Should we stop supporting them with our eyes for taking sponsorships from shady companies?

Edit: I took my first step and unsubscribed from the channel and I will continue to withhold my viewership to those that don’t take better care of the viewers.

Likely doesn’t matter, but I’m on a roll of not giving my money to companies that are immoral so why not do the same with my eyes.

  • PiJiNWiNg@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’ve been using Ground News for the last six months or so and quite like it. It does seem like you may have a misunderstanding of how it works though. Ground News is not, in itself, a “news outlet”, nor does it generate articles, its an aggregator. When viewing a story there is an AI generated summary of all of the articles related to that story, but its generally no more than 3-5 bullet points, and certainly not enough information to form an opinion (nor is it intended to be). The user should read several of the articles and form their own opinion based on that. Further, their bias and factuality gauges use data thats averaged from external organizations, so again, not generated by Ground News itself. They lay it out here:

    https://ground.news/rating-system

    • MindTraveller
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      their bias and factuality gauges use data thats averaged from external organizations

      And they shouldn’t. Those sources are wrong and Ground News amplifies their wrongness. Everything is a bias. Reality is socially constructed and every piece of buy-in is a bias. From gender, to money, to race, to nations, to names, to humanity, to personhood.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’ve been seeing a lot of ground news links with improbable numbers. I’m beginning to doubt their conceit.