6 ms·

The new Google News: AI meets human intelligence

74 points by devhxinc 8y ago

ABeeSea 8y ago
I hope this fixes the current issues with google news on ios. The app crashes constantly and freezes my phone completely for a good 20-30 seconds until it restarts. This has persisted across multiple iPhone 8’s. Not a fan of the UI of apple news either.
- bitmapbrother 8y ago
  FWIW I've never experienced those issues using Google News on iOS.
notheguyouthink 8y ago
Yea... this is the last thing I want. Another massive company (ala Facebook) controlling the feed of information into my brain. I thought we were trying to get away from that?
fareesh 8y ago
Disappointing to see that it relies on Snopes for "fact checking". Also disappointing to see that what constitutes "quality journalism" is decided by a giant technology company. This is a big step backwards.
- remyrylan 8y ago
  There's definitely an agenda out there, FB and Google now are both using Snopes for fact-checking. https://steemit.com/health/@holisticgreen/snopes-is-the-authority-on-truth-ha-ha-snopes-can-t-even-fact-check-their-own-divorce https://steemit.com/health/@holisticgreen/snopes-is-the-auth...
  - cevn 8y ago
    The agenda is the garbage article you just posted. I've never seen such a severe case of ad hominem.
    - remyrylan 8y ago
      The garbage article I posted at least sheds a little bit of light on the fact that snopes is not the bastion of integrity that for some reason it's being portrayed as via both Google and FB. Also congratulations if that's literally the most severe case of ad hominem you've ever seen. Also worth noting: I linked that article because it was the first source I found via searching that highlighted all the shady stuff that founders have done. I'm not aligned with the additional views of the author of that article.
      - croon 8y ago
        > The garbage article I posted at least sheds a little bit of light on the fact that snopes is not the bastion of integrity that for some reason it's being portrayed as via both Google and FB. The thing about that is that the "article" doesn't mention a single case of where Snopes was wrong (I only read the first few pages, so they might've buried something, which would be strategically unwise). Which means they want a character assassination because they can't argue the on the issues alone. The contents might be true, or not, but it doesn't affect the argument.
- mwexler 8y ago
  Do you have another preferred source? I've actually been quite pleased with my spot checking of Snopes support or refutation on various claims. It may not be truth incarnate, but it seems to do a pretty good job of surfacing a set of verifiable facts when it can.
- croon 8y ago
  Have any examples of things they've gotten wrong?
  - fareesh 8y ago
    I find that they include their interpretation of a statement when it suits a particular point of view, whereas other times they take things very literally, without a measured reading. One example is this case: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-compliant-citizenry/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-compliant-citizenr... There's also the fact that the team behind the website does not have a stellar reputation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#1b979c89227f https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dai...
    - gowld 8y ago
      I don't understand what you are trying to show. Snopes debunked Infowars' absurd mischaracterization of the Ivey email (which was however poorly written in confusing pretentious wording), and produced the evidence in full to justify its position. Regarding your second link, I read it and don't see what you are driving at. It says that Snopes has some politically engaged staff members, and doesn't do individual bylines, and someone got divorced.
      - fareesh 8y ago
        I am trying to show a double standard and agenda driven content. https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-alt-right-equally-violent/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-al... The very first sentence of this content illustrates the kind of shady journalism that I would not expect to see from anyone entrusted to be a "Fact checker". They make a reference to "violence in Charlottesville" and the deaths of three people. Two of those deaths are the consequences of a completely unrelated helicopter accident. Here is a news story about the helicopter accident: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/08/15/helicopter-involved-in-charlottesville-crash-was-involved-in-previous-incident/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9bc157540501 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/08/1... The title is "FACT CHECK: Are Antifa and the Alt-Right equally violent". This content goes on to make the suggestion to the reader that Antifa is not organizing any violence (this basis on which the author forms this opinion is categorically false, based on ample evidence around the internet showing cases of organized violence, not in response to "alt right rallies"). Furthermore, there are consequences to what Snopes does when they rate you false. For example: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cnn-washing-machine/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cnn-washing-machine/ i.e. Did CNN Purchase an Industrial-Sized Washing Machine to Spin News? resulted in this: https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/969405110324523008/ https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/969405110324523008/ In the abstract, "fact checking" is not a reliable solution. It is the same problem - if the journalists are not trustworthy, why are the fact checkers trustworthy? Furthermore, Snopes is not reliable.
- jadbox 8y ago
  do you have a source with higher integrity than snopes and factcheck.org?
kevincox 8y ago
The thing that gets me about Google news is that the personalization is incredibly coarse. I can see a "17 apps that take great selfies" article and the only way to express disinterest is by removing Android from my interest list. I might dislike an article because the publisher is low quality or I'm not interesting in one aspect of the content but it just picks one "reson" to justify showing the article.
- saudioger 8y ago
  I believe you can blacklist publishers, which has always been my favorite feature.
- combatentropy 8y ago
  From the article: > We’ve also built easy-to-use and easy-to-access controls > so you can decide if you want to see more or less of a topic or publisher.
  - ehsankia 8y ago
    You didn't really answer the problem? The person above was complaining that "17 apps to take a better selfie" is under the "Android" topic. Your only other choice is to block the entire publisher, which may be good if all that publisher posts is similar bad articles, but it's hard for you to know. A far better way would be to get upvote/downvote per article, and then have the AI figure what your interests are, rather than base it purely on clicks, which tends to favor clickbait.
    - combatentropy 8y ago
      He gave two ways he would like to more finely control content: 1. subtopics (your example) where he was interested in Android but not selfie apps 2. by publisher: "I might dislike an article because the publisher is low quality" I was replying with a solution to problem #2 only.
3steve 8y ago
I don't want personalized news, I use Google News for the exact opposite reason. I want to see semi-random headlines from a variety of source to increase my exposure to stories I might not have seen otherwise.
- dmix 8y ago
  The same interface could easily do both...
- ucaetano 8y ago
  > see semi-random headlines from a variety of source to increase my exposure to stories I might not have seen otherwise Isn't that exactly personalized news? But you can just load it on incognito or signed out and not have any personalization other than location/country.
  - bamboozled 8y ago
    What a horrible UX, loading it in “Incognito mode”, no.
    - saudioger 8y ago
      You get what you pay for.
    - skybrian 8y ago
      It's quite useful! These days I browse pretty much all news sites in Incognito mode, due to paywalls.
  - 3steve 8y ago
    Personalization does not arise from passive use. Consider the converse, articles from a list of user selected sources. That sounds more like personalized news. Besides Google News used to function that way so I think I should be entitled to my opinion of how it should function.
    - 8y ago
forapurpose 8y ago
> And if you want to support your favorite news sources, we’ve made it simple to subscribe with your Google account. This means no more forms, credit card numbers, or new passwords. And soon, thanks to the new Subscribe with Google platform (launched as a part of the Google News Initiative), you’ll get access to your paid content everywhere—on all platforms and devices, on Google News, Google Search, and on publishers’ own websites. The upside is that it's a desperately needed solution to funding journalism. Hopefully people can pay per article, making quality journalism better funded and far more available (many people who can afford one article can't afford a year subscription, I assume). But the cost is far too high: Google knows everything you read, and becomes the gatekeeper for journalism. Yikes. For those not worried, imagine the day when Google ownership/management shifts from the current well-intentioned people to someone else. That day will come.
- crazygringo 8y ago
  All I want is an option to pay $10/mo for news to all sources, and let each publisher receive the proportion of that that my clicks determine.
  - imh 8y ago
    Wouldn't that exacerbate clickbait?
    - hekfu 8y ago
      If get clickbaited 2 or three times, I stop browsing your site.
  - gowld 8y ago
    That's less than the price of any single news source. Why would they offer that price to you?
    - 16bytes 8y ago
      Because the vast majority of news consumers online are ad-supported non-paying customers. I'm not going to pay $20/mo each to WaPo, NYTimes and WSJ. But I would pay $20/mo for "entry" level subscriptions to all of them, which I'm pretty sure is more than the Ad revenue that I would otherwise bring in. $10/mo may not be the best price point, but IMHO having cheaper pay-as-go options would drive in a lot of unrealized revenue.
MikeGale 8y ago
Great for those who want their appreciation of the world micromanaged by an advertising agency. Way to go homo sapiens(?).
LifeLiverTransp 8y ago
German here: Recommend the magazine review of the perlentaucher- which is a manual weekly worldwide magazine best-of. Unfortunatly for international readers its in german. https://www.perlentaucher.de/magazinrundschau/2018-05-08.html https://www.perlentaucher.de/magazinrundschau/2018-05-08.htm...

74 points by devhxinc 8y ago

I hope this fixes the current issues with google news on ios. The app crashes constantly and freezes my phone completely for a good 20-30 seconds until it restarts. This has persisted across multiple iPhone 8’s. Not a fan of the UI of apple news either.

bitmapbrother 8y ago
FWIW I've never experienced those issues using Google News on iOS.

notheguyouthink 8y ago

Yea... this is the last thing I want. Another massive company (ala Facebook) controlling the feed of information into my brain. I thought we were trying to get away from that?

fareesh 8y ago

Disappointing to see that it relies on Snopes for "fact checking". Also disappointing to see that what constitutes "quality journalism" is decided by a giant technology company. This is a big step backwards.

remyrylan 8y ago
There's definitely an agenda out there, FB and Google now are both using Snopes for fact-checking. https://steemit.com/health/@holisticgreen/snopes-is-the-authority-on-truth-ha-ha-snopes-can-t-even-fact-check-their-own-divorce https://steemit.com/health/@holisticgreen/snopes-is-the-auth...
- cevn 8y ago
  The agenda is the garbage article you just posted. I've never seen such a severe case of ad hominem.
  - remyrylan 8y ago
    The garbage article I posted at least sheds a little bit of light on the fact that snopes is not the bastion of integrity that for some reason it's being portrayed as via both Google and FB. Also congratulations if that's literally the most severe case of ad hominem you've ever seen. Also worth noting: I linked that article because it was the first source I found via searching that highlighted all the shady stuff that founders have done. I'm not aligned with the additional views of the author of that article.
    - croon 8y ago
      > The garbage article I posted at least sheds a little bit of light on the fact that snopes is not the bastion of integrity that for some reason it's being portrayed as via both Google and FB. The thing about that is that the "article" doesn't mention a single case of where Snopes was wrong (I only read the first few pages, so they might've buried something, which would be strategically unwise). Which means they want a character assassination because they can't argue the on the issues alone. The contents might be true, or not, but it doesn't affect the argument.
mwexler 8y ago
Do you have another preferred source? I've actually been quite pleased with my spot checking of Snopes support or refutation on various claims. It may not be truth incarnate, but it seems to do a pretty good job of surfacing a set of verifiable facts when it can.
croon 8y ago
Have any examples of things they've gotten wrong?
- fareesh 8y ago
  I find that they include their interpretation of a statement when it suits a particular point of view, whereas other times they take things very literally, without a measured reading. One example is this case: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-compliant-citizenry/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-compliant-citizenr... There's also the fact that the team behind the website does not have a stellar reputation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#1b979c89227f https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dai...
  - gowld 8y ago
    I don't understand what you are trying to show. Snopes debunked Infowars' absurd mischaracterization of the Ivey email (which was however poorly written in confusing pretentious wording), and produced the evidence in full to justify its position. Regarding your second link, I read it and don't see what you are driving at. It says that Snopes has some politically engaged staff members, and doesn't do individual bylines, and someone got divorced.
    - fareesh 8y ago
      I am trying to show a double standard and agenda driven content. https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-alt-right-equally-violent/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/08/17/are-antifa-and-the-al... The very first sentence of this content illustrates the kind of shady journalism that I would not expect to see from anyone entrusted to be a "Fact checker". They make a reference to "violence in Charlottesville" and the deaths of three people. Two of those deaths are the consequences of a completely unrelated helicopter accident. Here is a news story about the helicopter accident: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/08/15/helicopter-involved-in-charlottesville-crash-was-involved-in-previous-incident/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9bc157540501 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-gridlock/wp/2017/08/1... The title is "FACT CHECK: Are Antifa and the Alt-Right equally violent". This content goes on to make the suggestion to the reader that Antifa is not organizing any violence (this basis on which the author forms this opinion is categorically false, based on ample evidence around the internet showing cases of organized violence, not in response to "alt right rallies"). Furthermore, there are consequences to what Snopes does when they rate you false. For example: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cnn-washing-machine/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cnn-washing-machine/ i.e. Did CNN Purchase an Industrial-Sized Washing Machine to Spin News? resulted in this: https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/969405110324523008/ https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/969405110324523008/ In the abstract, "fact checking" is not a reliable solution. It is the same problem - if the journalists are not trustworthy, why are the fact checkers trustworthy? Furthermore, Snopes is not reliable.
jadbox 8y ago
do you have a source with higher integrity than snopes and factcheck.org?

kevincox 8y ago

The thing that gets me about Google news is that the personalization is incredibly coarse. I can see a "17 apps that take great selfies" article and the only way to express disinterest is by removing Android from my interest list. I might dislike an article because the publisher is low quality or I'm not interesting in one aspect of the content but it just picks one "reson" to justify showing the article.

saudioger 8y ago
I believe you can blacklist publishers, which has always been my favorite feature.
combatentropy 8y ago
From the article: > We’ve also built easy-to-use and easy-to-access controls > so you can decide if you want to see more or less of a topic or publisher.
- ehsankia 8y ago
  You didn't really answer the problem? The person above was complaining that "17 apps to take a better selfie" is under the "Android" topic. Your only other choice is to block the entire publisher, which may be good if all that publisher posts is similar bad articles, but it's hard for you to know. A far better way would be to get upvote/downvote per article, and then have the AI figure what your interests are, rather than base it purely on clicks, which tends to favor clickbait.
  - combatentropy 8y ago
    He gave two ways he would like to more finely control content: 1. subtopics (your example) where he was interested in Android but not selfie apps 2. by publisher: "I might dislike an article because the publisher is low quality" I was replying with a solution to problem #2 only.

3steve 8y ago

I don't want personalized news, I use Google News for the exact opposite reason. I want to see semi-random headlines from a variety of source to increase my exposure to stories I might not have seen otherwise.

dmix 8y ago
The same interface could easily do both...
ucaetano 8y ago
> see semi-random headlines from a variety of source to increase my exposure to stories I might not have seen otherwise Isn't that exactly personalized news? But you can just load it on incognito or signed out and not have any personalization other than location/country.
- bamboozled 8y ago
  What a horrible UX, loading it in “Incognito mode”, no.
  - saudioger 8y ago
    You get what you pay for.
  - skybrian 8y ago
    It's quite useful! These days I browse pretty much all news sites in Incognito mode, due to paywalls.
- 3steve 8y ago
  Personalization does not arise from passive use. Consider the converse, articles from a list of user selected sources. That sounds more like personalized news. Besides Google News used to function that way so I think I should be entitled to my opinion of how it should function.
  - 8y ago

forapurpose 8y ago

> And if you want to support your favorite news sources, we’ve made it simple to subscribe with your Google account. This means no more forms, credit card numbers, or new passwords. And soon, thanks to the new Subscribe with Google platform (launched as a part of the Google News Initiative), you’ll get access to your paid content everywhere—on all platforms and devices, on Google News, Google Search, and on publishers’ own websites. The upside is that it's a desperately needed solution to funding journalism. Hopefully people can pay per article, making quality journalism better funded and far more available (many people who can afford one article can't afford a year subscription, I assume). But the cost is far too high: Google knows everything you read, and becomes the gatekeeper for journalism. Yikes. For those not worried, imagine the day when Google ownership/management shifts from the current well-intentioned people to someone else. That day will come.

crazygringo 8y ago
All I want is an option to pay $10/mo for news to all sources, and let each publisher receive the proportion of that that my clicks determine.
- imh 8y ago
  Wouldn't that exacerbate clickbait?
  - hekfu 8y ago
    If get clickbaited 2 or three times, I stop browsing your site.
- gowld 8y ago
  That's less than the price of any single news source. Why would they offer that price to you?
  - 16bytes 8y ago
    Because the vast majority of news consumers online are ad-supported non-paying customers. I'm not going to pay $20/mo each to WaPo, NYTimes and WSJ. But I would pay $20/mo for "entry" level subscriptions to all of them, which I'm pretty sure is more than the Ad revenue that I would otherwise bring in. $10/mo may not be the best price point, but IMHO having cheaper pay-as-go options would drive in a lot of unrealized revenue.

MikeGale 8y ago

Great for those who want their appreciation of the world micromanaged by an advertising agency. Way to go homo sapiens(?).

LifeLiverTransp 8y ago

German here: Recommend the magazine review of the perlentaucher- which is a manual weekly worldwide magazine best-of. Unfortunatly for international readers its in german. https://www.perlentaucher.de/magazinrundschau/2018-05-08.html https://www.perlentaucher.de/magazinrundschau/2018-05-08.htm...