You do know your on an Apple fan site that let's you log in via Facebook?Leave it to Apple to take lemons (poor AI engines) and make lemonade (human-curation).
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Human Curation Sets Apple News Apart From Algorithm-Focused News Sources Like Google and Facebook
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I gave Apple News a try.
What I did find was that AN presented me with a narrower cross section of the topics and sources I want than Google News.
Then there were the ads. Not relevant repeating endlessly over and over and ...
Not exactly sure what AN is doing. It is doing it, wrong.
What I did find was that AN presented me with a narrower cross section of the topics and sources I want than Google News.
Then there were the ads. Not relevant repeating endlessly over and over and ...
Not exactly sure what AN is doing. It is doing it, wrong.
Click "Edit" then select the red circle with line through it next to Apple News Spotlight and click remove. Gone.
What I mean by primary is the origin of the scoop. The reporters at the NYT are extremely well connected and they are the ones people talk to first. I’m not saying they’re the only ones m. For example Ronan Farrow at the New Yorker has been on fire over the past year.
I think the human curation thing is just a red herring. If anything, the human curators are providing training data for future automated machine learning tools. Eventually Apple may have an automated system for news that may rival Google and Facebook or any other tech company.
Does that response really addresses the concern about human bias? Instead of just casting doubt on algorithms, maybe she should share what steps Apple News staff takes to detect and prevent human bias from the editors.
Oh no, they definitely know what humans are. It's those things they harvest data out of.
Agreed. It's not personal. It's human nature. Unless they have a group of people representing a wide spectrums of opinion - regardless of the topic - the tendency will be to lean toward one leg of the bell-curve.
It's gotten better, but as a guy, my problem with Apple News Spotlight stuff, is that I don't give a damn about the humancentric or feminist articles. And until recently, it's been full of it.
It doesn't matter what political views Apple's customers have. If Apple generally portrays themselves as liberal, then that's how their content will target. Apple will not put out content that goes against their views.
[doublepost=1540493130][/doublepost]
Ah yeah I don't have the premium. Because I live a very fast life, I skim the titles quickly and will dive deeper in when something interests me.
For the longest time "hard news" and "real news" was defined not by the correspondents, but by the editors. Reuters uses editors relentlessly and usually assigns 3 or more correspondents to a story to get a fuller picture, no matter how pithy.
https://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/05/30/the-other-tank-man-photographs/
I went to HS with Terrill.
https://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/05/30/the-other-tank-man-photographs/
I went to HS with Terrill.
Apple News could radically alter the way our news is presented by reporting facts free of human opinion/spin. That would be something, “Apple” worthy of truly changing the World as we know it. Fact based news could always offer the comments section for users to spin the news in their own personal way for a cross section of opinions to allow an informed user to draw on the commentary and define their personal opinion.
The truth has a left bias.
For example, climate change: 98% of scientists agree, yet you probably think the news should offer "balanced"views, e.g. skeptical views promoted by oil companies. But that's not news, it's just ideology and rhetoric. The real news is the scientific consensus.
Another example is immigration. Statistics show that immigration is not posing a problem for jobs or the U.S. economy, and in many regions is actually stimulating growth. But you probably want a "balanced" view that contains nativist histrionics from conservative pundits.
I'd prefer news that reflects truth and reality, which is why the New York Times and other professional journalists are far more prestigious than right-wing trolls like Fox News.
[doublepost=1540497140][/doublepost]
It's good to think critically and be skeptical. But don't forget to think critically about your own thoughts; be skeptical of your own skepticism.
Last edited:
Are you truly asking me for a “source” that every single Apple curator is to the left? That’s really what you’re asking? Or are you just trying to look clever by pointing out there is no one point of data showing every single curator is to the left? Did you think I meant what I said “literally?”
[doublepost=1540497705][/doublepost]
98% of scientists agree with...what? The world is cooling? It’s warming? It’s because of man? We should tax the hell out of everyone to fix it (assuming it exists)? China and India should be exempt? Just what do 98% of “scientists” agree about? Oh, I see. This is just NPC nonsense. #Drumpf #racist #climate #believe all women #islamaphobe...etc, etc
I have no clue about Google's news suggestions as I don't look at them, but Facebook just seems to push whatever they can earn a profit from onto your wall. Facebook sucks, and you cannot cut off their so-called news posts. They allow you to set a few parameters, but honestly that makes no discernible change to what they place on your wall. I suspect Google is similar. Apple is better, but I agree with those who have said that the best thing to do is to go to the news sources you trust and look at their headlines and decide yourself what looks worthy of reading. BTW, Apple still needs to fix the bugs in the News section when you swipe left on an iPad. It works fine on my iPhone 7, but it rarely shows anything on my iPad Pro 9.7. It has been messed up for well over a year now. But seriously, I'm 60 years old and I don't need someone or any company to hold my hand and suggest news stories to read. I think such features are a waste of screen space. Maybe for some it is good, but it is a total waste as far as I go.
For anyone who's not familiar with 4chan's latest attempt at trolling:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/23/17991274/npc-meme-4chan-press-coverage-viral
This is the world we live in now.
Want to use your example (CC) as it has more than those "views" and it isn't intrinsically left or right. It also shows, looking at news aggregaters, how easy it is to unknowingly "bias" the news collected.
- Climate Change is happening.
- The balance is that Climate Change is not happening.
- Humans are having a significant impact on CC
- Humans are having a minimal impact on CC
- How much do we really know about CC?
- Can we really have a significant affect on CC (fixing it)
It always creeps me out when I realize how many Trump supporters there are on this site.
They’ve all been trained by their master to worry about unfair media bias, etc.
They’ve all been trained by their master to worry about unfair media bias, etc.
Left, Center, and Right.
Are you asking for the Right / Subset / Trump supporters and the Center / subset / Trump supporters to take a hike?
See? You’re not informed. Probably because you avoid real news outlets.
98% of scientists agree that anthropogenic warming is happening and poses an extreme risk. It’s all in the IPCC reports, the most recent of which shows 1.5 degrees Celsius warming by ca. 2040 is essentially unavoidable now.
Anyway, try not to be proud of being uninformed.
[doublepost=1540501987][/doublepost]
Go read the IPCC reports, which are abundantly documented and super clear about probabilities. They discuss whether there is warming (not at all in question anymore), whether it is substantially anthropogenic (not at all in question anymore), the probabilities of various impacts, and even necessary mitigation efforts. The most recent report goes into extreme detail about the measures that will be necessary to prevent 1.5C warming by 2040-ish. Spoiler: those measures exceed the Paris Agreement targets, which aren’t even being followed. Low-lying island nations are already being affected and will be devastated by 2040.
Legitimate news outlets will report all this without needing to “balance” it with fossil fuel industry talking points. If they don’t, you know it’s not a legit news source.
Last edited: