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.
I’m just embarrassed at the people who have decided to come and put on their “skeptic” hat to defend that place, while going out of their way to intentionally ignore evidence.
It reinforces a point I made earlier somewhere else on Lemmy… This platform is a joke-show filled with fools.
Are people here being deliberately obtuse or are these reddit shills also operating on lemmy bc who tf cares this much about defending arstechnica? Every comment has like five downvotes. Who cares enough to downvote this and go through the comments to downvote every comment?
It’s very clearly true that reddit is using their platform to boost stories by websites with ownership of reddit. Who needs this explained to them in baby English? It isnt that hard to understand or accept, this is also why people are here instead of reddit.
I’m not seeing the evidence that you are claiming.
There are many reasons that unpaid volunteer mods delete content, including reposts, issues with the OP, etc.
ProPublica used Original custom made cover photo+ they did the whole investigation.
Ars Technica used stock photo and paraphrased some of the info.
Despite that, the undeleted ProPublica post got about 80 Upvotes in 3 hours. The Ars Technica one got about 120 in about 50 mins.
As I said before: The Ars Technica post is expected to hit the front page, while the ProPublica ones are expected to die, despite being the original source of the info.
But doesn’t that possibly speak as much to people wanting to read something from a website with which they are more familiar with a more streamlined approach at providing the information?
There are plenty of features I see that run thousands of words that I don’t have time to read so I just catch a one or two paragraph summary posted somewhere else. Basically stealing the headline. It’s what journalism is now. Everyone just steals and uses it as clickbait. WhatsApp is on the top of YouTube suggestions for me even though I don’t subscribe
That’s Sus. Ask the mod why the original was deleted?
Probably because it’s off topic for the community
How is it off topic exactly? Here is the deleted article link: https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-ai-tool-doge-veterans-affairs-contracts-sahil-lavingia
deleted by creator
In case it isn’t clear, the Ars Technica post is expected to hit the front page, while the ProPublica ones are expected to die, despite being the original source of the info.
