4 ms·

I don't think you agree with Swartz at all. You used an article that explains why someone does not read the news to promote your news site. According to the art

I don't think you agree with Swartz at all. You used an article that explains why someone does not read the news to promote your news site. According to the article, Swartz wasn't looking for an alternative way to consume news: he decries the news industry as a whole. I'm all for self-promotion on HN when it's relevant, but Grasswire appears to be exactly the kind of thing Swartz would not be interested in. If you were selling books or long-form journalism I could understand your post, but as it stands it's blatant self-promotion. And I say that as the founder of a news company.

austenallred 12y ago
I started the news site because I have the same frustrations Swartz has. Most of the news is bullshit and a worthless time-suck. All of the examples he uses, all of the websites out there, feel completely irrelevant to me and not interesting whatsoever. I disagree with him that it's 100% - I think it's just 99.9%, and that .01% is valuable. Perhaps that's a major difference, but Swartz's point was that it's not valuable enough to waste time on. I'd like to think that if he could spend 30 seconds to get that .01% of important news he would feel differently. But, of course, we'll never know.
- sparkzilla 12y ago
  I find it interesting that someone who is making a news site would say that most of the news is "bullshit and a worthless time suck". Are you really saying that just 0.1% of the news on your site has value? Perhaps you should take Swartz's advice and stop fighting to improve something that has so little value to you.
  - austenallred 12y ago
    > I find it interesting that someone who is making a news site would say that most of the news is "bullshit and a worthless time suck." Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. 99.9% of news is garbage, .01% of news is valuable. I want to make it easy for people to get that .01%. > Perhaps you should take Swartz advice and stop fighting to improve something that has so little value to you. I think news is badly broken, and I'm trying to fix it. I don't understand what problem you have with that.
    - sparkzilla 12y ago
      I suggest that you develop a thicker skin when dealing with feedback. Not everyone thinks what you are doing is helpful or beneficial. I can't speak for Swartz, but his article clearly says that he considered ALL news to be bad and even unhealthy, including your 0.1%. So to claim common ground, or to speak for him, is self-serving. As for Grasswire, I think your solution to trying to improve the news won't work. As someone who previously ran a collaborative fact-checking site (which included a factcheck watch that monitored the main fact-checking sites), I think fact checking is over-rated. Most people are not really that interested in fact-checking the news, or in even reading fact checks. Fact checks themselves are in most cases just as biased as the reports they claim to fact check. Nonetheless, I am genuinely interested to see how it works out for you.
      - WaxProlix 12y ago
        It seems to me that you could be a bit better at criticizing; you give this guy a hard time for having a thin skin, but you're being really antagonistic. I agree that his original post in this thread seemed a bit sales-pitch-y, and I resent that too, but you come off as being on full attack. Chill out a little, people will probably pay MORE attention, rather than writing you off as an angry competitor.
        sparkzilla 12y ago
        I am not a competitor (see post above).
      - sparkzilla 12y ago
        For anyone reading this thread later, I should point out that my response above was to a now-deleted part of Austen's mail that accused me of stalking him on the net, and told me to stop commenting on his posts.
    - jklein11 12y ago
      But what about the other .09%?
- redthrow 12y ago
  It's not just Aaron Swartz (he's wrong about this part). Many people think the news is completely junk: http://dobelli.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Part1_TEXT.pdf http://dobelli.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Par... http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/01/the-low-information-diet/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/01/the-low-informatio... http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/why-tv-news-is-a-waste-of-human-effort-one-video-is-worth-a-trillion-dollars http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/why-tv-news-is-a-waste-of-human-... http://www.stansberryradio.com/James-Altucher/Latest-Episodes/Episode/652/Ask-Altucher-Ep-69-Why-reading-the-news-is-a-waste-of-your-time http://www.stansberryradio.com/James-Altucher/Latest-Episode...
- CHaro 12y ago
  The article decries constantly checking up on the news filling your mind with things that do not actually effect you which leads you to a more unproductive day. I signed up for grasswire a couple minutes ago and at the first moment I'm bombarded with a twitter-like feed of random news events all that have nothing to do with me. How is this addressing the frustrations you claim to have in common with Swartz?
DaKK 12y ago
What Grasswire is attempting to create is the furthest thing from what current media outlets offer. That's why it's relevant. And for accusing someone of dropping links you sure seem to drop a lot of links to your news site Newslines. Newslines seems to be little more than a celebrity gossip engine. Are you attacking Grasswire because you see them as a competitor?
- sparkzilla 12y ago
  I add links to my site and blog posts when they are relevant to the discussion, unlike Austin's link here, which is actually contrary to the point raised in Swartz article. My site is not a competitor to Grasswire. Grasswire is an attempt to fact check news streams. Newslines is a news archive with no fact checking at all. As I said, I used to run a fact-checking site, so I have some experience in the area, and a continuing interest in how fact-checking may work. I am interested in all of the new news entrants, and you will see my comments on posts about Infobitt, Grasswire, Inside.com and other sites in many places across the net. That said, I have not directly criticized his site, and only said that I think fact checking in general is over rated. Unfortunately, Austen has taken my comments as a personal attack on him. He should grow a thicker skin. I think getting feedback, positive or negative, from the community is extremely valuable. Your observation that my site is "a celebrity gossip engine" is useful to me, even though you intended it as an insult. Thanks.

austenallred 12y ago

I started the news site because I have the same frustrations Swartz has. Most of the news is bullshit and a worthless time-suck. All of the examples he uses, all of the websites out there, feel completely irrelevant to me and not interesting whatsoever. I disagree with him that it's 100% - I think it's just 99.9%, and that .01% is valuable. Perhaps that's a major difference, but Swartz's point was that it's not valuable enough to waste time on. I'd like to think that if he could spend 30 seconds to get that .01% of important news he would feel differently. But, of course, we'll never know.

sparkzilla 12y ago
I find it interesting that someone who is making a news site would say that most of the news is "bullshit and a worthless time suck". Are you really saying that just 0.1% of the news on your site has value? Perhaps you should take Swartz's advice and stop fighting to improve something that has so little value to you.
- austenallred 12y ago
  > I find it interesting that someone who is making a news site would say that most of the news is "bullshit and a worthless time suck." Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. 99.9% of news is garbage, .01% of news is valuable. I want to make it easy for people to get that .01%. > Perhaps you should take Swartz advice and stop fighting to improve something that has so little value to you. I think news is badly broken, and I'm trying to fix it. I don't understand what problem you have with that.
  - sparkzilla 12y ago
    I suggest that you develop a thicker skin when dealing with feedback. Not everyone thinks what you are doing is helpful or beneficial. I can't speak for Swartz, but his article clearly says that he considered ALL news to be bad and even unhealthy, including your 0.1%. So to claim common ground, or to speak for him, is self-serving. As for Grasswire, I think your solution to trying to improve the news won't work. As someone who previously ran a collaborative fact-checking site (which included a factcheck watch that monitored the main fact-checking sites), I think fact checking is over-rated. Most people are not really that interested in fact-checking the news, or in even reading fact checks. Fact checks themselves are in most cases just as biased as the reports they claim to fact check. Nonetheless, I am genuinely interested to see how it works out for you.
    - WaxProlix 12y ago
      It seems to me that you could be a bit better at criticizing; you give this guy a hard time for having a thin skin, but you're being really antagonistic. I agree that his original post in this thread seemed a bit sales-pitch-y, and I resent that too, but you come off as being on full attack. Chill out a little, people will probably pay MORE attention, rather than writing you off as an angry competitor.
      - sparkzilla 12y ago
        I am not a competitor (see post above).
    - sparkzilla 12y ago
      For anyone reading this thread later, I should point out that my response above was to a now-deleted part of Austen's mail that accused me of stalking him on the net, and told me to stop commenting on his posts.
  - jklein11 12y ago
    But what about the other .09%?
redthrow 12y ago
It's not just Aaron Swartz (he's wrong about this part). Many people think the news is completely junk: http://dobelli.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Part1_TEXT.pdf http://dobelli.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Par... http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/01/the-low-information-diet/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/01/the-low-informatio... http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/why-tv-news-is-a-waste-of-human-effort-one-video-is-worth-a-trillion-dollars http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/why-tv-news-is-a-waste-of-human-... http://www.stansberryradio.com/James-Altucher/Latest-Episodes/Episode/652/Ask-Altucher-Ep-69-Why-reading-the-news-is-a-waste-of-your-time http://www.stansberryradio.com/James-Altucher/Latest-Episode...
CHaro 12y ago
The article decries constantly checking up on the news filling your mind with things that do not actually effect you which leads you to a more unproductive day. I signed up for grasswire a couple minutes ago and at the first moment I'm bombarded with a twitter-like feed of random news events all that have nothing to do with me. How is this addressing the frustrations you claim to have in common with Swartz?

DaKK 12y ago

What Grasswire is attempting to create is the furthest thing from what current media outlets offer. That's why it's relevant. And for accusing someone of dropping links you sure seem to drop a lot of links to your news site Newslines. Newslines seems to be little more than a celebrity gossip engine. Are you attacking Grasswire because you see them as a competitor?

sparkzilla 12y ago
I add links to my site and blog posts when they are relevant to the discussion, unlike Austin's link here, which is actually contrary to the point raised in Swartz article. My site is not a competitor to Grasswire. Grasswire is an attempt to fact check news streams. Newslines is a news archive with no fact checking at all. As I said, I used to run a fact-checking site, so I have some experience in the area, and a continuing interest in how fact-checking may work. I am interested in all of the new news entrants, and you will see my comments on posts about Infobitt, Grasswire, Inside.com and other sites in many places across the net. That said, I have not directly criticized his site, and only said that I think fact checking in general is over rated. Unfortunately, Austen has taken my comments as a personal attack on him. He should grow a thicker skin. I think getting feedback, positive or negative, from the community is extremely valuable. Your observation that my site is "a celebrity gossip engine" is useful to me, even though you intended it as an insult. Thanks.