I think I prefer to live in a world with fake news than one where the elites curate everything we learn.
The world has always had conmen, charlatans, snake-oil salesmen and fake news; in small quantities, they are essential to make sure that people keep questioning everything.
Fake news is like a vaccine which protects us against a zombie apocalypse. Most news cannot be scientifically proven to be true; so it doesn't make sense that we should all believe it just because it's popular. Popular news sources are more likely to be true but they are also a lot more dangerous if they're not. Given enough time, these big news sources will be corrupted.
That's why the GP called them a vaccine. To be a vaccine, first it has to be a virus.
There are some odd happening recently that people attribute to fake news (usually with weak evidence, and way too many competing possibilities that they ignore), but I don't think anybody can classify the current world as apocalyptic.
That's an unusual way to describe The Lancet, who are responsible for inflicting Wakefield's bullshit on the world, and taking an eternity to retract it.
That's the point.
Accurate, impartial news does not exist and there is no benefit for the majority of individuals to believe that such a thing exists.
All news is fake to some extent because there is always room for an agenda.
The only reliable way to stop elites from setting the agenda is for people to believe in stuff which conflicts with the agenda. Whether it's fake news or not is a detail which doesn't matter.
People should be encouraged to trust their intuition even if it occasionally leads them to make mistakes.
There's an important difference between people who are genuinely pursuing the truth and those who are genuinely pursuing deception. There's an important difference between a well-intentioned developer who writes a buffer overflow and one who adds a backdoor.
And fake news itself has an agenda: to convince people that there is no such thing as truth, that nothing that the elites say can ever resemble truth, and that caring about what the elites do is futile because the truth is unknowable. Your approach effectively endorses that agenda above others.
The proliferation of fake news doesn't do that. Fake news just reinforces people's biases as they self-select to read a fake news outlet that they agree with, killing any remainder of sceptisism and critical thinking.
> People should be encouraged to trust their intuition even if it occasionally leads them to make mistakes.
That's how it works with real, good-but-not-perfectly-impartial news. Fake news on the other hand is almost entirely lies that remain unquestioned by its consumers, resulting in many many more "mistakes".
From my perspective I am not really afraid of elites per se but false information (or lying people) spreading which enables unsocial and unethical behavior not only to continue but to thrive.
You can compare humanity to a human body... what you are describing is an auto-immune disease where your own anti-bodies are attacking your own body... just because there are cells which are “higher up in the nevous system and decide what the body should do”?
If the cells are working healthily in your interest, let them be... if they are misfunctioning and causing harm, by any means, try to replace them. Throwing around with general terms is not helping anyone in this situation.
How can democracy operate if the levers are broken? What are you voting on if you don't believe that any of the information about candidates is real? Or the content of the laws passed?
That depends on the publisher. Subscription revenue is now 2/3 of the NY Times business as one major example. There are few larger news publishers in the US than the NY Times. As recently as 2005, 2/3 of their revenue came from advertising. That ratio has inverted. The NYT subscribers are on average 30x to 40x more lucrative than the ad-only readers.
The Wall Street Journal has been able to accomplish a similar, gradual build-out of their online subscription business. The Washington Post is pursuing the same model and will likely reach a similar balance on revenue over time.
A good subscription business will always beat a good ad business, unless you're Google or Facebook (in which case their hyperscale enables them to monetize drastically more users than they could with subscriptions).
No coincidence the NY Times has rebuilt their business and their stock is approaching ~15 year highs. Meanwhile, ad businesses like BuzzFeed are in collapse mode (BuzzFeed's ad-based ARPU is less than 1% of what the NY Times derives from its subscribers).
The accessibility and ubiquity of the big names are creating a winner take all scenario. The buzzfeeds, along with traditional regional and local newspaper media, are forced to fight for national advertising income which is becoming less lucrative and more obtrusive by the year. Advertisers have all of the leverage.
Long story short, most for-profit general news media media is in a bad place with no way out.
That's what I would've said a couple of years ago. Now it's clear that fake news is more like a vaccine that really does cause autism.
Why on Earth would you believe such a thing? That's utterly ludicrous.
- Unlike SEO, the 'news' association for publishers comes with a standard of authority.
Imagine if it took ten minutes for OP to get their site listed and showing articles on the headline carousel. Now imagine how easy that same process would be for the waves of fake news blogs to spread misinformation. It's far from perfect but the process is not that quick and not that easy for newcomers for a reason.
People commonly lament that the Web has changed, it's dominated by big brands, it's not weird anymore, etc. I think this is a big part. Google has made these changes in an effort to address some legitimate problems around spam, black/gray hat SEO etc. But they likely have some less user-centric incentives as well ($$$) and either way, Google SERPs have become more boring and less relevant.
There might be an opportunity for disruption emerging because of this. Google knows its search engine isn't very good anymore! That is why they're increasingly trying to pitch their service as a recommendation engine with special AI sauce, not an index of the Web. But frankly as this article demonstrates, what Google wants to recommend comes from a smaller sandbox and often is not the most interesting stuff out there.
If someone can come up with a distribution mechanism which solves the problem of helping the user discover All The Content minus the spammers, scammers and fake news, they will be able to deliver more relevant information than search or social media can today. Google being large actually gives them an in-built disadvantage here because no matter what algorithm they develop, it's going to be everyone's first priority to reverse engineer and game.
I wish there was a way to detect people attempting to game the algorithm, and just ban them indiscriminately. That's the only way. It probably requires AGI, though.
Just like the old saw, "you're not stuck in traffic, you're the traffic", if you're doing SEO beyond making your page lightweight and useful to people, you are a part of the problem.
It won't solve fake news issue; people could still make nice and fast sites full of lies. But at least low-effort "content marketing" spam would hopefully disappear, not to mention comment spam and all the other content that exists solely to push useless sites higher in SERPs.
This is, unfortunately, an overly simplistic model. Everything can be manipulative if done to an extreme extent.
There's no individual thing that you can easily draw the line at. The question is where do you draw the line, and what combination of factors is ban worthy.
> Google knows its search engine isn't very good anymore!
> That is why they're increasingly trying to pitch their service as a
> recommendation engine with special AI sauce, not an index of the web
We provide some content discovery tools (Discover, News), but those are offshoots made possible by our core mission and competencies: organizing the web’s information and making it accessible to users (yes we really say that, though frequently with a wink and a nod). We don’t try to be an index of the web, but instead as the best place to find out anything.
For a high-level read (and some in-depth coverage, like the rater guidelines) on what I’m taking about, consult this page: https://www.google.com/search/howsearchworks/mission/web-use...
I see the flip side of this as an admin of a small website. 10 years ago I used to get search engine traffic to articles based on queries about subjects of those articles. Today, this is just gone. I can't find my own damn website without explicitly using its domain name. Even if I search for a specific subject and go though multiple pages of results. Google thinks that one-paragraph summaries from content farms are more relevant that an edited multi-page essay from a website that existed for over a decade.
Additionally, the article mentions another thing I've noticed. Google is obsessed by how frequently the website is updated. So, what if I spend extra time to write, verify and edit all my content? From what I cant tell, this reliably gets you ranked lower than website that crank out garbage in huge quantities.
You admitted you don't have a longitudinal view. Results really are less accurate, less relevant; we're not hating on G.
Google appear to have decided to target people who don't know what they're looking for (accuracy and relevance aren't so important), and target natural answers to natural questions rather than focused, targeted search (which was what made its name).
It's like if Nike switched to making clogs but they looked just like their traditional trainers.
Now, that's sorta fine, but it's tiresome as hell to have to alter search settings every.. single.. time.., why am I logged in again? And, still not find what you're looking for, but instead some curated set of mass media pages that only have a cursory relationship to your keywords.
You can read whatever guidelines you like, but "clogs" aren't going to work like "trainers".
Yeah, whatever their intentions, sometime in the '07-'09 time frame they very obviously changed things in a big way and appeared to simply give up trying to separate spam from small-time sites, and just down-ranked the lot. The search results for certain types of queries are somewhat better now, as a result. The search results for other types of queries have gone from "pretty much perfect" to "totally useless", though. Anyone who's been a heavy user of Google for a long time has noticed this.
Finding a needle in a 3ft haystack is one thing, finding it in 3 miles of hay is another.
I feel it's not Google getting worse for some queries but the internet is just so much larger now, and the evidence is that the other major search engines don't bring back that same simplicity and ease of finding high quality technical information from smaller sources that I also remember from the late 2000's
I think the others don't go against this trend because they also don't want to spend more money fighting spam to try to salvage a use case / usage pattern that is at this point so old that a lot of Web users have never seen it work, and that many users even back then didn't use effectively.
Those of us who relied on it heavily disagree strongly with the notion that Google only improves their search, though. For me it's much worse today—to the point of being entirely useless, in fact—for a significant percentage of queries I'd like to try against it, and noticeably worse though still usable for a bunch of others. It is definitely better at sending me to Wikipedia and at finding local restaurants or whatever, though, which is the kind of thing that probably constitutes 95+% of all queries against it (throw in people typing "example.com" into search rather than the address bar and it's more like 99%), so I'm sure their metrics look great.
Google shifted from being a web search engine to a promoter for big media companies. They should start advertising the company as such instead of lying to consumers.
Are all of the news article pointing to the blog source ? Yes (well not even that actually). But the rest of the web, the reddit, the facebooks, the twitter, the everything points to the news article on NYT, Fox, ...
To take a quote from Jeff Bezos, "The thing I have noticed is when the anecdotes and the data disagree, the anecdotes are usually right. There's something wrong with the way you are measuring it." Metrics are important, but metrics definitely aren't everything.
"I don't find my search results very useful."
"Yes you do! Look at these numbers!"
It is possible for this to be true and for the koolaid at the plex to be true - as the answer is highly dependant on what the end user is searching for.
I'd say that a decade or so ago, the mission stated was actually being done - somewhere around the panda and penguin updates, the results changed a lot - and in the war to destroy spam and seo, google also killed a lot of good sites by burying them in the results.
I get that around that time there was also a lot of pressure from multiple groups to censor the results even more.. and so veering from the mission of organizing the web and delivering what the user is looking for was somewhat hijacked by gov bodies, powerful groups like the mpaa and such - and maybe it was larry paige? that was supposed to be the adult pulling the reins?
Whatever the multiple causes, there was a time when people could find all kinds of things with google and even google shopping.. then things started to change and change a lot they have.
Today's google is a homogenized, censored and curated skewed view of the world that is damaging those who trust google to show them what is on the internet.
Not for all searches mind you. For many searches it is the best version of the best ever search engine. As far as being a yellow pages of the future, you guys have nailed it.
I have no idea what the wink and nod is supposed to mean ("organizing the web’s information and making it accessible to users (yes we really say that, though frequently with a wink and a nod)" - but if it means, wink wink - we used to show a lot of stuff and now use a bait and switch hiding being esoteric "algorythms" that curate via 'user testing' - results - blah blah.
Please. The algorythm has been made to censor in many ways. It may be too complicated to explain, and trade secrets may be the real reason you don't show it - but whatever.
Please, for people in the main areas of the inside - it is disingenuous to be spouting the kool aid like it's some kind of truth.
It may be mostly true, but the 10% or 15%? of what is hidden completely and the xx% that is downranked into 'might as well not exist" - can you imagine if a few people got together and convinced the world that they have the actual true holy book and yet it was selectively censored by 12% - it might be true, but not really true..
and yet we are here today where big G is trusted by millions - and they have already targeted the next billion to acquire - and it appears people on the inside are repeating this false mantra like they are some kind of prophets of perfection.
As things continue to be censored more and more, big G becomes more and more like the yellow pages, with some 'trusted sources' thrown in for added content.
You've crowdsources a yellow pages that can be updated daily instead of once a year. You've selected some trusted sources about a few topics and point people to them.
You do not make the web accessible to users, only some of it. You do not make "best place to find out anything." - you provide the best place to find some select things that other people have made or given you updated info about.
The worse part of this whole thing is that the trust built up years ago by the brand has gotten a lot of people to convince a lot of other people that "just google it" is the way to find truth on the web, and you have taken over default search and find on most devices hijacking other possibly less censored options. You have hampered the abilities of many to share by making ideas and speech disappear.
However, I am glad that someone who works at google has said something. The silence from the G men / women / ts is more mocking. I wish Matt C had never left the plex and communication channels he shared.
remember when google would put a notice at the bottom of some results with something like 'some results not shown due to dmca, we have been forced by law to hide some results, see this chilling effects page about how this hurts...
now google hides more things itself.
and yet the same old lines are spewed "we index and give users access to find things on the web".
Come on, how much of the web is actually available to the end users through google and how much is not?
You could publish an article and if your website was indexed and users searched for something related to your article, it would appear in relevant search results. You could actually get traffic that way and bootstrap your audience without being one of the select few established websites with millions of visitors.
Page rank slowly eroded that into the broken model we have right now.
>Now imagine how easy that same process would be for the waves of fake news blogs to spread misinformation.
Imagine you could publish good content on your website and actually get visitors without becoming a vassal to Twitter, medium.com or whatever is popular at the moment. O horror! No, we can't have this stand. We need to centralize and control everything because someone might, gasp, get incorrect information from the internet.
Also, what about non-news subjects? This shit is affecting everything on the web, including product reviews, analytical essays and even educational content.
A world with only one kind of news source curated by the elites is a horrible, dystopian place. I'd rather read fake news from time to time; at least it would keep me doubtful and suspicious. People should never stop questioning things.
Just because something is popular doesn't make it true; it may be slightly more likely to be true but it's also a lot more dangerous if it's not.
And that's especially true because sometimes, the mainstream narratives are not right. The obvious old example is the Iraq war one with 'weapons of mass destruction'; this was all incorrect, but I can see any alternative news site saying so getting banned for 'fake news' because of it.
Does that mean all narratives are true? Of course not, you've got nutcases and conspiracy theorists as well, and fake news will exist too. But sometimes the mainstream/elite held view is wrong (or a lie/propoganda), and other outlets should be able to call them out on it.
It's infuriating when a redesign has half the functionality of the original. It's not like it was feature-rich in the first place!
It's silly not being able to remove entertainment (aka celebrity gossip) or sports (even if I was a sport fan, I probably wouldn't care about every sport -- why can't I filter to MotoGP or what have you?) and having science be mostly several times regurgitated pop-sci and health be mostly fearing mongering nonsense.
I also regularly notice failures where articles they group together are almost entirely unrelated.
In the end, I still do RSS (although support in certain areas of interest are pretty weak) and Twitter (in a read-only fashion) and go to Google News over Apple News only by habit.
Apple is excruciatingly slow on this and a few other things, whereas Google News, for all its faults, is available in many countries and regions.
This is where, and why, RSS becomes a better option.
It has no real preference pane for managing notifications afaict, so I had to unfollow everything to shut it up. And that was the last time I opened the app.
These are basically the main downside though - I switched to Apple News after Google started inserting YouTube videos in Google News, and haven't looked back. AMP also broke the browser back button as well, adding insult on top of injury.
I find Google actually does a good job at curating the news for me once I've told it what my interests were. Additionally, it seems to automatically pick up my new interests automatically - for instance I get news updates on the television shows I like, for sports - it's pretty much all the teams and sports I follow. Sometimes if I'm researching a topic, I'll start getting news on those topics as well...sometimes months later even if something newsworthy happened. Whether it's getting that from search or google analytics..I'm really not sure but I can tell you I really enjoy it.
Even worse were the sites that didn't cite at all. They'd copy my source content quite heavily, and would still rank above me. I'd name and shame them if I could remember who they were - there was a common small blog offender that would do it every single time and never cite back, and would rank higher every single time.
I was writing for a fairly well known, high-traffic and highly-ranked site that was about 14-15 years old. But Google News would de-rank it in favor of smaller blogs. It didn't make sense and was quite disappointing.
It's also broken... disabling "Open web pages in Google News" actually opens the page in, you guessed it, Google News.
After the old app stopped working I never used it again. Checking a couple of sites I respect a few times a week gets me all the "news" I need.
I think it is kinda hypocritical when you criticize big news organizations and keep using big news distributors like Google News. They're not necessarily bad per se, but people should understand what's really costing them.
"Featured read: Surface Go is proof that every computer needs LTE".
This is a "news site"?
“You know that feature you didn’t know you needed? I’m paid to convince you that you want it and absolutely must have it and will buy it and throw out your currently just fine computer”
That’s sales, not news.
Every selection process is like this, unfortunately. Whether you're applying for college or a job, telling you why you didn't get selected not very common, for a variety of reasons. This has the side effect of keeping the process opaque too, but that's how it is…
Basically, the entire idea is that the system identifies experts and rank content based on how often they discuss and share it. This filters out the fake news and produces significantly better results than most "news curation" systems out there.
Trouble for me Google News will send fake news, and is often based off of search results (as opposed to topics you decide to follow). This leaves me with news often unrelated to my interest and often more related to things I needed solutions for.
Further, I want stories related to my interests. For instance, I follow "Iran" I want topics related to items impact Iran, such as stories about Israel, Syria, etc.
Finally, there is no clear "trigger" for the article. It's not based off some sentiment change in the topic or new trend (not just topic being discussed, but a spike in discussion, etc.). Hence, Lettergram.net can be configured to send on sentiment changes, trend changes, or on a schedule.
Finally, Google News is a product, they have perverse motives and (such as needing to be on boarded, which this post is about). Overall, I just couldn't take it, so I built my own.
- Signing up for the 'free' plan requires a credit/debit card for activation? I know why you're doing this (using Stripe's Subscription API) but it seems very sketchy. People unfamiliar with Stripe probably wouldn't trust this.
- After I signed up I got presented with a standard Rails error page (on the /users) route. Not a great first impression...
- Also the password reset system doesn't seem to work... just redirects me to the homepage. And I can't login because my account isn't activated...
Did that stop? Did it work?
1. The ability to have any search term be a topic. I used to be able to have my own searches appear as a topic heading and auto populated, now the best I can do is have them be under saved searches which is itself two screens down on the favorites menu.
2. The ability to open links in a browser of my choice when clicked (I now have to click the menu for the story, select share, scroll over to my preferred browser (firefox focus) and click that.
3. The use of the Android share menu that you can customize... instead they force you to use their product specific share menu which I can't edit. This wouldn't be a big issue if it wasn't for 2
If someone made a better google news client for android, I'd pay for it but I haven't found anything like that.
Its simple. They have more money than you.
The problem, unfortunately, is that Google doesn't think you're a real publisher if you're not writing content at that pace.'
FWIW I haven't found that - my blog gets referrals from Google News even though I publish irregularly.
I have also experienced, quite often, the opposite problem, i.e. very low quality sources creeping into my Google News feed. You know those clickbaity sources that primarily aim to create "viral" articles to be shared on Fb and other social media sites? That type of website. Especially in Google News' thematic sections, e.g. "health" or "entertainment" or "technology". For this reason I now seldom visit Google News.
I feel like it's not really hard to be generally approved by Google. What I know from my daily business: You have almost no chance in beating traditional media when it comes to really popular news topics like "Angela Merkel" or "Brexit".
This explains perfectly why I'm seeing horribly outdated news as if it was submitted hours ago on my pixel google news feed feature... They most likely just slap a different time stamp on articles to make them seem "fresh"
Proper news is a scarce resource.
The problem Google news has is not everything is news, it is also gamed for PVs. Next time google does doodle, do a search, and their will be 100s or articles trying to get PVs from the 'news' piece.
As @bduerst mentioned, you want it harder to get into Google news, not easier.
And frankly depending on the type of "news" you write, Google News won't even be a great traffic source.
This seems like one effective method to combat fly-by-night "publications" that exist to spread falsehoods. It's warfare.
Also this seems like it's somewhat in line with the original idea behind PageRank.
But yes I would believe that it comes with drawbacks.
That sounds really dumb and petty, but for some reason it seems like something they would consider because people just instinctively look for .com
I would have said just give up because they are interested in big news sites, but they do include fake sources sometimes (or used to last time I looked) with lines like:
“The calamity of the day was highlight markered by insertion into the interest of massive public”
...which are obviously the result of some sort of gaming of the system. If Google could boot those out and include more real sites, that would be an improvement.
1. You need to be in Google's News Publisher Center
2. You need to be regularly posting news on your website
3. You need to have your website AMP (this is must now)
4. Your website's SEO should be powerful
5. There should be more and more people reading and spreading your news online
One of the things that attracted me to google news when it first started was it's broad, open and "fair". You could genuinely find different news perspectives from different countries, news companies, etc.
After large news companies complained, Google "localized" the news and when that didn't work, they essentially turned over the platform to "authoritative" sources.
The attacks on facebook are the same attacks the nytimes, wapo, cnn, etc used against google news. "Propaganda", "toxic", etc. Funny how they don't complain about google news anymore when it is even more propagandistic and toxic than ever. When facebook agrees to start spamming nytimes, wapo, cnn, etc to their users, I bet the complaints will slowly die down.
So Google News is broken.
Even sources like BBC, half the "news" is telling you what to think, the other half is "in news today, this TV programme is super awesome; and surprise it's on our channel tonight, all your neighbours are watching it!".
I search Google News all the time for stories on security, and books, and libraries, and it almost never recommends stories on things I'm actually interested in.
Kind of amazing just how bad that algorithm is. Really not a big deal, I'm just surprised at how bad Google can fail at something that seems so easy.
I don't really know what's going on in Mountain View. Senior Googlers just lie or BS in response to questions questions from non-Googlers. It's pretty obnoxious.
Customizing sources is pretty limited too. The Science section is full of pop-sci headlines, often exaggerated from studies, rather than just direct links to new journal articles.
RSS might be the better option here...
I wish. My Google News page is full of bullshit clickbait along the lines of "NASA WARNS 2 METEORS HEADING FOR EARTH, 1 WILL HIT YOUR HOUSE."
Seriously, Google, this is an embarrassment to your entire company. Either put some competent people on News, or shut it down.
This is painfully accurate. The technology section is also bad, since no matter how hard I try to get Google News to show me technical/interesting content, it keeps recommending me banal stories of "the blockchain revolution", smart-phones, and video games.
Any suggestions for a decent RSS reader?
In the end i was tired to have to switch between apps and websites to get my news, and was frustrated by Google News, not enough categories, not enough content sources...
So i decided to build a Google News/RSS Reader crossover that i could use to manage my RSS feeds, and check the Top Stories of the day, all of that in a single app.
I added some processing on top of that to automatically cateogrize content, extract names of people, places, companies, etc...
It still is an early version, there's a lot of room for improvements and new features but i feel it's definitely going in the right direction.
You can check it out here: https://aktu.io/about
Would love some feedback!
try this too
Have you ever thought that maybe the algorithm is correct and it's you that's broken? Google is a giant tech company full of AI ML geniuses and massive stores of customer data, it they're showing you those stores, they must have a good reason. /s
But the sense of entitlement theory explains a lot of things about dumb, like brain-dead-level dumb, holes in many of Google’s services.
That tag or keyword is just stuck to me
Let alone all the stuff I am interested in....but then I get actual or borderline fake news recommendations on that topic but clearly exist to quietly push a narrative about something else.
I gave up on it. The moment an AI or system can't even bother to filter what I don't like, why bother?
Sounds like you still make frequent use of it, and use it to decide which news to read, which is Google’s goal. In that sense it’s not a failure at all.
Since the last re-design, Google News seemingly dropped the customization, and has devolved into an endless toxic carousel of US-slanted political opinion in most sections, half of which seem to come from pay-walled sources. I have lost all control of what I want to read, and instead have to rely on their opaque feed, most of which I'm not actually that interested in (I can only take so much politics).
Does anyone know of an alternative that's more like the Google News of old?
Sort of simple, but I like NPR all text site https://text.npr.org/t.php?tid=1001
For CNN fans, they also have a text only site http://lite.cnn.io/en
1) low signal-to-noise ratio - i.e., lots of duplicative stories, publishers are commoditized, and there are no mechanisms to distinguish (and reward!) high quality content
2) paywalls and/or extreme ad loads lurking everywhere
3) local news is a second-class citizen
4) lack of user control in customizing topics, while at the same time all the (uncontrollable) targeted "for you" stories tend to overfit (e.g., Google seems to think tech news and the Patriots are all I care about)
In general I'm extremely dissatisfied with the functionality of available news products and with the consequences of attention-optimized digital news media on our world. There's a lot of data which indicates most people feel some degree of similarly  and I think there's opportunity and demand for creating better.
As such, last summer I set out to build Gatherscope - a news ecosystem designed from first principles to serve readers and sustain quality journalism. At the moment, the high-level plan is:
1) build an aggregator layer that's differentiated in the breadth, depth, quality, and customizability of content that's surfaced and in applying machine clustering and summarization to make it faster and easier for busy consumers to digest what current events are happening, see varying perspectives about them, go deeper where worthwhile, and then get on with their lives
2) stack other layers around this - either by building them or through 3rd party relationships - to further deliver a rich, insightful, frictionless UX (e.g., bundled multi-publisher subscriptions, community quality review, synthesized audio, contextual search and feedback loops, publisher tools for local journalists)…these should all work independently but best together
Today there's a (quite-rough) MVP of part 1 live at https://www.gatherscope.com and a very long way to go :)
All this to say: if any of this sounds interesting and/or you have strong, thoughtful opinions about news media, I'd love to hear from you. I've recently begun a hunt for collaborators, and even if that's not for you it would be good to hear how to build you a useful product faster.
The other shocker for me was when they released a way to view your historical location. I had had no idea that the app was tracking my daily commute for the previous year, and it was enough to make me switch to DuckDuckGo.
The author’s chosen title should be respected in this case. IMHO.
Is there a link or something?