate. There is a lunatic fringe who disagree, their unfounded fiction should not be shown to curious first time parents on google.

To insist that everyone can pick and choose reality and that we should all be wary of "facts" is to cause real harm.

https://www.upwork.com/o/profiles/users/_~012388b8f7c8ed8aa2...

As far as visuals vs prose, I see it as "both-and" rather than "either-or". And in addition to our journalism and personalization work, we also integrate with interactive visualization tools like Tableau.

Later, after general AI, I will argue the opposite, that human-written articles should be labeled as such so I don't waste my time on them. ;)

I always get a chuckle out of thinking about it.

1. In linguistics, an eggcorn is an idiosyncratic substitution of a word or phrase for a word or words that sound similar or identical in the speaker's dialect (sometimes called oronyms). The new phrase introduces a meaning that is different from the original but plausible in the same context, such as "old-timers' disease" for "Alzheimer's disease". - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn

It would report on whatever triggers newsworthiness[1] rather than whatever gains the attention of a reporter (which would have fewer if any stated minimums or maximum requirements).

Concretely speaking it's the difference between human-curated search engines and automated search engines like Google.

[1] Since such a system would require thought and design, there would be less impulsive influence.

There was a series of anti-war protests at a mall around Albany NY in the run up to the second gulf war.

I had been covering the story on a regular basis, but it had gotten very little attention because the media had decided that anti-war protests were not newsworthy.

Well, finally at one of these protests they arrest a judge and that is newsworthy. People start looking for names and places and these match the story I'd written at the last protest (where there had not been any arrests.)

There is a certain delicious irony that you managed to contrive such a perfect example of a dangling preposition in the very next sentence after your complaint about a dangling modifier.

Skitt's Law in effect once again!

Or to put it another way, while it was not worth the human effort to write the story, it wasn't worth the CPU cycles to write the machine generated version either. The story was not worth writing or publishing or reading at all because nobody cares including the author (which is why a machine can write it).

I guess if I'd taken the time to read your original link we could have a more interesting discussion on whether pretty basic earnings information in a format more friendly and available to non-professional investors was adding noise to the market or providing a useful counterweight to the amount of free publicity that more prominent companies' earnings get. But I've probably already poisoned the well on this one.

Prior to that the exact same judge would make some statement, as would other people. People searching for the story about the arrest would get a story about a previous protest without an arrest and find that everything, except the arrest itself, was pretty much the same.

Though my sentence was grammatically and semantically correct, but the sentence I was complaining about was semantically invalid, so it was a little too much from you to point that out (stranding here fully intended).

> If you cc me on all your work correspondence, I'll be happy to point out any grammatical errors I find (for a fee, obviously).

A "nice" offer, but I'll pass. First, I'm not in a position to copy my work correspondence to a random dude from the internets. Second, my work correspondence is mainly in my native language.