Thankfully Mastodon seems to be doing a good job at providing news like this for me. I first saw it the morning it happened because I had to approve the trending link that a lot of people were posting.
I heard about it from television news. I normally only watch TV broadcasts between the time when I turn the TV on and launching an app / turning a HDMI device on. Which is not very long. Does Elon have any idea how unlikely it is for me to pick major news this way?
I don’t know a single person who would ever consider owning an HOA home, even the investors. I know two who have owned an HOA home, both sold them. No I’m speaking of HOAs.
Are Timeshares still a thing? (Googling) … Man I would have thought that they would have died out by now. Nope
I wouldn’t went another HOA home, but I know people who like them, small community pool, lawn service, etc. My experience went downhill with the “nextdoor” app and neighbors with too much time.
I was reading an article the other day about a couple who bought an ocean view home to retire.
It was perfect, but the neighbours driveway ran along the beach between their home and the beach - and they thought it would be nice to have a garden there instead… so they spoke to their new neighbour about maybe buying the land for the driveway, and selling him an equal sized strip of land on the other side of their property. Basically, no change to their neighbour’s home at all - but the neighbour’s driveway would go between two houses instead of along the beach.
All perfectly reasonable, but somehow it fell to shit when the neighbour… turned out to be a nutcase and bought two huge rusty shipping containers, an old bulldozer, cars that had been crashed, etc and dumped all of them along his driveway right next to their house. And when they complained, he added huge a canvas tarp sections between all that mess and the ocean. So now they can’t even see the ocean at all from their home - all they can see is a huge white wall and a bunch of rusty old crap along their fence line.
If they were in a HOA… they would be able to force him to remove all of that junk. But they’re not, so there’s nothing they can do. They tried taking it to court, but the judge said “yeah, he’s obviously an asshole… but it’s his land. He is allowed to have shipping containers and ruined cars on his land”.
If you’re in a HOA, you might occasionally be forced to do something you’d rather not do. But you will never have to deal with totally unreasonable neighbours like that example. Living in a HOA definitely isn’t something I’d want - but I can see why some people like them.
But anyway… I fail to see how that is any way like X. If anything X is exactly the opposite of a HOA… it’s like buying a house in a suburb that’s full of trolls and assholes. A “HOA” social network is a place where everyone is boring and if you’re not boring, you get kicked out.
Your last sentence sums it up perfectly. Conform to social norms or suffer. No thank you. People who trade freedom for security have neither and deserve neither.
I hope your properties do well and your roof(s) last 10 years over estimates.
I used to get all my news from Reddit and I, unfortunately, fell into the habit of reading just the headline and then comments. After quitting I started looking for an healthy replacement to my news fix. I looked at many different RSS apps but many of them had monthly fees or the interface just sucked. Eventually I found an amazing one (iOS only) called feeeed that has been incredible. It’s free, no in-app purchases or ads, lovely interface, a simple reader mode, dark mode, and more. I really recommend it for anyone trying to quit Twitter/Reddit for news.
Yeah sorry, my subscriptions aren’t the best example of the content you can subscribe to. I mostly follow tech news and deals. My intent with the screenshot was to showcase the general layout of the app. You can subscribe to any RSS feed you want though, like traditional news sources about non-tech things.
Here’s an example of what that could look like (I made a folder with 3 traditional news sources and pinned it to the bottom nav bar):
I just gave it a whirl out of curiosity. It’s kind of garbage in, garbage out. Subscribe to good RSS news feeds, and you get good stuff. Subscribe to Gizmodo blog spam, and you get blog spam.
Twitter, now X, was once a useful site for breaking news.
the fuck ? No it never was, the finest info you ever could find there was thinly veiled holocaust denial ? If journalists really think fucking twitter was ever an important source of news that explain the downfall of journalism
What are you talking about? It was the go-to app for journalists for a decade. They could live report from events in a simple, chronological thread, or collect eye witness reports by quote tweeting personal accounts. I followed the Charlottesville and January 6th riots in real time by reading journalists threads. There was a lot of trival or even harmful bullshit on Twitter, but the way journalists used it was a huge positive.
The thing that happened 13 years ago and did nothing but overthrow Gaddafi, a man who, even if all criticism of his regime is valid, was replaced with something much worse because NATO doesn’t actually care about democracy for brown people?
It wasn’t the source of the news, but where people would consume news. Most of what the site was actually good for was making a notice with a link to a real article. Like an RSS feed with extra steps.
That’s why I never got into it. The main way it was actually useful was still totally unnecessary.
The only reason I had a Twitter account was because there was an emergency event in my local area and Twitter was the one place I could get information about it right now. There were locals sharing what they knew, emergency services telling people what measures needed to be taken where, and journalists on the ground saying what they knew in real time. It was invaluable.
When I left Twitter, that ability to follow breaking news as it happens was the thing I was afraid I'd miss out on most. It's bittersweet to find out that I didn't need to worry about that after all.
Similarly, there was a sonic boom over our area in 2016, I kinda knew what it was having an interest in military aircraft but twitter was on fire about an explosion in our area and the military base itself responded with information on what was happening.
Turned out it was Euro fighter typhoons responding to a commercial flight that lost coms.
Exactly, I was the same. This is the News that Twitter was good for, the live events.
I’d always check Twitter for the initial on the scene explanation of what was happening from local people. In my case it was a massive warehouse fire that I could see the smoke in the distance. Obviously there was nothing about it on the traditional news sites, but loads of stuff from local people on Twitter immediately.
Then afterwards you’d just read the proper News outlets for the full official details after the fact.
The sudden influx of random racists on a local space after a tragedy is cliche at this point. They are just waiting in the wings to spread some nonsense and pretend to be from there.
Is it that or is it just bots and trolls? IF they are real people, I’m glad they have a platform to be on so they’re recognized for who they really are. Some day, this will all catch up to them all.
I used to use Twitter as a way of directly following a few sources of news. Follow NPR, BBS, Reuters, Etc. I don’t know anyone who expected to learn of news from “the algorithm”. That’s still true today. Expect to get fed news from whatever is trending and you’ll be bamboozled, fed useless stories a day propaganda.
Some of these sources can instead be snagged from RSS feeds and Mastodon and besides official apps, those are much better ways to follow news and always have been.
I did find some reliable sources on aggregators like flipboard, but setting aside the best way to follow the news responsibly is still directly following them via browser links and collections. The other risk is following too many things, to the point of obsessing over them. So I decided to give myself a number of good articles instead, and go by quality. I am out of the loop when it comes to social media trends, but it’s not a bad thing.
It’s actually crazy how low the percentage of people under like… forty is now that actually gets their news direct from a news site. Seriously, i don’t know a single person from like 20-35 who actually just goes on the NPR or C-SPAN app or whatever.
It kind of sucks. So much news is just reading the headline and seeing a photo now. And I just feel like there’s something bad about being able to see a comment section on Twitter or Reddit or even Lemmy now on every news event. Makes for a lot more group think rather than just reading the news and going “huh”
yea definitel! - working on a site for that with docs etc, prolly a week or two - currently rebuilding the user settings / models - just a preview till then ^^
Reuters is also good and less USA Centric (at least for their notifications) which is a good thing for me because I am not from the USA, but AP is excellent too). I don’t think you can even disable USA news in your “interests” with AP.
Both Reuters and AP are news agencies that sell news (and stuff like photos) to other news companies. So it’s very likely that everyone here has read at least some content from them.
Both are also often regarded as among the most reliable and least biased news sources available. AFP is also in that group.
I highly prefer getting my news from independent journalists/investigators. You think everyone reading the same news sites is going to be better for groupthink?!
Wow you get backed into a corner and resort to middle school name calling. Like, maybe you need to get out of your comfort zone. Maybe you need to put on your big boy pants and accept that your original premise is incoherent
Sometimes there’s good discussion though, and it’s good to hear different takes.
Having comments also gives less power to the writer, like could you imagine if we all took Fox News or CNN headlines at face value and didn’t discuss them?
You can literally just read news from less overtly biased news sources. There are scant few articles that I can think of where I really need a redditors interpretation of it
It’s not so much what their interpretation is of the specific article is, it’s more that you might find more information from someone who has info that was left out, or maybe another source that has conflicting information.
Could you show us a few not so biased news sources? I suppose this will also vary wildly by topic. A news outlet might be narrative/propaganda driven on one topic, but not about another.
It’s so much mess (through corporate ties or money) to sort through, it’s hard to trust any of them anymore
Check out the articles posted on !ImproveTheNews . Every article is a summary of facts, followed by an explanation of the narrative being pushed by each side of the story.
In a recent article about Sam Bankman-Fried being sentenced to 25 years for example, there is a “Pro-establishment narrative” and an “Establishment-critical narrative” given. In an article about the FCC and TikTok there’s a Pro-China and Anti-China narrative given. When necessary there will be more than two narratives given.
As a bonus there’s usually a “Nerd Narrative” with a percent chance of occurrence of something related to the story. I don’t know what Metaculus is or who comprises their “prediction community”, but saying shit like this is a bit ridiculous:
There’s a 50% chance that after a (weak) Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is created, it will take at least 28.7 months for the first superintelligent AI to be created, according to the Metaculus prediction community.
Thanks, that’s really helpful there lol. Sometimes they can be genuinely informative, but it’s the only thing I view with any real skepticism in any particular article.
Could you show us a few not so biased news sources? I suppose this will also vary wildly by topic. A news outlet might be narrative/propaganda driven on one topic, but not about another.
Have you heard of Ground News? It’s basically a news aggregator that shows multiple stories on the same event, but with a bias rating and a factuality score, as well as a ownership category. Also, a blindspot category which shows articles being shown predominantly by one side and not the other.
The Ground News bias ratings are calculated using three independent news monitoring organizations: All Sides, Ad Fontes Media, and Media Bias Fact Check. This score does not measure the bias of specific news articles. It is an assessment of the political bias of the publication. The rating takes into consideration things like the wording, story choices and political affiliation of the outlet.
Clicking in a bit looking for coverage of drumft’s criminal issues, his opening page under election category doesn’t even mention such and displays him as just a candidate.
Just my first look though. I’ll keep trying. The L-R ratings are helpful.
Yea, you can’t just read the news and go huh. anymore, because the news is no longer “this is what happened.” Now it’s “OMG YOU WON’T BELIEVE THIS YOU’RE GONNA HATE THAT this happened AND EVERYONE IS PISSED”
The number of those news outlets is shrinking, though. It used to be that every city had a local paper with real news. Now they’re all part of a media conglomerate and do the bare minimum of actual journalism.
I get my news from a paper and it is a decent blend of good and bad news. Quality journalism. I gift articles often just to kinda fight back against the whole title-and-picture-only news.
Great for seeing a headline and then finding an article yourself. Less great for finding articles. Half of you people here have a penchant for linking super weird news sources.
Lemmy is massively biased though. While that doesn’t mean the articles aren’t factual, you’re still only ever hearing one side of the story. What I find time after time is that majority of people who have strong opinions about current events are completely uncapable of fairly steelmanning the opposing side’s argument.
There’s still a massive difference between news sources like NY times and Breitbart. It matters where you get your news from and even if it’s coming from a biased source you should atleast be aware of the bias. Some sites atleast try to counter their bias while others embrace it. These things matter. It’s not binary.
Difference in quality? Yes. Difference in bias? No. The NYT has an extreme neo liberal US oriented business empire bias that as a refugee of the Iran Iraq war and victim of US foreign policy they supported that I don’t trust. I also don’t trust Breitbart.
Lemmy, you are biased. You probably don’t intend to be, but it’s true for now.
Going to sound weird, but I came here because of who I knew the vocal people were. I didn’t understand many of their view points and reasons for being mad/hateful/etc. I am much more enlightened now and learn different perspectives everyday.
It is a giant echo chamber though if you are already very rooted in the spectrum here, and voicing decent usually leads to dog pile.
This is related to attitudes about news, politics, etc.
I’m not sure why you think that news orgs aren’t also biased. Everything and everyone is biased, even those that genuinely try to not let it show through and be fully impartial.
For me it’s RSS, Lemmy, and suprisingly YouTube as I can get the major news sources( eg BBC, CNN, FT, DT, MSNBC) chunked up into specific topics so I don’t have to sit through a bunch of garbage to get to the topics I care about. And I get it from more sources.
That’s how I get my news. I visit the Finnish equivalence of BBC once or twice a day and that’s my news diet. If they don’t report on it, I don’t need to know. Something like what a VOX journalist thinks about Twitter I couldn’t care less so I don’t even bother reading it. I’m proudly unaware of most of the things that non-serious news organizations report on.
That’s not my point. What I’m saying is that I knowingly limit my news diet to what is the most important/interesting and this is neither so I’m not bothering my mind with it. I don’t need to know and not knowing has zero effect on my life.
Same for me with news from Germany. Technically tagesschau.de is a news magazine run by our largest public broadcaster and not the broadcaster itself, but it’s the same thing really.
And then I casually browse news.google.com in German to skim over headlines that might not have made the mainstream news. My blocklist there features more than 200 “news” sites, so that I really get a curated feed of some 20-30 trustworthy ones.
Honestly I think a big part of people looking at headlines and pictures is closely related to people’s attention span. Why read many words when less is better. Those same people can’t hold conversations for more than a minute or two on the subject then it spirals into speculations which is where the misinformation starts to take place. Society is bombarded with so much information hour by hour people don’t want to miss anything so they skim through an immense amount of partial information. It’s wild and I’m guilty of it myself so I’m in no place to speak ill of anyone.
A few months back, i subscribed to the news aggregator Ground News. Although there are more expensive options, i pay about $6/year and I love it. You get news stories from lots of different sites and gives you a good idea of biases. I highly recommend it!
I think the bigger issue is how bad news sites have gotten. I’m sure part of the reason for that is people getting news online from alternative sources, but mainstream sources are significantly worse than they once were which just pushes things further in that direction.
That said, I don’t know which caused more group-think. Was it having a few mainstream sources and that’s it or having many worse quality but more diverse sources? People relate to the new version more probably, which encourages them to follow along and not think for themselves, but I don’t know if that’s better or worse than not really having any dissenting opinion available at all.
Yeah, bad news sites is the reason I didn’t follow any news for years, I got burnt out verifying just about every article. Most bended the story one way or another, headlines usually not quite what the article read…
Having everyone see the same news didn’t mean there was no dissent and no discussion.
The facts shouldn’t really be all that controversial. A quote from a political leader is a fact. Everyone sees this quote. People have different opinions about what the politician said, feel different ways about it, talk about whether they actually trust that politician.
Now with more “diverse sources” those source often decide to report or not report on something depending on whether it fits a narrative they are promoting. The alternative sources decide what people’s opinions should be then determine which facts should be reported that align with those opinions.
The existence of these alternative sources allows people to choose sources that align to their feelings and never be challenged by inconvenient facts. A mainstream source that reports the facts regardless of whose politics it helps or hurts is seen to be biased relative to one’s chosen source that always conforms to how they feel.
There is more groupthink now because people are never challenged with inconvenient facts. Sure there’s multiple groups (that hate each other) but people within these groups have less real discussion and conform to the group more because they never get information that challenges how they think.
Most facts aren’t really controversial. Ship loses power and hits a bridge. Bridge collapses. Poltiician says X in response. These are things that happened. Why would there be a variety on how this story is reported? It’s only if there’s a need to push an agenda that there would be diverse sources for this story. And most news stories are actually like this.
I use 1440, which sums up daily news in a fact-based way and leaves out all opinion. It’s magical. It takes 10 minutes to read and I’m not bombarded by why “libtards are destroying america” or why “this ties back to trump destroying democracy” somehow.
Watching CSPAN is weird now. It used to be more boring but some the more recent ones have felt I was watching a behind the scenes show where each person was saying things so perfectly crafted for sound bites they seem incongruent with what someone else would say.
I’m guilty of doing this (just reading the headlines) as well. I usually do it for these reasons:
I don’t care enough to want to read more. For example, news about US politics. I don’t live in the US. I feel that reading the headlines is enough to keep me informed about what’s happening, but I really don’t care any more than that.
The details aren’t valuable to me. For example, the Apple anti-trust lawsuit… Is it important? Yes. I’m already well aware of the horrible anticonsumer practices of Apple. But do I need to know all the particular details about the lawsuit? Not really. In fact, the only thing that matters is the final verdict, which hasn’t happened yet.
I care, but I already know enough details.
I don’t feel like the article would bring a lot of value, especially if the title is click-baity. I’ve encountered too many articles that are void of content, just the title repeated in 10x more words.
I don’t like visiting news sites because, in addition to all of them being obnoxious and ad riddled, I feel like I’m wasting a lot of time reading long articles that could be rewritten as 3 bullet points. On platforms like lemmy, users will highlight the important bits in the comments which saves a lot of time.
I have grown to like www.axios.com for reasons like your last bullet point. Frequently they give 3-4 bullet points that tells you the story without a shit tone of editorializing.
It's no longer a good place for news, discussion, or even real opinions. It's just an echo chamber of hate and closed-mindedness, and increasingly just bots talking to each other.
It depends. In the early days of the Android ROM scene, Twitter was the best place for news. Cyanogen and all the crews basically announced their new releases exclusively on Twitter. There has been a similar vibe for other scenes over the years as well. Discord is largely taking over that space these days, but I miss the simplicity of following one or two people whose updates I cared about a bunch over the new reality where I'm in 30 Discords and they're all chock full of notifications for endless nonsense I care nothing about.
I'd argue it was a good place for FAST news. For a lot of major events you can find posts and videos from users before the media releases anything, which is kind of a first for humanity at least in terms of accessibility.
Yeah, I’d say that it was useful to gather sources that had to be vetted for accuracy. Honestly, I’d also say it made a good source for the media, where they’d have the job of vetting it and putting out material with more delay but also more accuracy.
Yep I heard that it was great for journalists looking for info on a developing story. You could usually follow a hashtag around to find videos from different angles and witnesses to follow up with / interview.
Its specific speed/accuracy tradeoff made it a very good fit for news which you need to know quickly, but had low stakes if it was incorrect. A great example of this transit delays/cancellations, where you probably don’t care about the specific reason why a train is delayed and just want alternative options asap.
It was often much more effective to directly follow transit agencies and/or workers for info, rather than use their official website.
Add comment