3 ms·

I see where the author is coming from. The author's main gripe is that non-factual right-wing stories are being presented as left-wing blindspots. The author w

I see where the author is coming from. The author's main gripe is that non-factual right-wing stories are being presented as left-wing blindspots. The author would seemingly prefer that those stories be flagged as being untrustworthy due to low factuality scores among its sources. Understandable but I think it defeats the purpose of Ground News. I think the idea is that if you are seeking the truth, and Ground News shows you a story that's being covered exclusively by right or left wing sources, that's their signal that the story could be either a) bullshit, or b) something one side is conveniently ignoring because it runs counter to their agenda. Ultimately it's up to you to you to decide. But, this way, if you hear this story being talked about elsewhere, you've now encountered it and know that it's being almost exclusively covered by one side.

wredcoll 1y ago
> Ground News shows you a story that's being covered exclusively by right or left wing sources, that's their signal that the story could be either a) bullshit, Except this isn't what this guy found. What he found was that right-wing-only stories were invariably lies. You'd have a point if there was also the same tendency to lying on "the left" (whoever that is supposed to be). Just because you can come up with two sides to an issue doesn't make them equally valid. There is a truly massive amount of people attempting to prevent criticism of right wing people by constantly deflecting everything with "oh the left wing is just as bad!" and there's an annoying type of person who sees that and believes it. Like, lies and propaganda are bad for us and our society but we can't get anywhere talking about if everyone has to constantly pretend there are two sides to it.
- oldandboring 1y ago
  Read what I wrote again please. You didn't understand it the first time.

wredcoll 1y ago

> Ground News shows you a story that's being covered exclusively by right or left wing sources, that's their signal that the story could be either a) bullshit, Except this isn't what this guy found. What he found was that right-wing-only stories were invariably lies. You'd have a point if there was also the same tendency to lying on "the left" (whoever that is supposed to be). Just because you can come up with two sides to an issue doesn't make them equally valid. There is a truly massive amount of people attempting to prevent criticism of right wing people by constantly deflecting everything with "oh the left wing is just as bad!" and there's an annoying type of person who sees that and believes it. Like, lies and propaganda are bad for us and our society but we can't get anywhere talking about if everyone has to constantly pretend there are two sides to it.

oldandboring 1y ago
Read what I wrote again please. You didn't understand it the first time.