4 ms·

The current summary on the home page contains bias / one-sided reporting. > While the administration describes the strikes as a necessary move to stop nuclear

The current summary on the home page contains bias / one-sided reporting. > While the administration describes the strikes as a necessary move to stop nuclear weapons, the conflict has already seen accidental friendly fire and threats of a ground invasion. The balance to the assertion "this was necessary" isn't "but there's been some consequences" -- it is an exploration of the truth of the assertion.

benzible 7mo ago
And the legality of it as well.
foxfoxx 7mo ago
I agree and will be taking this feedback seriously. Daily briefings need more refinement since that is the first thing a user reads.
1shooner 7mo ago
How are the consequences of war not germane to its necessity?
- stonogo 7mo ago
  They are, of course, but there are two different consequences involved in this assessment. One is "stop nuclear weapons" (the converse would be "do not stop nuclear weapons") and the other is "friendly fire incidents" (the converse would be "no friendly fire incidents"). Neither are directly related to the other, since the former is specific to this engagement and the latter happens in any combat.
  - reverius42 7mo ago
    Yeah, the two sides are basically: * The war is necessary, regardless of friendly fire * The friendly fire happened, regardless of whether the war is necessary They're just totally orthogonal.
gwerbin 7mo ago
That's the same kind of non-balance you see in human-authored news all the time, to be fair.
usernomdeguerre 7mo ago
It also seems rather off base on the sentiment analysis as well. >"We are on day three of President Trump's military operation in Iran. It's the most courageous military decision of my lifetime, and we are kicking a*. The United States military and the Israeli military, working in tandem, are kicking the hell out of the Iranian government. How is Iran planning to fight back? They have friends. They're counting on pathetic, mewling Europeans and the ridiculous, sad sack Democrats who just hate Trump and don't care about America winning." This was marked Right:Neutral
pibaker 7mo ago
Given there is an "AI pipeline" in play, I suspect this is just the typical compulsive equivocation from an LLM. Never assert strong opinions. Find something to say while actually saying nothing. Always give "both sides" equal treatment and consideration no matter what the sides actually are.
- southerntofu 7mo ago
  That's not a fair assessment. Context: I hate Trump as much as Khomeini. A "both sides" treatment would be: US & Israel illegally assassinate Iranian leader in bombing campaign, calling agression "necessity". Now, if you'd like to lean to one side or the other, you can either: - remove information about legality and the fact that they are the authors of the agression, add something about Iran being a threat to its neighbors - or insist that any excuses provided by USA or Israel about nuclear weapons is 100% bogus as they have been claiming this for over 20 years "We have no choice to do this horrible thing, but it may have slightly bad consequences for us" does not take the second side into consideration at all. It's very biased, and it's a very strong opinion in itself.
  - edgyquant 7mo ago
    You are so clearly biased your “both sides” is seething hatred of one side.
    - southerntofu 7mo ago
      Of course i'm biased (though probably not like you mean), but that "both sides" depiction was fair and rather neutral. I'm personally very happy Khomenei is dead, and so are my iranian friends. But we are all very concerned that he is dead for the wrong reason, under a wrong pretext, and with very grim perspectives (see also what the US did in all the countries it bombed in the past 20 years). I think Khomenei and Trump are two sides of the same coin: bloody authoritarianism and religious zealotry. They're both pretty bad, but one side in this conflict was clearly the aggressor, and denying that is in itself picking sides. One can both sympathize with a victim of unjust aggression, and at the same time thinking they're a profound piece of shit. One could even point out that just a few years ago, Trump was very insistent about "no more wars", and that he regularly mockingly predicted that Obama would attack Iran to avoid talking about domestic policy. Turns out the hypocrisy level is high and he really is beyond a doubt the bad guy in this story, even if that does not make the iranian ayatollahs good guys by any measure.

benzible 7mo ago

And the legality of it as well.

foxfoxx 7mo ago

I agree and will be taking this feedback seriously. Daily briefings need more refinement since that is the first thing a user reads.

1shooner 7mo ago

How are the consequences of war not germane to its necessity?

stonogo 7mo ago
They are, of course, but there are two different consequences involved in this assessment. One is "stop nuclear weapons" (the converse would be "do not stop nuclear weapons") and the other is "friendly fire incidents" (the converse would be "no friendly fire incidents"). Neither are directly related to the other, since the former is specific to this engagement and the latter happens in any combat.
- reverius42 7mo ago
  Yeah, the two sides are basically: * The war is necessary, regardless of friendly fire * The friendly fire happened, regardless of whether the war is necessary They're just totally orthogonal.

gwerbin 7mo ago

That's the same kind of non-balance you see in human-authored news all the time, to be fair.

usernomdeguerre 7mo ago

It also seems rather off base on the sentiment analysis as well. >"We are on day three of President Trump's military operation in Iran. It's the most courageous military decision of my lifetime, and we are kicking a*. The United States military and the Israeli military, working in tandem, are kicking the hell out of the Iranian government. How is Iran planning to fight back? They have friends. They're counting on pathetic, mewling Europeans and the ridiculous, sad sack Democrats who just hate Trump and don't care about America winning." This was marked Right:Neutral

pibaker 7mo ago

Given there is an "AI pipeline" in play, I suspect this is just the typical compulsive equivocation from an LLM. Never assert strong opinions. Find something to say while actually saying nothing. Always give "both sides" equal treatment and consideration no matter what the sides actually are.

southerntofu 7mo ago
That's not a fair assessment. Context: I hate Trump as much as Khomeini. A "both sides" treatment would be: US & Israel illegally assassinate Iranian leader in bombing campaign, calling agression "necessity". Now, if you'd like to lean to one side or the other, you can either: - remove information about legality and the fact that they are the authors of the agression, add something about Iran being a threat to its neighbors - or insist that any excuses provided by USA or Israel about nuclear weapons is 100% bogus as they have been claiming this for over 20 years "We have no choice to do this horrible thing, but it may have slightly bad consequences for us" does not take the second side into consideration at all. It's very biased, and it's a very strong opinion in itself.
- edgyquant 7mo ago
  You are so clearly biased your “both sides” is seething hatred of one side.
  - southerntofu 7mo ago
    Of course i'm biased (though probably not like you mean), but that "both sides" depiction was fair and rather neutral. I'm personally very happy Khomenei is dead, and so are my iranian friends. But we are all very concerned that he is dead for the wrong reason, under a wrong pretext, and with very grim perspectives (see also what the US did in all the countries it bombed in the past 20 years). I think Khomenei and Trump are two sides of the same coin: bloody authoritarianism and religious zealotry. They're both pretty bad, but one side in this conflict was clearly the aggressor, and denying that is in itself picking sides. One can both sympathize with a victim of unjust aggression, and at the same time thinking they're a profound piece of shit. One could even point out that just a few years ago, Trump was very insistent about "no more wars", and that he regularly mockingly predicted that Obama would attack Iran to avoid talking about domestic policy. Turns out the hypocrisy level is high and he really is beyond a doubt the bad guy in this story, even if that does not make the iranian ayatollahs good guys by any measure.