9 ms·

"If I was Medium, I would use machine learning to curate a feed for each individual subscriber." If I was Medium I'd hire a team (three or four) experienced ne

"If I was Medium, I would use machine learning to curate a feed for each individual subscriber." If I was Medium I'd hire a team (three or four) experienced newspaper editors [0] and use their expertise to bring back some discipline back to the story process. Do you remember newspapers? There were hundreds of competing stories but the news was carefully selected on a daily basis. This is what is lacking. The machine is being gamed. Maybe the editorial teams' suggestions should be used to train some aspects of story and category selection? Machine learning is a tool and if Facebook with all it's propellor heads have a problem, what hope have Medium? A different approach is needed. reference [0] Lots of newspaper people are out of work or under utilised and as such their availability is high. For example this tweet highlighting guardian journalists getting the sack: https://twitter.com/Hadas_Gold/status/844580929226072065 https://twitter.com/Hadas_Gold/status/844580929226072065

Swizec 10y ago
> Do you remember newspapers? Honestly? No. They're that thing my dad would buy on the weekends, read one page of, and then we'd use it for potato peels, lining the floor when painting rooms, and stuff like that. By the time I was old enough to even consider reading newspapers, they had devolved into clickbait sensationalist garbage. Designed primarily to find whatever boogeyman would make each newspaper's audience most likely to buy the issue. For left newspapers the top story was always about a businessman doing something bad, for right newspapers the top story was about how this or that nationality is threatening our economy. Sometimes both sides had the top story as this or that natural disaster or war that happened so far away that it's irrelevant. At least the trashy magazines were always honest about being trashy. Their top story was this or that random celebrity doing some outrageous act that nobody cares about. Honestly, the problem is tying remuneration to readership. The other problems are emergent. Edit: the intro of this System of a Down video sums up my thoughts excellently --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vBGOrI6yBk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vBGOrI6yBk
- arkitaip 10y ago
  Whatever your feelings about newspapers are, they have existed for hundreds of years and learnt some incredibly valuable lessons about news, journalism, reader psychology, etc. The collective wisdom of newspapers of record could fuel countless of business ventures and avoid lots of costly mistakes.
  - Swizec 10y ago
    Totally. I just don't think I've ever experienced that. For as long as I can remember news has been about sensationalism at all cost. The question was do I personally remember newspapers and the answer is no. I remember them as a thing that exists, yes, but not as a thing that provides value.
    - hkmurakami 10y ago
      As one of the other commenters suggested, I encourage you to pick up a copy of the Economist.
      - bshimmin 10y ago
        I dearly love The Economist (and, indeed, have a small stack of them about a foot from me right now), but I do sometimes get the feeling that reading a newspaper with which I agree so strongly on almost all issues (hell, even the advertising feels like it's targeted at people just like me) is probably a little unhelpful in terms of giving me a balanced perspective on the world. I'm not sure what one can do to balance this, though - I picked up a copy of Nexus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus_(magazine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus_(magazine)) recently and that didn't really much help either, though it was pretty damn entertaining.
        dagw 10y ago
        I'm not sure what one can do to balance this, though Try reading magazines like The Spectator, The National Review and The American Conservative. Even if you don't agree with everything they write (or especially if you don't agree with everything they write), they're on the whole well written and present their view in a pretty well argued manner.
- SirensOfTitan 10y ago
  > By the time I was old enough to even consider reading newspapers, they had devolved into clickbait sensationalist garbage. Talk about generalization. The funny thing about poor catch-all statements like this is that I only need one counter example to make your argument silly. The Economist is one of the finest publications in the world (yes, it's a newspaper). WSJ and NYTimes additionally are totally great papers (although I only read the Economist regularly). Maybe give these publications another try? It seems like you've limited your exposure to potentially great works.
  - Swizec 10y ago
    My English wasn't good enough to understand any of those when I became interested in the topics they cover. I pay for NYT and some stories are amazing. I finish maybe 5% of the ones I start reading and I probably attempt less than 5% of what they publish. But, let's see. NYT headline right now: "Terror attack kills 4 in Heart of London". WSJ: "UK parliament attacker leaves 4 dead, 40 injured". The Economist: "A Brazilian meat scandal damages the country's two global producers" Meh, sensationalism. How is any of this pertinent to me as a 29 year old engineer in SF? Other than making me afraid of my own shadow and riling up negative emotions. Maybe the problem is that I am fundamentally just not interested in news. That seems increasingly likely. My fav NYT stories, for instance, are the researched not-news article. The Avalanche was one of the best things I ever read.
    - MrGando 10y ago
      > I pay for NYT and some stories are amazing. I finish maybe 5% of the ones I start reading and I probably attempt less than 5% of what they publish. Well, hopefully you finish more than 5% of my reply... > Meh, sensationalism. How is any of this pertinent to me as a 29 year old engineer in SF? Other than making me afraid of my own shadow and riling up negative emotions. Seriously? Those are the only thoughts that an article like that (it's finely written, just read it) can evoke on you? Makes me sad to read your statements, I can only hope that you're not representative of a "29 year old engineer in SF" I happen to be 31 years old, an engineer and also live in SF... a terrorist attack in London, does happen to be pertinent to me.
- bootload 10y ago
  I don't know why the parent is being down-voted, it raises some valid points. "Honestly? No. They're that thing my dad would buy on the weekends, read one page of, and then we'd use it for potato peels, lining the floor when painting rooms, and stuff like that." I see no problem with not living in the time of centralised news. A quick history lesson. Newspapers are old forms of information dissemination, they do however offer a glimpse of a solution to some problems you describe, Not all. News in the form of facts used to be collected by reporters, and journalists who would write up what they saw. The raw information would be passed to editors (subeditor in newspapers) to correct, then transcribe news into a house style fit for publishing. This is what we used to see in news. On the news-stand, the radio and to a lesser extent television. The WWW removed this technical hurdle to publish news. Think about that. Some of the processes were technical requirements, others were there for accuracy. This resulted in (degrees) of quality news. "By the time I was old enough to even consider reading newspapers, they had devolved into clickbait sensationalist garbage." The money part is one problem. There are hints of what companies are trying. [0] The rivers of revenue from car sales, houses, jobs are gone. They had a monopoly and have now lost it. Journalism and news was always subsidised from these revenue streams. I don't know the answer to this. Then there is the problem of where we get our information. The real problem now, is serious attempts to generate dis-information. Disinformation, distortion of news is not new. [2] At it's mildest it's the annoying advertising passed as news. What is going on in the Whitehouse is at the extreme end. [3] For most of us reading online we have to wade through the middle ground trying to work out what is worth reading. This is a job that could be tackled by humans trained in understanding and curating news and information, aided by smart algorythms. AI won't solve this problem (yet). It is too easy to game. In the mean time, as Dave Winer suggests, invest carefully in your own personal news flows. [4] reference [0] "Ads, he said, “[are causing] increasing amounts of misinformation…and pressure to put out more content more cheaply — depth, originality, or quality be damned. It’s unsustainable and unsatisfying for producers and consumers alike….We need a new model.”" https://thenextweb.com/opinion/2017/03/23/ev-williams-lost-goddamn-mind/ https://thenextweb.com/opinion/2017/03/23/ev-williams-lost-g... [1] "Since January I've been adding to a thread on how Bannon and Trump are building a disinformation validation network." https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/844718202349371393 https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/844718202349371393 [2] If you read through the CIA reading room, search for Soviet disinformation and be surprised at the attempts to destabilise western democracy through fake news: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/search/site/soviet%20disinformation https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/search/site/soviet%2... [3] "This is a thread about #RussiaGate and Paul Manafort's $10M/year contract to further the interests of Putin's government:" https://twitter.com/AndreaChalupa/status/844710804985393153 https://twitter.com/AndreaChalupa/status/844710804985393153 [4] "One of the most patriotic things you can do is to upgrade the quality and breadth of the news you read. Invest in your personal news flow." https://twitter.com/davewiner/status/844691778724859904 https://twitter.com/davewiner/status/844691778724859904
- noobermin 10y ago
  Consider, wouldn't your NN most likely be trained on what gets clicks and inevitably lead to a clickbait feed that you're dreading?
- DanBC 10y ago
  It's a shame you got heavily downvoted, because in England the newspapers really are this fucking awful. The guardian, telegraph, independent, and times are sort of exceptions. The FT is a definite exception. Two UK newspapers were highlighted by the EU for providing such inaccurate coverage of migration they were likely leading to hate crime. Just one example: Here's what Statins do, according to the front page of one newspaper. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6GuXQhWUAAN5F5.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6GuXQhWUAAN5F5.jpg It's an incoherent mess of terrible science reporting blasted across the front page. PROOF STATINS SAVE MILLIONS STATINS IN NEW HEALTH ALERT STATINS REALLY DO SAVE YOUR LIFE HEALTH CHIEF SLAMS STATINS HIGH DOSE OF STATINS CAN BEAT DEMENTIA DOCTORS BAN ON STATINS TAKE STATINS TO SAVE YOUR LIFE NEW STATINS BOMBSHELL OFFICIAL: STATINS ARE SAFE STATINS: NEW SAFETY CHECKS PROOF STATINS BEAT DEMENTIA HOW STATINS CAN CAUSE DIABETES STATINS FIGHT CANCER STATINS SLASH RISK OF STROKE BY 30% STATINS INCREASE RISK OF DIABETES STATINS ADD A MERE 3 DAYS TO LIFE STATINS DOUBLE RISK OF DIABETES STATINS AGE YOU FASTER NEW STATINS SAFETY ALERT STATINS LINKED TO 227 DEATHS PROOF AT LAST STATINS ARE SAFE
  - oblio 10y ago
    To be honest, your newspapers (primarily the tabloids) are famous/infamous for being junk. It would be hard almost anywhere in the world to print such trash and not have to suffer consequences (libel lawsuits, etc.).

Swizec 10y ago

> Do you remember newspapers? Honestly? No. They're that thing my dad would buy on the weekends, read one page of, and then we'd use it for potato peels, lining the floor when painting rooms, and stuff like that. By the time I was old enough to even consider reading newspapers, they had devolved into clickbait sensationalist garbage. Designed primarily to find whatever boogeyman would make each newspaper's audience most likely to buy the issue. For left newspapers the top story was always about a businessman doing something bad, for right newspapers the top story was about how this or that nationality is threatening our economy. Sometimes both sides had the top story as this or that natural disaster or war that happened so far away that it's irrelevant. At least the trashy magazines were always honest about being trashy. Their top story was this or that random celebrity doing some outrageous act that nobody cares about. Honestly, the problem is tying remuneration to readership. The other problems are emergent. Edit: the intro of this System of a Down video sums up my thoughts excellently --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vBGOrI6yBk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vBGOrI6yBk

arkitaip 10y ago
Whatever your feelings about newspapers are, they have existed for hundreds of years and learnt some incredibly valuable lessons about news, journalism, reader psychology, etc. The collective wisdom of newspapers of record could fuel countless of business ventures and avoid lots of costly mistakes.
- Swizec 10y ago
  Totally. I just don't think I've ever experienced that. For as long as I can remember news has been about sensationalism at all cost. The question was do I personally remember newspapers and the answer is no. I remember them as a thing that exists, yes, but not as a thing that provides value.
  - hkmurakami 10y ago
    As one of the other commenters suggested, I encourage you to pick up a copy of the Economist.
    - bshimmin 10y ago
      I dearly love The Economist (and, indeed, have a small stack of them about a foot from me right now), but I do sometimes get the feeling that reading a newspaper with which I agree so strongly on almost all issues (hell, even the advertising feels like it's targeted at people just like me) is probably a little unhelpful in terms of giving me a balanced perspective on the world. I'm not sure what one can do to balance this, though - I picked up a copy of Nexus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus_(magazine) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexus_(magazine)) recently and that didn't really much help either, though it was pretty damn entertaining.
      - dagw 10y ago
        I'm not sure what one can do to balance this, though Try reading magazines like The Spectator, The National Review and The American Conservative. Even if you don't agree with everything they write (or especially if you don't agree with everything they write), they're on the whole well written and present their view in a pretty well argued manner.
SirensOfTitan 10y ago
> By the time I was old enough to even consider reading newspapers, they had devolved into clickbait sensationalist garbage. Talk about generalization. The funny thing about poor catch-all statements like this is that I only need one counter example to make your argument silly. The Economist is one of the finest publications in the world (yes, it's a newspaper). WSJ and NYTimes additionally are totally great papers (although I only read the Economist regularly). Maybe give these publications another try? It seems like you've limited your exposure to potentially great works.
- Swizec 10y ago
  My English wasn't good enough to understand any of those when I became interested in the topics they cover. I pay for NYT and some stories are amazing. I finish maybe 5% of the ones I start reading and I probably attempt less than 5% of what they publish. But, let's see. NYT headline right now: "Terror attack kills 4 in Heart of London". WSJ: "UK parliament attacker leaves 4 dead, 40 injured". The Economist: "A Brazilian meat scandal damages the country's two global producers" Meh, sensationalism. How is any of this pertinent to me as a 29 year old engineer in SF? Other than making me afraid of my own shadow and riling up negative emotions. Maybe the problem is that I am fundamentally just not interested in news. That seems increasingly likely. My fav NYT stories, for instance, are the researched not-news article. The Avalanche was one of the best things I ever read.
  - MrGando 10y ago
    > I pay for NYT and some stories are amazing. I finish maybe 5% of the ones I start reading and I probably attempt less than 5% of what they publish. Well, hopefully you finish more than 5% of my reply... > Meh, sensationalism. How is any of this pertinent to me as a 29 year old engineer in SF? Other than making me afraid of my own shadow and riling up negative emotions. Seriously? Those are the only thoughts that an article like that (it's finely written, just read it) can evoke on you? Makes me sad to read your statements, I can only hope that you're not representative of a "29 year old engineer in SF" I happen to be 31 years old, an engineer and also live in SF... a terrorist attack in London, does happen to be pertinent to me.
bootload 10y ago
I don't know why the parent is being down-voted, it raises some valid points. "Honestly? No. They're that thing my dad would buy on the weekends, read one page of, and then we'd use it for potato peels, lining the floor when painting rooms, and stuff like that." I see no problem with not living in the time of centralised news. A quick history lesson. Newspapers are old forms of information dissemination, they do however offer a glimpse of a solution to some problems you describe, Not all. News in the form of facts used to be collected by reporters, and journalists who would write up what they saw. The raw information would be passed to editors (subeditor in newspapers) to correct, then transcribe news into a house style fit for publishing. This is what we used to see in news. On the news-stand, the radio and to a lesser extent television. The WWW removed this technical hurdle to publish news. Think about that. Some of the processes were technical requirements, others were there for accuracy. This resulted in (degrees) of quality news. "By the time I was old enough to even consider reading newspapers, they had devolved into clickbait sensationalist garbage." The money part is one problem. There are hints of what companies are trying. [0] The rivers of revenue from car sales, houses, jobs are gone. They had a monopoly and have now lost it. Journalism and news was always subsidised from these revenue streams. I don't know the answer to this. Then there is the problem of where we get our information. The real problem now, is serious attempts to generate dis-information. Disinformation, distortion of news is not new. [2] At it's mildest it's the annoying advertising passed as news. What is going on in the Whitehouse is at the extreme end. [3] For most of us reading online we have to wade through the middle ground trying to work out what is worth reading. This is a job that could be tackled by humans trained in understanding and curating news and information, aided by smart algorythms. AI won't solve this problem (yet). It is too easy to game. In the mean time, as Dave Winer suggests, invest carefully in your own personal news flows. [4] reference [0] "Ads, he said, “[are causing] increasing amounts of misinformation…and pressure to put out more content more cheaply — depth, originality, or quality be damned. It’s unsustainable and unsatisfying for producers and consumers alike….We need a new model.”" https://thenextweb.com/opinion/2017/03/23/ev-williams-lost-goddamn-mind/ https://thenextweb.com/opinion/2017/03/23/ev-williams-lost-g... [1] "Since January I've been adding to a thread on how Bannon and Trump are building a disinformation validation network." https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/844718202349371393 https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/844718202349371393 [2] If you read through the CIA reading room, search for Soviet disinformation and be surprised at the attempts to destabilise western democracy through fake news: https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/search/site/soviet%20disinformation https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/search/site/soviet%2... [3] "This is a thread about #RussiaGate and Paul Manafort's $10M/year contract to further the interests of Putin's government:" https://twitter.com/AndreaChalupa/status/844710804985393153 https://twitter.com/AndreaChalupa/status/844710804985393153 [4] "One of the most patriotic things you can do is to upgrade the quality and breadth of the news you read. Invest in your personal news flow." https://twitter.com/davewiner/status/844691778724859904 https://twitter.com/davewiner/status/844691778724859904
noobermin 10y ago
Consider, wouldn't your NN most likely be trained on what gets clicks and inevitably lead to a clickbait feed that you're dreading?
DanBC 10y ago
It's a shame you got heavily downvoted, because in England the newspapers really are this fucking awful. The guardian, telegraph, independent, and times are sort of exceptions. The FT is a definite exception. Two UK newspapers were highlighted by the EU for providing such inaccurate coverage of migration they were likely leading to hate crime. Just one example: Here's what Statins do, according to the front page of one newspaper. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6GuXQhWUAAN5F5.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6GuXQhWUAAN5F5.jpg It's an incoherent mess of terrible science reporting blasted across the front page. PROOF STATINS SAVE MILLIONS STATINS IN NEW HEALTH ALERT STATINS REALLY DO SAVE YOUR LIFE HEALTH CHIEF SLAMS STATINS HIGH DOSE OF STATINS CAN BEAT DEMENTIA DOCTORS BAN ON STATINS TAKE STATINS TO SAVE YOUR LIFE NEW STATINS BOMBSHELL OFFICIAL: STATINS ARE SAFE STATINS: NEW SAFETY CHECKS PROOF STATINS BEAT DEMENTIA HOW STATINS CAN CAUSE DIABETES STATINS FIGHT CANCER STATINS SLASH RISK OF STROKE BY 30% STATINS INCREASE RISK OF DIABETES STATINS ADD A MERE 3 DAYS TO LIFE STATINS DOUBLE RISK OF DIABETES STATINS AGE YOU FASTER NEW STATINS SAFETY ALERT STATINS LINKED TO 227 DEATHS PROOF AT LAST STATINS ARE SAFE
- oblio 10y ago
  To be honest, your newspapers (primarily the tabloids) are famous/infamous for being junk. It would be hard almost anywhere in the world to print such trash and not have to suffer consequences (libel lawsuits, etc.).