I got a lot of my headlines from reddit. Due to the impending death of my favorite app (Sync for Reddit) however, that’s coming to an end.

I’m now realising my Reddit experience had deteriorated slowly, just doomscrolling the hours away wasn’t healthy and I’m even kind of glad this is a good reason to end it. However, reddit has been really useful for news, especially the comments (taken with the right amount of skepticism) could be very informative.

I hope Lemmy builds something similar, but the defederation of beehaw’s news has been a setback.

What would be a good alternative, going forward, for getting news and backgrounds from varied, trustworthy en unbiased sources?

  • Cha0zz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 years ago

    Maybe not directly an answer to your question but I don’t believe Reddit was a trustworthy and unbiased news source. Hell it wasn’t even that varied imo with news mainly being about what’s happening in the US with a focus on politics. Tbh I really don’t know what a good news source would be that thicks all your boxes.

      • Cha0zz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Sure I agree with that. The problem is that the comments also often include statements without sources, plain out wrong information, etc. Much of which can also be highly upvoted. So even with the context of the comments finding unbiased good news requires you to be very sceptic and isn’t always straightforward. Additionally each subreddit has its own target audience which will also inherently result in some bias in both the news that is posted as the comments on said news. But tbh a perfectly unbiased news source probably does not exist as we are all human.

        • tegs_terry@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          You’re right you gotta bring your bucket of salt for all them pinches, but it was often the case that if someone posted a bullshit answer there’d be a repudiation to it; if that one was bollocks? Someone else chimed in. Eventually you have enough to aggregate some semblance of the truth.

          The pitfall is relying on votes to do the vetting for you, and reluctance to research under your own power in lieu of citations. Cumbersome work, but if you really want the real picture it’s never 100% painless.

          • Morningcoffee@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            I found it difficult to describe how exactly the comments were informing, sometimes even moreso than the article itself, but this is exactly it.

          • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            I agree that there was generally a consensus in the comments, but that doesn’t mean the consensus was correct. Often, different subreddits would come to different conclusions. I think there is a big risk of falling in to the “conformation bias” trap when relying on community consensus.

            In not sure if there’s a better way to determine the truth, though.