Oh wow, theres more to this discussion, nicely useful!

says:

evaluate on case-by-case basis

So its kind of in a grey zone, not reliable doesnt mean bad source in that case. Useful link, altough wikipedia is also a grey zone in the sense that its information based on open source (everybody can edit it, and most liked proposals get through as I understand)

Thanks for the confirmation

Well what ground news wants to do -critical evaluation and media literacy- is so vital.

But ground news deciding on what exact position on the spectrum a source is, seems to achieve the exact oposite: make people depentend in questioning and finding a variety of sources.

Nowadays everything needs to happen in an instant.

If theres a solution that only takes half a snap, that will be the only relevant choice for the mass. Thats why Im instantly asking, because just today I referred to this source to someone else as a might-be-bad example but instantly realized, I will have to ask this on the next situation (now)

Anyways thanks for the correction!

maybe as European im not too well versed in US sources and judged too harsh based on anecdotal experience. All the news Ive seen are always on the “nothing has been said” or “thats reaching” side.

my bad then

sorry for derailing a little:

why is there multiple links to choose from as a source? What exactly created that choosable format - are they automated, is this some system like groundnews or something?

is newsweek considered a serious source? even this objectively right seeming headline is kind of a nothingburger, isnt it?

sorry for derailing. if thats not tolerated, i will stop

oh my bad, sorry im not well versed.

Thats why I asked :p

How could you ensure AI to privately sort your pictures, if the requests to analyze your sensitive imagery need to be made on a server? (that based its knowledge of disrespecting others copyright anyway, lol)

classic techbro overhype

Add new feature into everything without seperating and offering choice to opt out of it