Ars Technica is generally excellent in my experience, one of the better tech news websites.
That post seems to be missing.
Fubarberry 123 points a year ago
Scotty_Trees 4 points a year ago
what are some other good ones?
NeryK 3 points a year ago
Agreed. As long as their corporate overlords do not fuck up Ars, there is no reason to avoid them.
If (when ?) it becomes an AI slop-filled shell of its former self, then it will be past time to go elsewhere.
KingOfTheCouch 50 points a year ago
Yup, as long as the current staff (by and large) are still at the helm of the Ars orbiting HQ, I'll continue to go there. I've lost too many other good tech news sites in the last decade, I can't lose another one.
The rest of Conde Nast is hot garbage.
b_tr3e -35 points a year ago
Ars technica is full of shit, too, as soon they're even slightly off the tech trail. Even while on the tech trail they're massively untrustworthy as soon as their owners' interests are involved. I've kicked them out of my RSS reader long ago. If they really got something exciting I'll get to know via slashdot, mastodon or feddit. Still I'm suspicious as I at least one time caught them intentionally spreading false information.
thisbenzingring 5 points a year ago
bahh they are hit and miss sure but also it's entertaining enough and some of the people getting their star come from the meh work
pelespirit 27 points a year ago
It's great on politics too, they post things other outlets won't.
lechekaflan 4 points a year ago
They have very blunt takes at the space launch industry, for one.
brachiosaurus 3 points a year ago
but Ars Technica remains a very good website for tech news
This thread imply they are not a very good website for tech news.
frezik 6 points a year ago
Somehow, they actually are a good source for political news. The tech press (them and Wired) have been some of the best at covering the second Trump Admin. Possibly because it's crawling in tech bros, and the tech press already knows how to deal with them.
brachiosaurus 0 points a year ago
Somehow, they actually are a good source for political news.
This thread imply they are not a very good website for tech news and neither political.
MDCCCLV 2 points a year ago
Yeah, the conde owner bit isn't news to anyone, just cause this one guy never looked. Are is fine and it will be as long as the current people are there. Until it gets looted and the staff laid off it is fine. Eric Berger navigates a bit of a tightrope because he has high level access to Musk but can't be too direct about asking anything other than rockets, even though the political part is affecting the space part a lot right now. I do expect that just like Polygon it will eventually be gutted but nothing lasts forever.
purrtastic 8 points a year ago
You’re online without ad blockers?
FundMECFSResearch 63 points a year ago
While I sort of agree. I’m just gonna say, you ain’t gonna find anything mainstream western media that doesn’t have major ties to unethical corpos unless you basically force yourself to only use AP and the Guardian (and even then, pretty sure they still have dodgy ties, just it’s not as visible since no direct “ownership”.)
cymbal_king 32 points a year ago
Propublica is an excellent nonprofit investigative journalism organization. They have a strong track record of holding powerful companies accountable and achieving real world results/consequences. They often partner with local news organizations to help give them good content and there's never a paywall either.
FundMECFSResearch 7 points a year ago
Yes propublica is amazing. But I wouldn’t necessarily call them mainstream. They are mainstream amongst journalists, nerds, and leftists. But not really apart from that.
cymbal_king 4 points a year ago
Right, I try to spread the word :)
FundMECFSResearch 3 points a year ago
But that has direct ties to the US government. (And as we’ve seen under Trump), those ties can be abused.
So I agree they are good services. But IMO they still have dodgy ties.
fantasyocean 4 points a year ago
What time is the government does npr/pbs have? Please tell me your talking about something other than the grant money they receive
Initiateofthevoid 3 points a year ago path: 0 17474348 17474471 17474848 17484376, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
nonfuinoncuro 8 points a year ago
no ethical consumption under capitalism...
jagged_circle 4 points a year ago
You could just avoid corporate media. There's loads of great independent journalism in the West.
irelephant 2 points a year ago
404media.co is pretty (really) good.
considine 1 point a year ago
Consider The Guardian's campaign against Jeremy Corbyn as an anti-Semite. Or their many character assassination pieces against Julian Assange. These campaigns serve the interests of the Zionist lobby and the US empire, respectively.
If you are critical of modern imperialism and capitalism, then The Guardian and AP do not have good takes on many issues. Currently, The Guardian publishes articles critical of the genocide in Gaza, which is the only correct position to take on the issue. However they have served Zionist interests in the past and carried water for US warmongers.
While they get on the bandwagon when critical mass gets unstoppable they also manufacture consent for empire.
huppakee 2 points a year ago
The Guardian publishes articles critical of the genocide in Gaza, which is the only correct position to take on the issue. However they have served Zionist interests in the past and carried water for US warmongers.
You can be independent and still carry interests of Zionistd and US warmongers, both knowingly and unknowingly. You have every right to be skeptical because of previous publications and also every right to share that here, not trying to argue there, but there is no such things as always having the correct position. Every media outlet will at some point publish something questionable. My point being, you should never swallow news as a definite truth also when you're trusting a certain source in general.
considine 1 point a year ago
That's a good point. I totally agree. Every news source has its biases.
The scary thing is getting hundreds of millions of people to believe Western news delivers the truth, while non Western news delivers the lies.
Also I don't believe there is a single correct position on every issue. But on genocide there is a basic take: stop it immediately.
huppakee 1 point a year ago
While I sort of agree. I’m just gonna say, you ain’t gonna find anything mainstream western media that doesn’t have major ties to unethical corpos unless you basically force yourself to only use AP and the Guardian (and even then, pretty sure they still have dodgy ties, just it’s not as visible since no direct “ownership”.)
They are two examples of more believable / trustworthy western news outlets, I don't think anyone in this thread is anywhere close to implying all western news is true or that all non-western news is false.
Concerning genocide, almost everybody on earth agrees the only sensible thing is to stop it; that's why most pro-Israeli news act as if there is no genocide happening there. I think they are wrong, Israel is committing genocide.
DarkSpectrum 59 points a year ago
Isn't it funny how theres always a company that nobody has ever heard of behind every big brand that everybody knows about?Containerised liability assigned to nonexistent entities.
QuoVadisHomines 37 points a year ago
Conde Nast was a big name in the magazine publishing business for decades.
TankovayaDiviziya 5 points a year ago
But not for laymen.
mannycalavera 2 points a year ago
But for laywomen 🤣!
Wilco 18 points a year ago
This is how the USA works now. Not just unethical companies and monopolies but super monopolies and upright evil companies. If you ever want to make yourself mad Google EssilorLuxottica, it is the largest eyeglass manufacturer, sunglass manufacturer, eyeglass retailer ... and believe it or not it also owns Eyemed eye insurance. It's not the biggest eye insurance company ... yet.
desktop_user -5 points a year ago
companies shouldn't have limits on how far they can grow, and vertical integration is almost impossible to regulate as it's just manufacturing a product from start to finish.
CalipherJones 4 points a year ago
Monopolies aren't your friend.
Wilco 3 points a year ago
The US does operate on the principle that companies should actually have limits on how far they can grow. This was set forth in the Sherman Act of 1890. The fact that it was not there at the founding of the country, embedded in the constitution, is probably a contributing factor on why the US is falling into corruption today. The main cause is of course political parties, which should have been made illegal. George Washington predicted our current future in his exit speech when he said that political parties would be the downfall of the US ... he was right.
Initiateofthevoid 2 points a year ago path: 0 17471092 17474814 17476461 17477004 17484512, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 2
TankovayaDiviziya 13 points a year ago
Containerised liability assigned to nonexistent entities.
That is how corporations avoid antitrust lawsuits. They know what they're doing.
Vinstaal0 2 points a year ago
Heck the name of the brand doesn't have to be the same as the name of the company.
It is also standard practise to do in basically every country. It helps with liability, but it also helps when you want to sell parts of the company and can help for tax reasons as well.
I have seen companies with similar structures who only have a couple of hundred thousand euro of revenue.
Jimmycakes 51 points a year ago
This had pretty wide awareness during the reddit api Crack down and even before that when Chinese tencent bought a stake in reddit. A lot of the reddit users from that time are aware. I would argue tencent is much much worse than Conde nast
ragebutt 32 points a year ago
Interesting fact: when lowtax was forced to sell somethingawful to one of his moderators that got bitcoin rich for 400k he revealed during the negotiations that conde nast attempted to buy somethingawful for 13 million dollars around 2006 or so. He turned them down because he “was still having fun with the site”
After the sale was completed the mod looked into it a bit more and realized in that same timeframe conde nast ended up purchasing a majority stake in reddit for a very similar amount
Imagine how different the internet would be if “the front page of the internet” was a hacked up vbulletin site from 2003 filled with 40 year old IT dorks and run by a guy that was so afraid of paying child support that he literally killed himself
ZephyrXero 18 points a year ago
Conde Nast didn't make Reddit the front page of the Internet, the community did
dexa_scantron 8 points a year ago
There are some articles about his death linked on Wikipedia but they're pretty just-the-facts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Kyanka
ReallyActuallyFrankenstein 6 points a year ago
I was having a hard time imagining a worse reality than this one, thank you.
grue 26 points a year ago
When I hear "Conde Nast" I think about that scandal with the Bon Appetit Youtube channel and how they were discriminating against their non-white chefs.
MemmingenFan923 20 points a year ago
Test your theory by posting this on Reddit. Let's see how long your post stays until it gets removed.
homesweethomeMrL 3 points a year ago
Name your sub!
TheIvoryTower 12 points a year ago
todayIlearned?
homesweethomeMrL 1 point a year ago
Make it so - one of you degenerates with a reddit account.
Barberserk 18 points a year ago
They are in turn owned by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_Publications, even larger than Conde Nast.
blazeknave 7 points a year ago
It's a holding company that owns conde nasty and the local paper, on Staten Island. It's not a conspiracy. It's a wealthy conservative publishing company.
Initiateofthevoid 2 points a year ago path: 0 17473209 17475922 17484471, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 0
Sixtyforce 17 points a year ago
The list of who not to avoid I think is much shorter.
Jack_Burton 4 points a year ago
Well they have become less satirical than reality so...now I don't know what to do.
FriendOfDeSoto 14 points a year ago
Why am I not surprised? I stopped having any trust in that platform when they killed 3rd party clients. I would suggest everyone to leave reddit and watch it implode from afar.
Yes, it stings. It's a habit. You still have nice subs in there, communities that make you happy. But you're fiddling as the ship sinks. That's the metaphor, isn't it?
homesweethomeMrL 8 points a year ago
Giving up hundreds of thousands of co-users for a few thousand is a helluva drug.
I approve this message.
glowing_hans 10 points a year ago
Social media cooperation self-upvotes its self-authored media. Users: Surprised pikachu face. Reality: Let the circle-jerk begin.
Scotty_Trees 8 points a year ago
I don't know if it applies to this or not, but Reddit top posts absolutely love Newsweek, which is a garbage clickbait, pump and dump articles as fast as possible, and now seeing this, it wouldn't surprise me if there's something going on.
irelephant 1 point a year ago
Actually, most of those articles are posted by newsweek's official reddit account.
Scotty_Trees 1 point a year ago
Not really, I've already blocked the newsweek reddit account and there's plenty of other accounts posting newsweek all the time, it's very sus.
quetzaldilla 5 points a year ago
If I had a time machine, I would try to find a way to stop Reagan rather than Hitler.
I think other time travelers will cover Hitler, so I think we should diversify our efforts in stopping other evil bastards around the world.
LovableSidekick 5 points a year ago
What if Hitler turned out the way he did because he was traumatized by all the time travelers who tried to kill him when he was a little boy?
quetzaldilla 2 points a year ago
Call me crazy, but I think some of the biggest fucking bastards in human history simply needed someone to listen to them and help them learn how to self-regulate their emotions as children.
They're all so consistently bitter and unhappy narcissists, and they drive away their loved ones because they have no idea how to listen and introspect. They also always try to lure others in with money because that's what the only things they personally care about.
When someone criticizes my behavior, I legitimate think about it and I ask them what I could do differently that would make them happier to be around me, and I take that shit seriously even if it hurts to hear.
Sometimes it's completely bogus, but if it matters to them, it matters to me, and that's all that matters.
LovableSidekick 1 point a year ago
Fundamentally I think anger, hate and evil deeds are driven by fear and past wounds. But saying such things on social media can get you accused of condoning evil, "giving nazis a pass," or whatever. People aren't willing to think about what you're saying until they decide if you're wearing a white hat not a black hat.
Vanilla_PuddinFudge 2 points a year ago
Most of us don't even read the articles.
(yes, you, scrolling by right now, did you read it? I didn't think so.)
NotProLemmy 1 point a year ago
Side reminder: this is not reddit, this is lemmy; we're not browsing reddit. But whatever you saying still holds true.
LovableSidekick 0 points a year ago
I agree. In fact, it's possible that oxygen molecules in our lungs right now were once breathed by Hitler. The exact same air that kept him alive, enabling genocide, is literally keeping us alive! We must boycott ourselves for moral purity!
pewgar_seemsimandroid 1 point a year ago
path: 0 17528655, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
daniskarma 1 point a year ago
Good luck finding media now owned by some evil corporation or state.
forkDestroyer 4 points a year ago
404media is pretty solid, for what it's worth.
AmbitiousProcess 1 point a year ago
Agreed. 404Media has been extremely good at covering anything from random niche communities to major data leaks. The only thing stopping me from becoming a paying member of their work is the (in my opinion, high) $100/yr price tag.
I'd also recommend following independent journalists like Ken Klippenstein. He does good work, and frequently releases documents that the rest of the media refuses to publish more than snippets of.
Prontomomo 1 point a year ago
Wow, I don’t wanna be on Reddit, but I don’t hate it like this, is this how other people feel?
LovableSidekick -3 points a year ago
Why tho? What do you have against employees whose company is owned by another company whose parent company owns some other company whose executives did something you didn't like? Your imaginary social justice mechanics really doesn't make any fucking sense.
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
Ars Technica has always been very upfront about it whenever they cover news related to reddit. It's certainly not ideal, but Ars Technica remains a very good website for tech news
save