My Previous Post (Read it first, as this post might not make sense to you, without reading the previous post first)

I saw a lot of people defending Ars Technica in my previous post. Here is a simple proof that they are an evil company:

ProPublica Posts:

Ars Technica post:

As it can be seen here, the original source of the info/Investigation was Propublica and even in terms of the story cover photo, Propublica used a custom cover.

Yet, despite all of that, as expected Reddit manipulated upvotes to boost the Ars Technica story and even deleted the second ProPublica story from Reddit.

Journalism will be fucked up, because of Condé Nast and their parent company manipulation.

  • Pro@programming.devOPEnglish
    61·
    1 day ago

    First, deleting a repost is clearly not evidence of any kind of bias.

    That is not a repost, this is an other article from ProPublica: https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-ai-tool-doge-veterans-affairs-contracts-sahil-lavingia

    Second, maybe Ars is just more popular/trusted? Maybe it’s more upvoted because the Ars title is more meaningful, it’s super well known that people mostly only read the title.

    Are you joking with me? They are using a paraphrased title.

    I’m not saying reddit isn’t manipulating things, I’d be shocked if they weren’t. But this isn’t really evidence that they are.

    I am really curious, what sort of evidence you want/expect to see?

    • azdle@news.idlestate.org
      5·
      1 day ago

      That is not a repost, this is an other article from ProPublica

      Ah, I just assume that was a slightly different title for the same article. Maybe a mod made the same assumption.

      Are you joking with me? They are using a paraphrased title.

      Well, the first part is. But, I don’t know what “munching” means. The second part of the Ars title actually says what it’s about. Don’t get me wrong, I can probably make a guess. But when you’re scrolling social media, I don’t think anyone is stopping to think about what a title really means. If it’s not obvious at first glace most people are just scrolling by. The Ars title, at least to me, skims as “AI bad” since those are the words anchoring each end of the title, that’s probably enough all by itself to get some people to upvote.

      I am really curious, what sort of evidence you want/expect to see?

      Literally anything vaguely conclusive. I’m not saying you should go find more evidence for me or anything. I’m just trying to explain why I don’t find your evidence here convincing.

      I suspect that Reddit has more than enough money to be competently shitty. So, if they are doing what you suggest, unless they fuck up or decide they don’t care, you might not be able to find solid evidence.

      • huppakee@lemm.ee
        21·
        1 day ago

        But this isn’t really evidence that they are.

        So what you meant was: this isn’t enough evidence to change my mind. That is a very different statement. I think this doesn’t prove anything but it does support op’s previous claims Reddit boosts Ars Technica content.

        This isn’t showing Reddit is shitty, it is showing it is used by it’s parent company to influence the media landscape. That is not just shitty, it is amoral and can be very dangerous when it comes to political pieces.

        Tech companies are using media companies to shape the world to their liking, just like robber barrons and aristocrats used to.

        • azdle@news.idlestate.org
          1·
          1 day ago

          So what you meant was: this isn’t enough evidence to change my mind.

          No.

          One thing getting more upvotes than another isn’t somehow evidence that reddit is manipulating anything. There’s no immutible law that the original source of something should naturally get more upvotes than anything else. I find that the opposite is most often the case, even when the re-blogged story is crap.