3 ms·

The line “news stories will be generated” throws up red flags across the horizon for me. That’s not news. That’s news-adjacent random slop.

by devmor 1y ago

input_sh 1y ago
It's also a workaround around copyright, news sites would be (rightfully) pissed if you publicly post their articles in full and would argue that you're stealing their viewership. But, if you're essentially doing an automatic mash-up of five stories on the same topic from different sources, all of a sudden you're not doing anything wrong! As an example from one of their sources, you can only re-publish a certain amount of words from an article in The Guardian (100 commercially, 500 non-comercially) without paying them.
- nemomarx 1y ago
  tbh I would take the headline and first hundred words in a news aggregator. that seems fine?
  - input_sh 1y ago
    Yes, that is fine! That's how RSS feeds usually work when you follow more "mainstream" news sources. At the very least, you see the name of the author and you actually make a connection to their server that can be measured in the analytics. But instead, Kagi "helpfully" regurgitates the whole story, visits the article once, delivers it to presumably thousands, and it can't even be bothered to display all of the sources it regurgitates unless you click to expand the dropdown. And even then the headline itself is one additional click away, and they straight up don't even display the name of the journalist in the pop-up, just the headline. Incredibly shitty behaviour from them. And then they have the balls to start their about page with this: > Why Kagi News? Because news is broken.
amarant 1y ago
And yet, after trying it, I have to admit it's more informative and less provocative than any other news source I've seen since at least 2005. I don't know how they do it, and I'm not sure I care, the result is they've eliminated both clickbait and ragebait, and the news are indeed better off for it!
- input_sh 1y ago
  Soulless, uncreative, not fact-checked (or read by anyone before clicking publish), not contributing anything back to the original journalists, all of the editorial decisions are done by an undeterministic AI filter. Not gonna call it the worst insult to journalism I've ever seen because I've seen factually(.)so which does essentially the same thing but calls it an "AI fact check", but it's not much better. It's like instead of borrowing a book from the library, there's like a spokesperson at the entrance who you ask a question and then blindly believe whatever they say.
  - amarant 1y ago
    >soulless,uncreative This is exactly how I want my news to be. Nothing worse than a headline about a new vaccine breakthrough, followed by a first paragraph that starts with "it was a cold November morning as I arrived in..." I guess it's a matter of taste, but I prefer it short and to the point

The line “news stories will be generated” throws up red flags across the horizon for me. That’s not news. That’s news-adjacent random slop.

by devmor 1y ago

The line “news stories will be generated” throws up red flags across the horizon for me. That’s not news. That’s news-adjacent random slop.

input_sh 1y ago

It's also a workaround around copyright, news sites would be (rightfully) pissed if you publicly post their articles in full and would argue that you're stealing their viewership. But, if you're essentially doing an automatic mash-up of five stories on the same topic from different sources, all of a sudden you're not doing anything wrong! As an example from one of their sources, you can only re-publish a certain amount of words from an article in The Guardian (100 commercially, 500 non-comercially) without paying them.

nemomarx 1y ago
tbh I would take the headline and first hundred words in a news aggregator. that seems fine?
- input_sh 1y ago
  Yes, that is fine! That's how RSS feeds usually work when you follow more "mainstream" news sources. At the very least, you see the name of the author and you actually make a connection to their server that can be measured in the analytics. But instead, Kagi "helpfully" regurgitates the whole story, visits the article once, delivers it to presumably thousands, and it can't even be bothered to display all of the sources it regurgitates unless you click to expand the dropdown. And even then the headline itself is one additional click away, and they straight up don't even display the name of the journalist in the pop-up, just the headline. Incredibly shitty behaviour from them. And then they have the balls to start their about page with this: > Why Kagi News? Because news is broken.

amarant 1y ago

And yet, after trying it, I have to admit it's more informative and less provocative than any other news source I've seen since at least 2005. I don't know how they do it, and I'm not sure I care, the result is they've eliminated both clickbait and ragebait, and the news are indeed better off for it!

input_sh 1y ago
Soulless, uncreative, not fact-checked (or read by anyone before clicking publish), not contributing anything back to the original journalists, all of the editorial decisions are done by an undeterministic AI filter. Not gonna call it the worst insult to journalism I've ever seen because I've seen factually(.)so which does essentially the same thing but calls it an "AI fact check", but it's not much better. It's like instead of borrowing a book from the library, there's like a spokesperson at the entrance who you ask a question and then blindly believe whatever they say.
- amarant 1y ago
  >soulless,uncreative This is exactly how I want my news to be. Nothing worse than a headline about a new vaccine breakthrough, followed by a first paragraph that starts with "it was a cold November morning as I arrived in..." I guess it's a matter of taste, but I prefer it short and to the point