13 ms·
Google News Initiative
- daxaxelrod 9y agoIs the css showing a 404 for anyone else?
- thisisit 9y agoCSS is showing 404 for me too.
- kyrra 9y agoEDIT: It looks like there were 3 blog posts by Google announcing this initiative. Blog posts announcing Google News Initative: https://www.blog.google/topics/google-news-initiative/announcing-google-news-initiative/ https://www.blog.google/topics/google-news-initiative/announ... Subscription payments feature: https://www.blog.google/topics/google-news-initiative/introducing-subscribe-google/ https://www.blog.google/topics/google-news-initiative/introd... Elevating quality journalism: https://www.blog.google/topics/google-news-initiative/elevating-quality-journalism/ https://www.blog.google/topics/google-news-initiative/elevat... Some news coverage on it: https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17142788/google-news-initiative-fake-news-journalist-subscriptions https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17142788/google-news-init...
- kosei 9y agoBased on the blog article, it seems like the main thing they're trying to solve is the payment system (use Google payment to easily subscribe). If that's true, it's a much different and less exciting offer than the OP's linked page which seemed like a much larger initiative.
- kyrra 9y agoEdited the original comment, thanks for pointing that out. It looks like there were 3 blog posts from Google about the whole thing.
- danso 9y agoThe subscription system sounds like it's one part of this initiative. And if it is indeed the "main thing" then I think we should give Google some credit for being serious with this initiative. A payments system is a boring problem but it is the one most core to news organizations' current existential problems. It's not as sexy as using NLP to categorize news archives perhaps, but it's the most important to news orgs' survival.
- wnissen 9y agoI just wish they would bring back the old patron system, where I didn't see ads and some small amount of money went to the sites I visited, without a subscription. Because I want to support good journalism, wherever it is found, but there's no way I'm ever going to sign up for $3/mo for the Miami Herald to read three articles a year.
- jacques_chester 9y agoYou're thinking of Google Contributor. It seems likely that these are teams working in different parts of Google.
- kuschku 9y agoA payment system that’s only useful with a credit card is useless in many countries, though. And Google has managed to fuck up every payment solution they’ve built yet.
- kyrra 9y ago(I work on Google Payments, opinions are my own) Google probably accepts the most forms of payment of any single company in the world (just a guess), but which forms of payment are accepted on any given product under Google will vary. For example, Adwords[0] has the list of supported forms of payment by country. While in Play we things like Paypal, direct_carrier_billing, and gift cards. I have no clue what the News Initiative is supporting, but I could guess it will be credit/debit cards from around the world. Google has built a LOT of payments projects. Some have definitely failed, but there are many that you don't notice because it will be supporting specific flows in specific countries or products. [0] https://support.google.com/adwords/answer/2375433?hl=en https://support.google.com/adwords/answer/2375433?hl=en
- nickysielicki 9y agoRead between the lines. > During breaking news or crisis situations, stemming the tide of misinformation can be challenging. Speculation can outrun facts as legitimate news outlets on the ground are still investigating. At the same time, bad actors are publishing content on forums and social media with the intent to mislead and capture people’s attention as they rush to find trusted information online. This is just yet another temper tantrum from Silicon Valley liberals who cannot rationalize recent political movements any other way, so they think censorship is the solution. They think that people seeking out content that they agree with is some kind of new problem, as if this never existed within the grocery-checkout-isle tabloids for decades. This is an excuse to elevate content that they agree with and delegitimize sources that are not owned by large media conglomerates, which lean left on the whole. There is no such thing as fake news, there is only inaccurate news. There are plenty of accurate stories that are not covered by the mainstream media, and there are plenty of fringe outlets that release accurate stories. What Google is saying here is that they see no issues with wholly backing the entrenched media groups as the sole arbiter of what constitutes news and what shouldn't be covered. People don't have the right to seek stories they find interesting; middle America is just too stupid for their own good, I guess. Even mentioning this will probably make this comment [dead], but Seth Rich was murdered, Julian Assange has commented about connections, his digital footprint leaves a lot of motive for being the DNC leaker, details of the leaks suggest someone locally copied the files, and it's simply discredited as a crazy conspiracy story by the media. People don't seek out nontraditional outlets because they want to get worse news, and it has nothing to do with clickbait. It has to do with the fact that the biases within traditional media lead to them not cover real and legitimate stories, and before the internet there was nowhere else to get information, so it worked out fine. The internet changed that, but what Google employees are saying here is they'd like to return to the past.
- brlewis 9y agoGood to see in that third link that they're still interested in fact checking. I wasn't sure if this was going to be abandoned: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15528824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15528824
- howenterprisey 9y agoWhat's the point of the withgoogle.com domain?
- 2aa07e2 9y agoIt gives a partnership vibe, in contrast to the default "we are using you" one.
- advisedwang 9y agogoogle.com is a valuable target for XSS attacks. Keeping content off this domain reduces the attack surface.
- adtac 9y agoI too think this is the reason. It does, however, allow for cool domains like https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com https://summerofcode.withgoogle.com
- Hurdy 9y agoThis kind of marketing content is often provided by an agency. Hosting it on google.com where users are logged in would require extremely strict security reviews.
- haldean 9y agoIt's the domain they use when an engineering team doesn't make the website; this was probably made by a marketing team, so it doesn't go on google.com.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- inetknght 9y agoI used Google News for a long time. I have since blackholed it on all of my machines. By tailoring the news articles presented to be based on the interests that Google data mined from my Google profile, it became an echo chamber even worse than Facebook. It became a very bad source of news: all of the articles were self-reinforcing each other with very very little actual diversity of sources.
- jacksmith21006 9y agoCould not disagree more. I am generally pretty liberal but get news stories from Breitbart, Fox news, etc all the time in my feed. I like to read all sides so love this aspect of Google news. Heck I get negative Google stories from Google. Can't ask for more neutral.
- Bartweiss 9y agoIs there some feedback feature or something you use to get a helpful range of stories? My experience with Google News isn't so much bias or a bubble as uselessness. Source quality, comprehensiveness, and coverage depth seem totally irrelevant, like I'm just getting a feed of every news site a bunch of people clicked on recently. It's the same stuff as Facebook's trending bar, at about the same level of shallow and unfocused. And occasionally, it seems like a major story is incompatible with my profile, or has a keyword collision with other topics, or something, and so disappears almost completely. I tried Google News and Google Now with real eagerness, but my experience with both of them was just shockingly low quality.
- Moto7451 9y agoYou can weigh your news sources. I intentionally give a little more weight to sources I don’t always agree with but aren’t obviously biased. Things like fake news spreaders, conspiracy theorist, government propaganda machines, or fair topical sites that simply don’t interest me (mostly Celebrity News and Gossip) get black holed. You can find those sliders in your settings. Also they ask you periodically on the desktop homepage. Pro tip: if you hate the mobile or new UI as much as I do, set your user agent to iPhone and go to google.com/nwshp. For whatever reason that magical incantation gives you the classic home page (with the sliders I mentioned in easy access/obvious places). I’ll be really excited if someone knows how to just set that globally in settings. I haven’t found it.
- mojuba 9y agoWhy is Google putting $300 million of their own money into this? Does anyone have greater than zero trust in what Google is trying to do in this space?
- jacksmith21006 9y agoCan't think of anyone I would trust more. Can you? Who? Google allowing video on YouTube they can't monetize kind of saids it all about Google and free speech.
- wtetzner 9y ago> Google allowing video on YouTube they can't monetize kind of saids it all about Google and free speech. Huh? You mean video that doesn't contain ads? If those videos attract users to YouTube, then those users are more likely to start watching some videos that do contain ads. Seems pretty straight forward, and says basically nothing about whether or not Google can be trusted.
- wuliwong 9y agoI trust duckduckgo more. :)
- lgleason 9y agoGiven the bias inside of Google and the fact they have already demonstrated that they are not a neutral arbitrator, the last thing I want to have is them being the arbitrator of who or what news is seen. This is more of an attempt to consolidate their power, what you can and cannot see etc.. Hard pass.
- eclipxe 9y agoThere is no bias.
- smaddox 9y agoThose are not the articles you're looking for...
- jacksmith21006 9y agoBias? Google is now paying the infrastructure cost for channels like Alex Jones as no advertisers to generate revenues for Google. But in the name of free speech Google allows on YouTube and foots the bill. What could be more unbias?
- fortythirteen 9y agoAlex Jones is the scapegoat extremist. They regularly demonetize anything that occasionally contains an opinion even slightly right of center (Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, Joe Rogan). Like Facebook, they partner with multiple left-leaning organizations to determine what news is "accurate", and don't allow even a center-right voice in that process. Their internal politics, as we've learned from the Damore debacle, are so extreme that employees are allowed to physically threaten, in writing, other employees who hold right wing opinions, without consequence.
- CobrastanJorji 9y agoFacebook will be overjoyed to learn that they are not allowing a right-of-center voice into the process. You should probably bring that to the attention of British and US authorities; they'll be eager to know, given the recent news.
- antirez 9y agoMeanwhile Google Now Italian version is full of garbage that I signal for a long time, and nobody cares about removing it...
- cryoshon 9y agoanyone else notice how all of the examples they chose are distinctly NOT current events, contentious issues, or anything where there might be a serious dispute over what constitutes the basic facts of the situation? i'm going to join other commenters here and say hard pass. google has too much power already, and they aren't particularly responsible stewards of the public trust. and it seems like they haven't even solved any problems with their new product...
- mudil 9y agoThe real problem that Google doesn't want to talk about is its monopoly (with FB) of the digital ad market, to the tune of something like 85% of the total market. As a result, from big to small publishers, specialty publishers, regional publications, etc are all struggling. Here's a read: https://www.medgadget.com/2018/03/google-serfdom-publishing-digital-age.html https://www.medgadget.com/2018/03/google-serfdom-publishing-...
- IAmEveryone 9y agoHow exactly can two competing companies share a monopoly?
- mudil 9y agoDuopoly, to be precise
- IAmEveryone 9y agoPlus, of course, those other 15% of the market, to be even more precise. Not to mention that online advertisement to a certain degree is the same market as other forms of advertisement.
- mudil 9y agoLook, there is a reason there are active investigations of Google's and FB's effects on the news media in U.K., Australia, Korea. They are duopoly and their effects reverberate through the entire internet, stifling creation of new websites and new media sources. There's a reason that VC investment in news media on the internet is nonexistent.
- mkj 9y agoI like Google News to browse, but their forced news-on-every-android-chrome-new-tab is the reason I've uninstalled Chrome and gone to Firefox. I was surprised, Android Firefox is actually a pretty competitive browser these days! Hooray anti-competitive cross-subsidies. (edit: I tend to block cookies on desktop so I guess they don't have too much profile to tailor news)
- zoul 9y agoAs someone who runs a regional newspaper, I very much doubt that the future of healthy journalism is in the hands of a big company such as Google. We are already thinking hard what to do with the Facebook monopoly, we would be crazy to voluntarily stick our neck into another one.
- yousifa 9y agoCan you pls email me (in my profile)... have some questions that I’d like to ask privately
- awakeasleep 9y agoFirst, I'm the type of person that thinks the concentration of power from monopolies could be the most pressing issue facing the USA-- But can you explain how having another choice is dangerous? It seems like it'd be a gasp of air in the face of facebook's suffocating presence.
- smacktoward 9y agoThe hens in the hen-house can be forgiven for not being excited that there are two wolves outside now instead of one.
- zoul 9y agoIt’s not much of a choice if we can’t easily change our minds later. It’s more like a long-term investment, and if we are to make a long-term investment, we’d rather invest in a direct relationship with our readers.
- open-source-ux 9y agoBut can you explain how having another choice is dangerous? Don't forget that Google also tracks online behaviour on an industrial scale. It doesn't matter if that information is only collated in aggregated form or "anonymised" (a meaningless term), we don't know how that information could be mined with AI or machine learning either now or in the future. In fact, I suspect that even Google hasn't figure all the possible uses of the enormous quantity of user behaviour it has captured and continues to capture. And that ubiquitous data capture starts right from school, where millions of students use a cloud-based OS called ChromeOS that records everything they do. The tech community's response to Google's online tracking and data capture is not scrutiny or questioning, but silence (or a rush to defend them).
- sterban 9y agoI got fed up with Google News a year or so ago, over the echo chamber that the news site has become. It motivated me to create https://statesreport.com https://statesreport.com, with no ads and no tracking.
- TaylorAlexander 9y agoI’d never heard of your site but I just checked it out. I’ve got to say it looks really nice. I’ll bookmark it and try to use it. Thanks for making it!
- sterban 9y agoThank you for the nice feedback!
- e15ctr0n 9y agoGreat job with the news website! Where do you get the news from and what stack are you using on the website?
- sterban 9y agoThe server is written in Go. The news scraper is written in python. I don't have the full list of sites offhand, but I'll try and get back to this comment!
- koverda 9y agoNot really related - but why does this page have a ton of these absolutely massive images? It's a 34.1MB monster of a page.
- dicroce 9y agoYou know what would actually be welcome? Some way to tell real from fake news. Get to work on that, Google.
- oneeyedpigeon 9y agoThey’re just working on solving the halting problem, then they’ll get right on it.
- ibdf 9y agoI bet you they are going to push AMP plus their Newstand App which sucks. The Newstand app is great for finding news., but not great for reading cause AMP butchers the content so often I ended up clicking on "view in browser" all the time. and dare you try to copy and paste text!
- kingnight 9y agoSadly, Google is also sitting on a HUGE amount of archival newspaper in a completely unsearchable state. They've OCR'd thousands of historical papers but the search is completely broken. https://news.google.com/newspapers https://news.google.com/newspapers It's a pretty incredible resource if you know the date/place of an event but if you wanted to research a little more broad it's a tool with incredibly untapped potential. I wish they would spend more time providing tools for people to consume information in powerful ways rather than trying to 'tailor' experiences.
- arghwhat 9y agoWhat do you expect? They're just an advertisement agency. They don't have the tools or skills required to perform advanced searches in a large, unstructured data corpus. Oh, wait.
- danso 9y agoThis wasn't the reason given when the 2011 announcement was made regarding the end of the project. But since then, the archive has faced copyright issues as newspapers sign contracts with other archive services: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160825/10114535344/newspaper-archive-disappears-google-because-company-wants-to-cash.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160825/10114535344/newsp...
- kolpa 9y agoWhat specifically is broken? Basic keyword search seems to work.
- make3 9y agokeyword search is the very bare minimum for search
- fooker 9y agoAny search at google is N mapreduce jobs away from a keyword search. In theory, having a really nice search engine for this news would be rather easy for Google (/any Googler with a few weeks of time and access to this data). This is essentially what every new employee at Google has to do in the orientation week.
- daodedickinson 9y agoThe SPLC is part of YouTube’s “Trusted Flaggers” program, yet Google News supports Farrakhan's The Final Call, even though the SPLC lists Nation of Islam as a hate group. I won't link the rant about the Jews controlling the FBI, but check out this "news" brought to me courtesy of Google: "Did the Honorable Elijah Muhammad know of the mathematics in the writings of the scriptures before Doctor Khalifa, and others, did? Not only did he, but he demonstrated that he was brought into the understanding of far deeper mathematical truths, which produced, correlated and interlocked all aspects of reality—including all of the problems of humanity—by Almighty God Himself. He was taught the very root of all mathematics. This root is in the brain, or mind, of the human being. God taught and brought him into the very nature of the movement of the mind of Him, Who originally conceived of all of that which we call “universe” and Who produced the human mind. Allah taught him the root of mathematics—which ultimately resides in the core of the mind of God Himself." https://news.google.com/news/search/section/q/%22There%20is%20no%20question%20that%20the%20use%20of%20the%20scriptures%2C%20by%20the%20Honorable%20Elijah%20Muhammad%2C%20is%20still%20very%20relevant%22/%22There%20is%20no%20question%20that%20the%20use%20of%20the%20scriptures%2C%20by%20the%20Honorable%20Elijah%20Muhammad%2C%20is%20still%20very%20relevant%22?hl=en&gl=US&ned=us https://news.google.com/news/search/section/q/%22There%20is%...
- nugi 9y agoSlpc still thinks Pepe is a hate symbol and juggalos are gangsters. You don't have to dig down into scripture interpretation to see they have bias issues. Remove refrences to islam, jews, and religion, and focus on why the group is unreliable if you want to engage with most people.
- jfaucett 9y agoAll I want is a resource like "google" for all newspaper articles ever that we have stored anywhere. Whenever I'm studying a topic, I'll often look up very old or contemporary newspaper writings to see how our perceptions and attitudes regarding the issue have changed over time. I did this with the civil war and slavery at one point and recently with artificial intelligence. I would highly recommend it for comparing and contrasting your current perspective on a historical event or issue with that time's perspective of the same event or past times' perspectives on that same issue. Its really interesting too to see how the modern perspective is formed slowly over the years up to the current day.
- Ivoirians 9y agoSomeone else pointed that this exists and, surprise, it's run by Google: https://news.google.com/newspapers https://news.google.com/newspapers There are other newspaper archive services though.
- olivermarks 9y ago'journalism' and 'news' are obsolete concepts. A journalist was an employee of a large entity who wrote articles and made videos that complied with the reality and perspective the company they work for wanted to promote. (There are still a few of these employees left working for what's left of these entities) 'News' was selective packaged information to influence and inform the broadest reach, with a goal of selling accompanying advertising messaging based on that reach.
- mtreis86 9y agoNewspapers existed long before advertising. The goal was to inform, and to have a public place of record accessible to all.
- notriddle 9y agoYeah, because they were funded by the governments they ran under. "News" is a polite word for "propaganda," always was, always will be.
- lambda_lover 9y agoI hardly think that journalism and news are outdated and unnecessary. Where else would people get long-form updates on what's happening in the world? We can do better than corporate/government propaganda, but it's unclear exactly how to avoid biases generated by your funding. Funding news and paying journalists (even for unpopular and unprofitable articles) is the real problem we need to consider.
- danso 9y agoAnd what have they been replaced by?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- bootlooped 9y agoPart of this is a method to make subscribing easier. I would prefer if there were a ubiquitous and easy way to make micro-payments for news articles. I consume news from way more sources than I am willing to subscribe to.
- mitko 9y agoGoogle and traditional media as well are in the business of selling advertisement. I feel that when your money comes from selling your readers attention to the highest ad bidder, one incentive becomes to sensationalize and do other tricks to increase viewership. This incentive can be at odds with the incentive to inform truthfully and completely, as some of the important information would invariably be boring, resulting in less sales. I've experienced this at Twitter as we optimized the product for engagement. I hypothesize that this incentive to lock-in reader groups, has led to fragmentation of media and creating a lot of "info bubbles", or "interest based magazines". I think this is exacerbated by the dropping cost of information ( I have some thoughts on the process at http://dimitarsimeonov.com/2017/10/27/the-shifting-sweet-spot-for-media http://dimitarsimeonov.com/2017/10/27/the-shifting-sweet-spo... ) I don't believe it is in Google's _strongest_ interest to provide truthful media, as Google doesn't make it's money from telling you truth. I am optimist though.. and think in the future we'll have journalist's job be to aggregate a lot of that narrative and collect some micro-payments. And we'll have a lot fewer journalists, as there is less money in making these narratives.
- Clanan 9y agoA huge consequence of the prioritization of clicks is the loss of quality reporting. Those shuttered newspapers who went the way of the dinosaurs carried with them hundreds of years of journalistic experience. A lot of it didn't transfer to modern news sites. Now we're paying the price with young, inexperienced "journalists" pumping out junk articles with poor sourcing, missing or wrong facts, etc. I can't find it now but one of the better modern journalists (Glenn Greenwald or Bob Woodward maybe?) had a great piece on this. He lamented how mainstream media is failing to maintain their journalistic standards because they're too biased and they haven't been taught how to be good journalists. I think Google should focus heavily on this, but their PR doesn't mention it much. Quality journalists first, then quality tools.
- wuliwong 9y agoI think my issue with this is that google has all lots of special interests. I believe a true, functional solution most likely needs to come from a new company. A company that can build its reputation on surfacing "quality" news but without any particular bias or agenda. I'm not sure how any already large corporation would ever be able to win my confidence to act in this way.
- BastardGas 9y agoWhy can't Google News be searched by date? It used to have that feature but they took it away. I wonder why!
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- ksk 9y agoIs there a page that actually explains what this is? The linked to page seems to be devoid of any actual content. Is Google going to be covering the crazy costs involved in sending journalists all over the world, keeping them safe, doing investigative journalism (very little of which is happening now anyway), etc. My cynicism aside, its nice to see a tech company atleast try to help find a way to fund journalism in the future.
- peterwwillis 9y ago"The future of journalism depends on all of us working together." Actually the future of journalism depends on media companies to stop working like tabloids trying to attract eyeballs to shiny controversial crap. Seriously, I've had to turn off every Breaking News alert and e-mail that I have because 9 times out of 10 it's something stupid or scandalous relating to Trump. Scandal or "shocking political developments" are not breaking news, especially when they happen every day. It's not world news, it's not national news, it's not local news. It's gossip about a reality TV star. This isn't journalism, this is the slow eroding of my sanity during time which I should be getting to know what the weather will be like tomorrow, whether an important referendum is coming up, actually important world events that impact real people, or significant changes to a local, national or global economic center, not to mention important scientific advances, and of course, sports news. Real breaking news would be "a 7.5 earthquake leveled Mexico City today", "ethnic minorities in east asia continue to be massacred by their government who is denying the charges", "new tax laws will provide cuts to the richest", "the federal government is cracking down on states' push back to their anti-immigration and drug laws", etc. These are important things that are happening today that might affect me, my loved ones, my livelihood, etc. I don't give a shit what the special counsel has recently said about a person tangentially related to a controversy surrounding a political figure. How about Google start an initiative to relay important, substantive, fact-based information to people that need it? Was that too much to put in their mission statement? I mean, they're only one of the most powerful technology companies on the planet employing the smartest engineers on the planet. Maybe they could get Google X to take a look at it.
- cromwellian 9y agoSigh, reading the headline, it wouldn't take a machine learning model to predict the sentiment of the responses. HackerNews is pretty much turning into an echo chamber itself around news. Pretty much every announcement is greeted with intense negativity, less discussion of facts, or other solutions. And I'm not just talking about tech companies, even the release of a new language, framework, or tool is often accompanied by excessive negativity. If you don't want news to make money via ads, and you don't like systems to encourage subscriptions, and you don't like paywalls, than pretty much you need public funding of news by the state like NPR/PBS/BBC to make news a non-profit. So I propose the following: A national 3% tax on all internet connections: mobile phone bill, cable, etc. The revenue for this to be paid to PBS/NPR/VOA/other public news orgs.
- pasbesoin 9y agoOk, I guess I'll try to read this. However, this comment won't wait: If you were "with" the news, you wouldn't have done things like kill Google Reader, a primary vehicle power users used to process the news. Stop prescribing. Start listening.
- evolve2k 9y ago"The future of journalism depends on all of us working together." Translation: "Your future as a new organization depends on you working well with us here at Google and finding ways for us to quietly tax part of your prior earnings"
- amoorthy 9y agoWhile this is generally a positive step by Google it will fall short in revitalizing the news industry for a simple reason. In a world of near infinite content options, most people can no longer justify having any single news subscription. A better solution is a fractional subscription model where subscriptions are tiered to one's reading needs. This is what my company http://CivikOwl.com http://CivikOwl.com is working on. Hope to make a positive contribution to this important issue facing society.
- jacques_chester 9y agoI generally agree with the model; it's a model that's been independently struck on many times now. Most directly in the hunt are Google and Flattr. I had the same idea some time ago, but silly me, got interested in solving the technical problems of tracking visits while preserving privacy. What I should have been doing is fretting about the business side of things. At least I got a patent out of it.
- roycifer 9y agothe real news is they forgot to optimize the images on that site!
- martin1975 9y agoI don't have a problem with 'truth' per se, merely a problem with who gets to adjudicate what is true versus what is not, even if something is apparently non-true. Rather than delete or abridge any legal content (as defined by a litany of 1st Amendment SCOTUS cases), at least in the USA, instead of deleting/modifying/filtering news content, we should do with news content what we've done with movies' rating labels for as long as we have - tag the content with a 'truth' label. So Google News can develop a tagging system that labels news articles as "most likely" to "least likely" to be true, like a 1-10 rating. HuffPo can have its own truth ratings for the content they push. Breitbart or Infowars their own, etc. I'll go for a system like this any day over Google or the SPLC or CNN or Snopes or whomever crowning themselves "truth" endorses, when in fact, they're mostly spinning the facts and telling a story from their own POV/context.
- Jeff_Brown 9y agoThe solution I wish for is one in which the knowledge graph generating users' news feeds is opened to users. Rather than hoping that an aggregator platform will pick what they need to read, a user ought to be able to ask questions like, "Show me articles arguing _", or, "Show me articles that contradict this one," or, "Show me articles about [topic] which users have labeled clarifying (or any synonym of clarifying)."