"Pink slime" local news outlets erupt all over US as election nears(arstechnica.com) |
"Pink slime" local news outlets erupt all over US as election nears(arstechnica.com) |
Not mentioned in the article but pink slime sites also send out printed newspapers that look like what traditional newspapers look like except a lot thinner.
It arrives in your mailbox and plenty of people have no idea it's a complete partisan advertisement disguised as news. Some assume it's just partisan news like most news is now.
They saturate mailboxes and are probably effective at reaching older voters who are much more likely to vote.
https://www.newsguardtech.com/our-advisory-board/
> NewsGuard’s advisors provide advice and subject-matter expertise to NewsGuard. They play no role in the determinations of ratings or the Nutrition Label write ups of websites unless otherwise noted and have no role in the governance or management of the organization.
I'm not sure why I should trust that they always accurately describe when they listen to the CIA on issues. I don't trust the CIA and I don't trust a board that has a former CIA director as a member.
I've seen some news sites that will seemingly push (news) content on the front-page that is aligned with the stuff you read most about. So if such a site only pushes, say, immigration crisis news - is it because you have a history of clicking on such articles, or is it some partisan news website that is pushing negative stories regarding immigration?
We're spinning up a local newspaper site that covers the crime, decay and the hope filled people that are correcting the problems. The local incumbent paper refuses to cover any of it.
Of course, this is considered right-wing.
In what way? You stated something generic without really explaining it. For example, maybe at the end of all your articles you have an advertisement for Trump? That's effectively what this pink slime does.
Usually we're highlighting a liberal who what's to fix things for the working class. As opposed to a leftist that wants to control things for the activist class.
Although there was a paper posted here recently that suggested AI was effective at deprogramming conspiracy theory[0,1]. No idea about its credibility but claims like being able to reduce belief in conspiracy theory by "20%" seem iffy to me.
The most effective system I've seen so far, ironically (given who now runs the site) is the community notes on Twitter. But even that gets gamed by activists and bad faith actors. Still I think removing human beings from the loop isn't always helpful.
Yup. We should never forget the Bowling Green Massacre.
All the big ones play this game with everyone eles.
Trust me. I grew up in a US-made military dictatorship because the US didn't like the idea of a less US-aligned democratic government.
Or just that someone decided to hire a seemingly competent intelligence officer for a fact-checking organisation.
That, without more information, sounds VERY partisan to me. Painting the left as wanting control when some of their most salient policies are things like universal healthcare and higher taxes for billionaires, or getting more funding for schools in disadvantaged communities, or even making sure police does not disproportionately dispenses violence against specific communities seems disingenuous.
"Institutionalization" is a weird synonym for "imprisonment" to any left-wing listener, since those are the only "institutions" we put homeless people in, mentally ill or not.
This is the kind of bullshit fight that makes me miss the fairness doctrine in media. People still disagreed, but they at least focused on making their case instead of misrepresenting the other side. Now not only does the fight go on, it's full of shitty rhetorical tricks designed to appeal to emotions instead of any kind of actual policymaking. It's exhausting and I had hoped Hacker News to be a sanctuary from this.
Can't you see you are denying agency to a whole population because they live in a way you don't agree with? And keep them like that until they do?
I know homelessness takes a huge toll on mental health, but to incarcerate homeless people until they are "cured" without focusing on the causes for the mental health problems some experience is just that: taking them off the streets to somewhere people aren't forced to acknowledge they exist.
The man that lives under a bridge on the walking path near my house, who alternates between screaming for hours on end and being in a fentanyl trance, is not making logical decisions and would be better served by a psych ward and addiction treatment.
I live in a country where there is universal healthcare and I still am in full control of my healthcare decisions - I can still see a private specialist, and I have private insurance on top of the public service precisely for things like that - and to have a private room in the hospital. This also causes the private insurance to be very cheap, because the risk it deals with is much smaller.
I too miss honest debate, and news focused on providing reliable information instead of just blindly listening to anyone who wants to have a platform.
This is a good example of why we no longer have that honest debate. Words that one side uses to describe their goals get sabotaged by the other side to mean the worst possible interpretation of the results of the policy. So, in one direction, "universal health care" gets heard as "worst-case Soviet doctor hell" and in the other direction "freedom of speech" gets heard as "permission to promote literal Nazis." As long as twisting the language remains profitable, we'll never get past this.
The reasons for that are many, and all of those are completely artificial - there are almost no political incentives to make it work well (and compete with private healthcare), and plenty of incentives to make it not work at all (because private healthcare donates a lot to politicians).
> and in the other direction "freedom of speech" gets heard as "permission to promote literal Nazis."
That's one feature of absolute freedom of speech - and that makes the freedom of speech a complicated issue with a lot of grey in the middle. OTOH, agencies such as the FCC and the FDA exist that could be a model for one that prevents the soviet-doctor-hell scenario.
Please, stop. You didn't say depriving the seriously mentally ill and the terminally drug addicted of agency. You said it about homeless people, justifying with a plausible, but not confirmed, argument that they are mentally ill, drug addicted, or both.
I too want the mentally ill and drug addicts to be helped, and even conced that, in those cases, it might need to be necessary to treat them against their will, but to just incarcerate (because good psychiatric care is expensive, and the US, it seems, can't even afford universal healthcare on par with the average European country) them even though they have not been convicted of any crimes.