2mo ago

sponsor rule

151 comments

This is partly why I don't trust Ground News. They're putting way too much money into advertising for me to believe they're genuinely interested in providing an unbiased factual categorization of news sources.
I also simply don't believe it's possible to be unbiased, so anyone claiming to be is immediately suspect to me.
- They also reinforce seeing liberal and conservative as opposites. The only good service they have is showing who sponsors which sources. However, the whole "blindspot" system seems designed as a both-sidesism
  
  Exactly! It's really disheartening to me to see so many youtubers who are otherwise insightful be so uncritically supportive of Ground News because they "like what they're trying to do."
  
  Usually they're science channels who just don't know any better. They're still too trusting of the system
- Is it perfect? no but it is the best way to be able to read the news from multiple POVs. They also include every single news outlet I've ever heard of and then some
  
  I get that it offers a bunch of features that you can't get anywhere else, but I just can't shake the uneasy feeling that it's all a trojan horse for something more sinister. I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop and see it suddenly explode in controversy after someone exposes something not quite kosher going on under the surface.
  It's just too good to be true.
  
  Well most of the features aren't free so I'm not too worried
  
  I mean I get my news here on Lemmy and from other individuals on lotteries social media. I think awareness of local and world events no longer needs to be meditated through a news organization. As long as you don’t sit in an echo chamber and have some level of literacy it’s not too hard to stay up to date.

151 comments