11 months without politics (2 Viewers)

[GreenNGold]

I was hoping this thread meant that after the election we would be able to go 11 months without politics, I knew what was too good to be true.

At the time, I was against the politics forum getting removed, but now I think it was the correct choice, we are better off just sticking to better topics here.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I have no interest in seeing a resurrection of the PSF.

A new forum for Religion though, that would be very welcome if you could set that up. Unless of course the objective of religious threads is to proselytize, in which case, those posters would simply ignore it and keep posting in the FFA.

To be fair, I think it's a real point to ask if Christians (or people of other faiths) SHOULD do more evangelism and trying to get more people to follow Jesus. That's a pretty clear instruction in our Bible. That could be an interesting thread maybe at some point.

I've said it before, but if I believed what the Bible offers, I'd feel compelled to spread the word out of compassion for humanity. The fact it doesn't happen more often undermines the message imo.

I think that's a fair point. It's an interesting discussion and one I think might make a good thread.

 

[Harry Manback]

Being offended and lashing out because I accurately referred to FBGs as a safe space is objectively hypersensitive. Sorry if that offends you.

What I have taken to do on some niche video game sub reddits is when a person asks a question I click on their recent content to get an idea of how well the idea of me providing help will be received.


When I click on the below page I see an entire page of posts of just trolling without any real discussion about topics.

https://forums.footballguys.com/members/harry-manback.666/#recent-content


Where as if you choose most peoples here:

https://forums.footballguys.com/members/mtskibum.29873/#recent-content


@Harry Manback
What is your goal with your style of posting, can you explain why you are posting in such a way to invite arguments back towards you?

I never posted in the political forum, does this name calling go back years and I just don't understand it?

What name calling?

Name calling may have been bad, but every single one of your last 20 posts have been trying to get negative responses from the person you are directly responding to.


I am not trying to call you out on this in a negative sense, but I am curious, do you not think your last entire page of posts were 90% trolling posts?

Which is fine, I am not a mod and you don't bother me as a poster. I don't think I have read anything you have posted prior to this. I just am curious why.

Edit, ramble because i did not want to come off too negative. My accusations could be taken the wrong way, and I don't want them to.

I was replying to a comment that said these "kindergarten" rules were necessitated because people like to fling poo.

I made a simple comment that the level of "poo flinging" experienced here is not something you can reasonably expect to insulate yourself from in the regular world, and that people seem want FBGs to be a safe space, hence the rules and hence what we have today.

More than a few people chose to get upset by that and lash out. Ivan even admitted to bullying me in an attempt to get me to go away. Nice. I guess we need some high school rules too?

From there it was simply an unwillingness for my words to be mischaracterized, which multiple people tried to do. Not sure why that's a big deal.

 

[opensourcebeer]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement, revised October 27, 2024

Introduction The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement. Adherence to these rules is required for participation in The Soap Box. General Rules & Guidelines General Rules If you believe someone to be in violation of the rules, use the...

arstechnica.com

Thanks. It's interesting they have such big advertisements on the forum.

Gotta make them $$$s somewhere I guess. IIRC you can become a subscriber to eliminate it.

 

[Joe Bryant]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement, revised October 27, 2024

Introduction The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement. Adherence to these rules is required for participation in The Soap Box. General Rules & Guidelines General Rules If you believe someone to be in violation of the rules, use the...

arstechnica.com

Thanks. It's interesting they have such big advertisements on the forum.

Gotta make them $$$s somewhere I guess. IIRC you can become a subscriber to eliminate it.

Thanks. Is a subscription free?

Or do you have to pay to be a subscriber and have no ads?

 

[opensourcebeer]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement, revised October 27, 2024

Introduction The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement. Adherence to these rules is required for participation in The Soap Box. General Rules & Guidelines General Rules If you believe someone to be in violation of the rules, use the...

arstechnica.com

Thanks. It's interesting they have such big advertisements on the forum.

Gotta make them $$$s somewhere I guess. IIRC you can become a subscriber to eliminate it.

Thanks. Is a subscription free?

Or do you have to pay to be a subscriber and have no ads?

Subscribe to Ars Technica

Subscribe to Ars Technica and support our work while enjoying all the benefits!

arstechnica.com

 

[MTskibum]

I was replying to a comment that said these "kindergarten" rules were necessitated because people like to fling poo.

I made a simple comment that the level of "poo flinging" experienced here is not something you can reasonably expect to insulate yourself from in the regular world, and that people seem want FBGs to be a safe space, hence the rules and hence what we have today.

More than a few people chose to get upset by that and lash out. Ivan even admitted to bullying me in an attempt to get me to go away. Nice. I guess we need some high school rules too?

From there it was simply an unwillingness for my words to be mischaracterized, which multiple people tried to do. Not sure why that's a big deal.

Fair enough.

I can explain the hostility i believe.

Most people have a negative connotation of the term "safe space" because of how it was portrayed by the news ~10 years ago. I remember those news stories about colleges needing safe spaces for their students feelings, etc.

When you call something that people like, in this case the football guys forum, a term that most people perceive as negative, then you will get the types of responses you got.

 

[JAA]

they can't help but believe there are people out there that want nothing to do with the one side verse the other side.

Where do all the people go that want nothing to do with either side? To me that is really where I get frustrated. If you talk with someone on either side and don't share their belief then you automatically are on the other side and are evil. What happened to being in the middle and liking aspects of both sides of center? Basically if you are in the middle you are evil to both sides. Crazy to me.

False dichotomy. I believe history will show how horrible these times have been with them.

False how? This is exactly my experience. I talk to someone on one side and have an opposite opinion on one or two items and I am evil and on the other side. I have people on both sides of the aisle and I appear to be evil to both sides. I am just trying to be in the middle. I am not sure what's false about that.

I am agreeing with you

If you are not 'a', then you must be 'b'. False dichotomy, false equivalency, etc.

 

[MTskibum]

I was replying to a comment that said these "kindergarten" rules were necessitated because people like to fling poo.

I made a simple comment that the level of "poo flinging" experienced here is not something you can reasonably expect to insulate yourself from in the regular world, and that people seem want FBGs to be a safe space, hence the rules and hence what we have today.

More than a few people chose to get upset by that and lash out. Ivan even admitted to bullying me in an attempt to get me to go away. Nice. I guess we need some high school rules too?

From there it was simply an unwillingness for my words to be mischaracterized, which multiple people tried to do. Not sure why that's a big deal.

Lets imagine a restaurant that always has customers that come in that says rude things to other customers. When the owner either kicks them out it is not because the restaurant is a safe space, it is because in most places of business you don't have customers arguing and fighting with each other.

Lets say that keeps happening at this restaurant and the owner discovers it is because of his incredibly cheap alcohol and the atmosphere he has invited. Bar fights are a real thing but this owner hates dealing with the bar fights so he quits serving alcohol and of course this causes some customers to be lost. But the fighting goes away.

I would liken the change of getting rid of PSF to that of a bar that pivots into a restaurant.

 

[JAA]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement, revised October 27, 2024

Introduction The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement. Adherence to these rules is required for participation in The Soap Box. General Rules & Guidelines General Rules If you believe someone to be in violation of the rules, use the...

arstechnica.com

Thanks. It's interesting they have such big advertisements on the forum.

IIRC they were acquired by WIRED, et al so they are part of a big conglomerate.

 

[Joe Bryant]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement, revised October 27, 2024

Introduction The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement. Adherence to these rules is required for participation in The Soap Box. General Rules & Guidelines General Rules If you believe someone to be in violation of the rules, use the...

arstechnica.com

Thanks. It's interesting they have such big advertisements on the forum.

Gotta make them $$$s somewhere I guess. IIRC you can become a subscriber to eliminate it.

Thanks. Is a subscription free?

Or do you have to pay to be a subscriber and have no ads?

Subscribe to Ars Technica

Subscribe to Ars Technica and support our work while enjoying all the benefits!

arstechnica.com

Thanks. That's amazing. $25 a year for the forums not to have ads. Thanks for sharing.

 

[MTskibum]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement, revised October 27, 2024

Introduction The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement. Adherence to these rules is required for participation in The Soap Box. General Rules & Guidelines General Rules If you believe someone to be in violation of the rules, use the...

arstechnica.com

Thanks. It's interesting they have such big advertisements on the forum.

Gotta make them $$$s somewhere I guess. IIRC you can become a subscriber to eliminate it.

Thanks. Is a subscription free?

Or do you have to pay to be a subscriber and have no ads?

Subscribe to Ars Technica

Subscribe to Ars Technica and support our work while enjoying all the benefits!

arstechnica.com

Thanks. That's amazing. $25 a year for the forums not to have ads. Thanks for sharing.

Woah, lets not draw too much from that

 

[The Gator]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement, revised October 27, 2024

Introduction The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement. Adherence to these rules is required for participation in The Soap Box. General Rules & Guidelines General Rules If you believe someone to be in violation of the rules, use the...

arstechnica.com

Thanks. It's interesting they have such big advertisements on the forum.

Gotta make them $$$s somewhere I guess. IIRC you can become a subscriber to eliminate it.

Thanks. Is a subscription free?

Or do you have to pay to be a subscriber and have no ads?

Subscribe to Ars Technica

Subscribe to Ars Technica and support our work while enjoying all the benefits!

arstechnica.com

Thanks. That's amazing. $25 a year for the forums not to have ads. Thanks for sharing.

Woah, lets not draw too much from that

This is funny, I’m going to laugh at it

 

[JAA]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement, revised October 27, 2024

Introduction The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement. Adherence to these rules is required for participation in The Soap Box. General Rules & Guidelines General Rules If you believe someone to be in violation of the rules, use the...

arstechnica.com

Ha! I just checked this out. I have been at ars for 25+ years

Do you mean you'd been on their other forums for 25 years but didn't know they had a political forum?

Yes, but I haven't frequented on a regular basis in prolly 15+ years. Its a tech site and I used in when I was building my own PCs and selling parts. The soap box I bet is relatively new. Whats also new is me wanting to discuss politics.

Full disclosure I do recall using it when we had the debate competition thing here . I used the ars forum to ask about ice cream flavors, I believe I was given Rocky Road as my first debate topic. If my notebook is up to date my opponent never showed, name I think was Mr Happypants or something similar.

 

[JAA]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement, revised October 27, 2024

Introduction The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement. Adherence to these rules is required for participation in The Soap Box. General Rules & Guidelines General Rules If you believe someone to be in violation of the rules, use the...

arstechnica.com

Thanks. It's interesting they have such big advertisements on the forum.

Gotta make them $$$s somewhere I guess. IIRC you can become a subscriber to eliminate it.

Thanks. Is a subscription free?

Or do you have to pay to be a subscriber and have no ads?

You can pay, like $60 a year. I do as Im a fan of their message and purpose.

 

[Joe Bryant]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement, revised October 27, 2024

Introduction The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement. Adherence to these rules is required for participation in The Soap Box. General Rules & Guidelines General Rules If you believe someone to be in violation of the rules, use the...

arstechnica.com

Thanks. It's interesting they have such big advertisements on the forum.

Gotta make them $$$s somewhere I guess. IIRC you can become a subscriber to eliminate it.

Thanks. Is a subscription free?

Or do you have to pay to be a subscriber and have no ads?

You can pay, like $60 a year. I do as Im a fan of their message and purpose.

Thank you. That's amazing.

How would you describe their message and purpose?

 

[opensourcebeer]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement, revised October 27, 2024

Introduction The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement. Adherence to these rules is required for participation in The Soap Box. General Rules & Guidelines General Rules If you believe someone to be in violation of the rules, use the...

arstechnica.com

Ha! I just checked this out. I have been at ars for 25+ years

Do you mean you'd been on their other forums for 25 years but didn't know they had a political forum?

Yes, but I haven't frequented on a regular basis in prolly 15+ years. Its a tech site and I used in when I was building my own PCs and selling parts. The soap box I bet is relatively new. Whats also new is me wanting to discuss politics.

Full disclosure I do recall using it when we had the debate competition thing here . I used the ars forum to ask about ice cream flavors, I believe I was given Rocky Road as my first debate topic. If my notebook is up to date my opponent never showed, name I think was Mr Happypants or something similar.

I did find that I was posting to the Soap Box back in 2005.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

If you haven't read Tyler's article about "wetsuiting" in The Atlantic, I implore you to do so. Great article.

The ocean or the magazine?

I meant the magazine, but both I think. It was horrifying but it was also something that I related to in a very diagonal way.

This article?

Yes.

This is nightmare fuel for me, and there is no way I am alone.

 

[titusbramble]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

I've found that most other political forums I've gone to were pretty similar to here. Mostly liberal posters, many of whom are simply looking for validation of their ideology and not really interested in honest debate.

Yep. The only forum I know that still has an active politics forum is close to unusable due to the moderators not tolerating even centrist opinions, let alone anything to the right of it

 

[Gally]

they can't help but believe there are people out there that want nothing to do with the one side verse the other side.

Where do all the people go that want nothing to do with either side? To me that is really where I get frustrated. If you talk with someone on either side and don't share their belief then you automatically are on the other side and are evil. What happened to being in the middle and liking aspects of both sides of center? Basically if you are in the middle you are evil to both sides. Crazy to me.

False dichotomy. I believe history will show how horrible these times have been with them.

False how? This is exactly my experience. I talk to someone on one side and have an opposite opinion on one or two items and I am evil and on the other side. I have people on both sides of the aisle and I appear to be evil to both sides. I am just trying to be in the middle. I am not sure what's false about that.

I am agreeing with you

If you are not 'a', then you must be 'b'. False dichotomy, false equivalency, etc.

Hey, I learned something new today. Thanks for that.

 

[KarmaPolice]

they can't help but believe there are people out there that want nothing to do with the one side verse the other side.

Where do all the people go that want nothing to do with either side? To me that is really where I get frustrated. If you talk with someone on either side and don't share their belief then you automatically are on the other side and are evil. What happened to being in the middle and liking aspects of both sides of center? Basically if you are in the middle you are evil to both sides. Crazy to me.

Good question, and this is a source of a lot of frustration to me. I am not sure I'd go as far as the bolded, but in the last few years I've noticed nobody seems to talk or believe that there are more than 2 options AND you must fully be for or against those 2 options. I argue a point on an issue that is opposite the person I am talking to, and that is "proof" that I am against them. I get told I am lying and just ashamed of my "real" vote if I say I am not one party or the other. It is truly bizarre.

 

[JAA]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement, revised October 27, 2024

Introduction The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement. Adherence to these rules is required for participation in The Soap Box. General Rules & Guidelines General Rules If you believe someone to be in violation of the rules, use the...

arstechnica.com

Thanks. It's interesting they have such big advertisements on the forum.

Gotta make them $$$s somewhere I guess. IIRC you can become a subscriber to eliminate it.

Thanks. Is a subscription free?

Or do you have to pay to be a subscriber and have no ads?

You can pay, like $60 a year. I do as Im a fan of their message and purpose.

Thank you. That's amazing.

How would you describe their message and purpose?

Science reporting is the main theme. They also have a thread feature for commenting on articles which has an impressive voting feature. This voting feature will eventually hide comments if they receive enough negativity. This concept allows for a lot of discussion, discourse, but overall civility. I find myself reading the comments a lot as some folks there are quite humorous and have insight atypical of my own exposure.

As for purpose, I have always taken in their purpose as education and enlightenment. I get stories from there I dont get from any mainstream sites as it is very techy related. And since I have been with them since the early days, they have a lot of nostalgia with me. While I am sure the takeover by WIRED will cause them to go downhill, currently they are my #1 science and technology site.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong here. I had a discussion about politics and the media with my daughter a couple of weeks ago.

When are the "news" outlets and social media sites viewed/clicked on most often? When there is something controversial going on.
News outlets and social media sites sell their ad space and can charge more for that space based on the number of viewers/clicks.
Doesn't it make sense for them to fan the flames of controversy or create controversy out of otherwise benign issues for financial gain/stock valuation?
Is it really that simple?

Wasn't a Limbaugh fan, but I always heard the anecdote that half the people listened because they loved him, the other half listened because they hated him.

Yes, their job is not to give you the best, most accurate news. Their job is to keep you on their site for as long as possible so they can sell ad space at a higher $$. The sites will hammer a few topics, but barely cover others. A lot of "reporting" is about what the "other side" said the days before, crap like that. At least the most popular and most profitable sites do that.

 

[JAA]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement, revised October 27, 2024

Introduction The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement. Adherence to these rules is required for participation in The Soap Box. General Rules & Guidelines General Rules If you believe someone to be in violation of the rules, use the...

arstechnica.com

Ha! I just checked this out. I have been at ars for 25+ years

Do you mean you'd been on their other forums for 25 years but didn't know they had a political forum?

Yes, but I haven't frequented on a regular basis in prolly 15+ years. Its a tech site and I used in when I was building my own PCs and selling parts. The soap box I bet is relatively new. Whats also new is me wanting to discuss politics.

Full disclosure I do recall using it when we had the debate competition thing here . I used the ars forum to ask about ice cream flavors, I believe I was given Rocky Road as my first debate topic. If my notebook is up to date my opponent never showed, name I think was Mr Happypants or something similar.

I did find that I was posting to the Soap Box back in 2005.

Must just have been me then that didnt notice. I was very much on the CPU & Motherboard Technologia, Agora Classifieds, Linux Kung Fu, etc.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks folks. This love for the ARS site and charging for the forums and advertisements has been pretty eye opening. Thanks.

 

[KarmaPolice]

And for social media, that catering to what will keep the user engaged isn't necessarily evil. If Twitter knows I follow a lot of NFL writers, I like that they present me with new NFL writers I would be interested in. That's good.

But if twitter knows I'm a __________ supporter in politics, a piece praising their opponent will also keep me "engaged" in a "I can't believe they said that" way.

Maybe I am more cynical, but I think in the long run it does turn that way because this is the stuff that keeps people engaged. As far as your example about the NFL writers - I think the point is that the algorithms aren't designed to give you more well written, calm NFL writers. Sure they might keep suggesting NFL content for you, but I'd be willing to bet it becomes more and more hot takes, stuff about teams you don't like, things like that. That is how they are designed to suck us in, it doesn't matter if we are talking health, sports, or politics. It's just human nature - hype and click bait info wins out in the end.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And for social media, that catering to what will keep the user engaged isn't necessarily evil. If Twitter knows I follow a lot of NFL writers, I like that they present me with new NFL writers I would be interested in. That's good.

But if twitter knows I'm a __________ supporter in politics, a piece praising their opponent will also keep me "engaged" in a "I can't believe they said that" way.

Maybe I am more cynical, but I think in the long run it does turn that way because this is the stuff that keeps people engaged. As far as your example about the NFL writers - I think the point is that the algorithms aren't designed to give you more well written, calm NFL writers. Sure they might keep suggesting NFL content for you, but I'd be willing to bet it becomes more and more hot takes, stuff about teams you don't like, things like that. That is how they are designed to suck us in, it doesn't matter if we are talking health, sports, or politics. It's just human nature - hype and click bait info wins out in the end.

Yes. "Engagement" can happen in multiple ways. And I believe for the platforms, they're pretty agnostic about how it happens. As long as you stay there.

 

[KarmaPolice]

And for social media, that catering to what will keep the user engaged isn't necessarily evil. If Twitter knows I follow a lot of NFL writers, I like that they present me with new NFL writers I would be interested in. That's good.

But if twitter knows I'm a __________ supporter in politics, a piece praising their opponent will also keep me "engaged" in a "I can't believe they said that" way.

Maybe I am more cynical, but I think in the long run it does turn that way because this is the stuff that keeps people engaged. As far as your example about the NFL writers - I think the point is that the algorithms aren't designed to give you more well written, calm NFL writers. Sure they might keep suggesting NFL content for you, but I'd be willing to bet it becomes more and more hot takes, stuff about teams you don't like, things like that. That is how they are designed to suck us in, it doesn't matter if we are talking health, sports, or politics. It's just human nature - hype and click bait info wins out in the end.

Yes. "Engagement" can happen in multiple ways. And I believe for the platforms, they're pretty agnostic about how it happens. As long as you stay there.

Yes/no. True, they don't care if it is good information or chaos that gets the clicks - they want the profits. My post wasn't saying that the platforms in general are purposely pushing something on you, more that it is the chaos and crap that generates the clicks, so that is how it's programmed. Human nature is human nature.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And for social media, that catering to what will keep the user engaged isn't necessarily evil. If Twitter knows I follow a lot of NFL writers, I like that they present me with new NFL writers I would be interested in. That's good.

But if twitter knows I'm a __________ supporter in politics, a piece praising their opponent will also keep me "engaged" in a "I can't believe they said that" way.

Maybe I am more cynical, but I think in the long run it does turn that way because this is the stuff that keeps people engaged. As far as your example about the NFL writers - I think the point is that the algorithms aren't designed to give you more well written, calm NFL writers. Sure they might keep suggesting NFL content for you, but I'd be willing to bet it becomes more and more hot takes, stuff about teams you don't like, things like that. That is how they are designed to suck us in, it doesn't matter if we are talking health, sports, or politics. It's just human nature - hype and click bait info wins out in the end.

Yes. "Engagement" can happen in multiple ways. And I believe for the platforms, they're pretty agnostic about how it happens. As long as you stay there.

Yes/no. True, they don't care if it is good information or chaos that gets the clicks - they want the profits. My post wasn't saying that the platforms in general are purposely pushing something on you, more that it is the chaos and crap that generates the clicks, so that is how it's programmed. Human nature is human nature.

I don't think we're disagreeing on anything for a "no". I think they just want the results of you staying engaged.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Part of the problem with the PSF was that the mods simply refused to take action about the tools that would come in and disrupt threads. We are seeing the exact same dynamic play out in this thread. There is one guy creating problems here, a bunch of people have tried and failed to correct the situation with social pressure, and the @FBG Moderator is nowhere to be found.

Agree 100%

oh god

Well, that's enough Footballguys for me for one day. See you guys in the game thread for tomorrow night's crap-fest.

 

[KarmaPolice]

And for social media, that catering to what will keep the user engaged isn't necessarily evil. If Twitter knows I follow a lot of NFL writers, I like that they present me with new NFL writers I would be interested in. That's good.

But if twitter knows I'm a __________ supporter in politics, a piece praising their opponent will also keep me "engaged" in a "I can't believe they said that" way.

Maybe I am more cynical, but I think in the long run it does turn that way because this is the stuff that keeps people engaged. As far as your example about the NFL writers - I think the point is that the algorithms aren't designed to give you more well written, calm NFL writers. Sure they might keep suggesting NFL content for you, but I'd be willing to bet it becomes more and more hot takes, stuff about teams you don't like, things like that. That is how they are designed to suck us in, it doesn't matter if we are talking health, sports, or politics. It's just human nature - hype and click bait info wins out in the end.

Yes. "Engagement" can happen in multiple ways. And I believe for the platforms, they're pretty agnostic about how it happens. As long as you stay there.

Yes/no. True, they don't care if it is good information or chaos that gets the clicks - they want the profits. My post wasn't saying that the platforms in general are purposely pushing something on you, more that it is the chaos and crap that generates the clicks, so that is how it's programmed. Human nature is human nature.

I don't think we're disagreeing on anything for a "no". I think they just want the results of you staying engaged.

I guess I was saying "yes" that it can happen different ways, but the "no" was that IMO all those ways lead to the negative over time as you stay on the sites. My main disagreement was that in your initial post you were talking that it's "good" that they present you with more or new NFL writers to keep you on their site.

 

[Doug B]

I made a simple comment that the level of "poo flinging" experienced here is not something you can reasonably expect to insulate yourself from in the regular world, and that people seem want FBGs to be a safe space, hence the rules and hence what we have today.

Addressing the bolded:

On the contrary, "the regular world" features A LOT LESS poo-flinging than (was) seen here. Especially if we're talking about the former Political Forum.

The typical experience of everyday society for most of us (I hope) is others at least presenting a veneer of respect and grace toward their fellow travelers. At the minimum, basic manners and mindfulness seems to prevent "the regular world" from being merely a meatspace version of the former Political Forum.

The default interaction between two people IRL is not poo-flinging. I think collectively, even in these polarized times, we do a lot better than that.

 

[opensourcebeer]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement, revised October 27, 2024

Introduction The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement. Adherence to these rules is required for participation in The Soap Box. General Rules & Guidelines General Rules If you believe someone to be in violation of the rules, use the...

arstechnica.com

Thanks. It's interesting they have such big advertisements on the forum.

Gotta make them $$$s somewhere I guess. IIRC you can become a subscriber to eliminate it.

Thanks. Is a subscription free?

Or do you have to pay to be a subscriber and have no ads?

You can pay, like $60 a year. I do as Im a fan of their message and purpose.

Thank you. That's amazing.

How would you describe their message and purpose?

Science reporting is the main theme. They also have a thread feature for commenting on articles which has an impressive voting feature. This voting feature will eventually hide comments if they receive enough negativity. This concept allows for a lot of discussion, discourse, but overall civility. I find myself reading the comments a lot as some folks there are quite humorous and have insight atypical of my own exposure.

As for purpose, I have always taken in their purpose as education and enlightenment. I get stories from there I dont get from any mainstream sites as it is very techy related. And since I have been with them since the early days, they have a lot of nostalgia with me. While I am sure the takeover by WIRED will cause them to go downhill, currently they are my #1 science and technology site.

I think I'd largely agree with this assessment. I think they cover a more broad series of topics now, like health, cars, and space then the did in the early days. Their featured articles are generally really in depth and well done. And it's pretty cool when they cover a technology story on something you're directly involved with.

The forums have an incredible amount of knowledge members with a variety of IT experiences and backgrounds. I found the community to generally be pretty good. I used to be more active there when I was younger and had free time/energy for gaming (shout out to Arsclan). If you asked me what was my first "home" on the Internet was ... it'd say Ars.

Funny and nerdy memory - while participating in an old browser based, persistent environment, multiplayer game (Urban Dead) with a bunch of other Ars forum folks, I got into an argument with another forum member for his behavior (betraying the trust of his team under the guise of emergent gameplay). A few years later the forum member I was arguing with was revealed to be Edward Snowden.

 

[JAA]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement, revised October 27, 2024

Introduction The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement. Adherence to these rules is required for participation in The Soap Box. General Rules & Guidelines General Rules If you believe someone to be in violation of the rules, use the...

arstechnica.com

Thanks. It's interesting they have such big advertisements on the forum.

Gotta make them $$$s somewhere I guess. IIRC you can become a subscriber to eliminate it.

Thanks. Is a subscription free?

Or do you have to pay to be a subscriber and have no ads?

You can pay, like $60 a year. I do as Im a fan of their message and purpose.

Thank you. That's amazing.

How would you describe their message and purpose?

Science reporting is the main theme. They also have a thread feature for commenting on articles which has an impressive voting feature. This voting feature will eventually hide comments if they receive enough negativity. This concept allows for a lot of discussion, discourse, but overall civility. I find myself reading the comments a lot as some folks there are quite humorous and have insight atypical of my own exposure.

As for purpose, I have always taken in their purpose as education and enlightenment. I get stories from there I dont get from any mainstream sites as it is very techy related. And since I have been with them since the early days, they have a lot of nostalgia with me. While I am sure the takeover by WIRED will cause them to go downhill, currently they are my #1 science and technology site.

I think I'd largely agree with this assessment. I think they cover a more broad series of topics now, like health, cars, and space then the did in the early days. Their featured articles are generally really in depth and well done. And it's pretty cool when they cover a technology story on something you're directly involved with.

The forums have an incredible amount of knowledge members with a variety of IT experiences and backgrounds. I found the community to generally be pretty good. I used to be more active there when I was younger and had free time/energy for gaming (shout out to Arsclan). If you asked me what was my first "home" on the Internet was ... it'd say Ars.

Funny and nerdy memory - while participating in an old browser based, persistent environment, multiplayer game (Urban Dead) with a bunch of other Ars forum folks, I got into an argument with another forum member for his behavior (betraying the trust of his team under the guise of emergent gameplay). A few years later the forum member I was arguing with was revealed to be Edward Snowden.

Crazy story! How was it confirmed to be Snowden? What was their ars handle? I wonder if I had any interaction with them.

Also, I looked back at my forum content. It only goes back to 2005. I have to believe I was posting there before 2005. I remember perusing ars, HardOCP and TheFiringSquad way back in the day, even before 2000. Am I missing something?

 

[ghostguy123]

So is there going to be riots by the losing side, regardless of who wins?

 

[opensourcebeer]

There is a tech site I frequent that has a long running political forum.

IMO that site has more concise rules than the PSF did and has more active moderation enforcing those rules than what I perceived was going on in the PSF.

My intent isn't to criticize anything Joe was trying to do with the PSF, but I don't think there's any chance of bringing the PSF back successfully without doing something similar.

Thanks. Can you share the site? Others here are looking for a place like that.

The Soap Box Rules of Engagement, revised October 27, 2024

Introduction The Soap Box Rules of Engagement are a supplement to the Posting Guidelines and the User Agreement. Adherence to these rules is required for participation in The Soap Box. General Rules & Guidelines General Rules If you believe someone to be in violation of the rules, use the...

arstechnica.com

Thanks. It's interesting they have such big advertisements on the forum.

Gotta make them $$$s somewhere I guess. IIRC you can become a subscriber to eliminate it.

Thanks. Is a subscription free?

Or do you have to pay to be a subscriber and have no ads?

You can pay, like $60 a year. I do as Im a fan of their message and purpose.

Thank you. That's amazing.

How would you describe their message and purpose?

Science reporting is the main theme. They also have a thread feature for commenting on articles which has an impressive voting feature. This voting feature will eventually hide comments if they receive enough negativity. This concept allows for a lot of discussion, discourse, but overall civility. I find myself reading the comments a lot as some folks there are quite humorous and have insight atypical of my own exposure.

As for purpose, I have always taken in their purpose as education and enlightenment. I get stories from there I dont get from any mainstream sites as it is very techy related. And since I have been with them since the early days, they have a lot of nostalgia with me. While I am sure the takeover by WIRED will cause them to go downhill, currently they are my #1 science and technology site.

I think I'd largely agree with this assessment. I think they cover a more broad series of topics now, like health, cars, and space then the did in the early days. Their featured articles are generally really in depth and well done. And it's pretty cool when they cover a technology story on something you're directly involved with.

The forums have an incredible amount of knowledge members with a variety of IT experiences and backgrounds. I found the community to generally be pretty good. I used to be more active there when I was younger and had free time/energy for gaming (shout out to Arsclan). If you asked me what was my first "home" on the Internet was ... it'd say Ars.

Funny and nerdy memory - while participating in an old browser based, persistent environment, multiplayer game (Urban Dead) with a bunch of other Ars forum folks, I got into an argument with another forum member for his behavior (betraying the trust of his team under the guise of emergent gameplay). A few years later the forum member I was arguing with was revealed to be Edward Snowden.

Crazy story! How was it confirmed to be Snowden? What was their ars handle? I wonder if I had any interaction with them.

Also, I looked back at my forum content. It only goes back to 2005. I have to believe I was posting there before 2005. I remember perusing ars, HardOCP and TheFiringSquad way back in the day, even before 2000. Am I missing something?

Maybe they switched forum software around that time....not sure TBH. I can find my posts back to 2003.

Here's the article on Snowden. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/nsa-leaker-ed-snowdens-life-on-ars-technica/

And the link to me calling Ed an a**hat.

Urban Dead - A Web-based Zombie RPG

Sure, I just need some kind of evidence of undead status. -- View image here: http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --

arstechnica.com

 

[Ghost Rider]

I realize it is not coming back, but maybe it could come back in a different form.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean. What type of form are you thinking of?

What if it was 'invite only' and/or if you break the rules just once, you are gone forever.

That would never work, because the posters who post in bad faith would then accuse the mods elsewhere on the site of banning them because of their idealogy instead of their bad behavior; it's a headache the mods don't need.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And for social media, that catering to what will keep the user engaged isn't necessarily evil. If Twitter knows I follow a lot of NFL writers, I like that they present me with new NFL writers I would be interested in. That's good.

But if twitter knows I'm a __________ supporter in politics, a piece praising their opponent will also keep me "engaged" in a "I can't believe they said that" way.

Maybe I am more cynical, but I think in the long run it does turn that way because this is the stuff that keeps people engaged. As far as your example about the NFL writers - I think the point is that the algorithms aren't designed to give you more well written, calm NFL writers. Sure they might keep suggesting NFL content for you, but I'd be willing to bet it becomes more and more hot takes, stuff about teams you don't like, things like that. That is how they are designed to suck us in, it doesn't matter if we are talking health, sports, or politics. It's just human nature - hype and click bait info wins out in the end.

Yes. "Engagement" can happen in multiple ways. And I believe for the platforms, they're pretty agnostic about how it happens. As long as you stay there.

Yes/no. True, they don't care if it is good information or chaos that gets the clicks - they want the profits. My post wasn't saying that the platforms in general are purposely pushing something on you, more that it is the chaos and crap that generates the clicks, so that is how it's programmed. Human nature is human nature.

I don't think we're disagreeing on anything for a "no". I think they just want the results of you staying engaged.

I guess I was saying "yes" that it can happen different ways, but the "no" was that IMO all those ways lead to the negative over time as you stay on the sites. My main disagreement was that in your initial post you were talking that it's "good" that they present you with more or new NFL writers to keep you on their site.

I think where I see lots of positive non chaotic algorithm good is in my own personal experience with things I'm interested in.

My twitter feed is fantastic as it's constantly sourcing for me new posts from entrepreneurs I didn't know. Zero drama and chaos. They simply know that's my interest and they regularly serve me content I want. So I keep coming back.

Politics is an area that seems different where outrage and chaos is a big component.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I realize it is not coming back, but maybe it could come back in a different form.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean. What type of form are you thinking of?

What if it was 'invite only' and/or if you break the rules just once, you are gone forever.

That would never work, because the posters who post in bad faith would then accuse the mods elsewhere on the site of banning them because of their idealogy instead of their bad behavior; it's a headache the mods don't need.

Would? It's not a "would". This happened in the PSF all the time already.

And not even just the person who got banned. All of their chronies who were still able to post would pile on to the mods ad nauseum nearly every time someone got banned or suspended.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I realize it is not coming back, but maybe it could come back in a different form.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean. What type of form are you thinking of?

What if it was 'invite only' and/or if you break the rules just once, you are gone forever.

That would never work, because the posters who post in bad faith would then accuse the mods elsewhere on the site of banning them because of their idealogy instead of their bad behavior; it's a headache the mods don't need.

Would? It's not a "would". This happened in the PSF all the time already.

And not even just the person who got banned. All of their chronies who were still able to post would pile on to the mods ad nauseum nearly every time someone got banned or suspended.

Thank you. The other big thing is it's not nearly as easy to say "Mods should just ban the person" as it sounds.

I regularly have people who are still seriously upset with FBG because they were suspended for 48 hours three years ago. Rarely does anyone think their suspension was justified. So every time we suspend someone, we have to accept we're doing tremendous damage to that relationship. Now maybe they're a lost cause and it's not that hurtful to FBG. But many times they were a good part of the community or business and then we suspend them and turn them totally against us. That's a real negative.

So while it seems we could suspend at will, the reality is suspensions have a high price.

 

[bigbottom]

I realize it is not coming back, but maybe it could come back in a different form.

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean. What type of form are you thinking of?

What if it was 'invite only' and/or if you break the rules just once, you are gone forever.

That would never work, because the posters who post in bad faith would then accuse the mods elsewhere on the site of banning them because of their idealogy instead of their bad behavior; it's a headache the mods don't need.

Would? It's not a "would". This happened in the PSF all the time already.

And not even just the person who got banned. All of their chronies who were still able to post would pile on to the mods ad nauseum nearly every time someone got banned or suspended.

Thank you. The other big thing is it's not nearly as easy to say "Mods should just ban the person" as it sounds.

I regularly have people who are still seriously upset with FBG because they were suspended for 48 hours three years ago. Rarely does anyone think their suspension was justified. So every time we suspend someone, we have to accept we're doing tremendous damage to that relationship. Now maybe they're a lost cause and it's not that hurtful to FBG. But many times they were a good part of the community or business and then we suspend them and turn them totally against us. That's a real negative.

So while it seems we could suspend at will, the reality is suspensions have a high price.

I know it’s a drop in the bucket, but for what it’s worth, I’ve been suspended twice, and both times were completely well-deserved

 

[fatness]

So is there going to be riots by the losing side, regardless of who wins?

I haven't seen any rioting here by people who want the PSF re-opened, so no.

 

[Terminalxylem]

That’s what is really troublesome. There’s vengeance in the air over simply holding a belief, opinion, or rational thought. That’s worrying.

Yes. That feels newish to me. Maybe not. But that's how it feels.

I must be sheltered, as I've not experienced/heard about anything suggesting vengeance is in the air. Obnoxious/belligerant commentary on message boards, sure. And a handful of extremists threatening civil war, likely the same people who have been doing so for years.

But vengeance over political differences IRL? Not on my radar.

 

[Sparky Polastri]

So is there going to be riots by the losing side, regardless of who wins?

Think it's safe to say its going to be some version of:

1. Claim victory way too early.
2. Let the polls catch up to the claim over the course of the evening.
3. Takes some states a while (couple more days to tally votes because it's way too close).
4. Because #3 is happening, something fishy is going on.
5. If the polls end up disagreeing with #1, it was rigged. Some flavor of uprising occurs.
6. If they agree, some flavor of uprising in celebration occurs.

 

[Terminalxylem]

A curiosity of mine...how often do you talk politics with friends, family, co-workers, neighbors, etc? For me, most of my family and friend group has enough other interests that politics is only rarely discussed and often only is something particular is going on. I do have some family members that are more politics oriented and I do my best to not feed into that when I'm around.

As for work, we have a couple of people here who feel its okay to blab their thoughts but thank god they don't often find someone willing to take the bait. It's cringey actually. I never, ever come close to politics at work. It's a stupid idea, imo.

Almost never talk about politics with friends. Not because I'm avoiding it (usually). More so, it's not a major interest of those with whom I choose to spend time.

Family is slightly different. I quickly change the topic when hot button political subjects arise, especially with people from older generations.

As far as I can tell, most people at my work have similar leanings as me, but political talk is still quite rare. And I try to be cordial, but prefer not talking in depth with my neighbors, about anything.

 

[Scoresman]

I think one side will be more likely to riot than the other if they lose, but then again if you had asked me to guess which side would have attempted an assassination during the election, I would’ve been wrong. So who knows…

 

[fatness]

That’s what is really troublesome. There’s vengeance in the air over simply holding a belief, opinion, or rational thought. That’s worrying.

Yes. That feels newish to me. Maybe not. But that's how it feels.

I must be sheltered, as I've not experienced/heard about anything suggesting vengeance is in the air. Obnoxious/belligerant commentary on message boards, sure. And a handful of extremists threatening civil war, likely the same people who have been doing so for years.

But vengeance over political differences IRL? Not on my radar.

Outside a polling location a supporter of one candidate started waving a machete while arguing with supporters of the other party's candidate. Just happened, was in the news. He was arrested and charged with aggravated assault.

 

[fatness]

1. Claim victory way too early.
2. Let the polls catch up to the claim over the course of the evening.
3. Takes some states a while (couple more days to tally votes because it's way too close).
4. Because #3 is happening, something fishy is going on.
5. If the polls end up disagreeing with #1, it was rigged. Some flavor of uprising occurs.
6. If they agree, some flavor of uprising in celebration occurs.

Maricopa County AZ has 4.5 million people, which is more than some states have. They also have a bunch of state election laws passed by their legislature that are picky about vote counting and reporting. I read today that, due to sheer volume and their laws, it could take up to 12-13 days to reliably count all the votes.

It's not like everyone in the rest of the country is going to be quiet and patient and say "sure, we'll wait, no problem". It'll be 12 days of conspiracy theories and anger and threats and lawsuits.

The most peaceful thing that can happen is a blowout win by one candidate or the other, but that doesn't seem too likely.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Just reading through the last page of this thread i notice that there are types of posts that you do not see elsewhere on this forum anymore.


There are minority of people who identify so strongly with their political party that it makes it the defining trait about who they are as a person. They let politics bleed over to the other parts of their lives, they bring up politics at work, early in conversations with strangers, etc, and they can't help but believe there are people out there that want nothing to do with the one side verse the other side.

Yep. I had a stranger on a ski lift bring up some big "news" he saw the prior night, from one of the pundits, maybe Tucker Carlson.

I don't care much for politics under any circumstances, but certainly don't even think about it on vacation, while doing something I love. And the crazier thing was, he changed our conversation from the quality of the snow that day, when there was only a short segment of the lift ride remaining. Maybe three support poles, so like 150 feet? Even if I were interested, there was no time for a meaningful response.

Now that I think about it, perhaps he was trying to distract me from finding his powder stash?

Anyway, the next lift I shared with a different stranger. We also talked about how beautiful a day it was. I mentioned the odd conversation from the prior ride, and we shared a laugh.

Then, about the same place near the top of the lift, I asked "What do you think about abortion?"

 

[Terminalxylem]

Tough one as I do enjoy using this forum for most of topics out there - its sad that some of the biggest topics in the country today simply cant be discussed here. But as someone whose been a fan of this place from close to the start, I respect Joe and what hes built here. If it creates too much chaos then I get it - still love the place!

As an independent is there any place to read unbiased news and/or discuss without it being severely slanted from one side or the other?

I read BBC and Reuters feeds daily... I find those less US right/left biased

I tried both of them and overtime I placed them pretty far left, maybe half way to CNN. Upon reflection I was pretty disappointed.

That's surprising to me. I scan both Fox and CNN regularly as well and have found those two pretty regularly covering events and politics in a far less biased way than either of those US News reps. What's your usual source for news?

For instance, BBCs coverage of the US election is laying out both campaigns critically without seeming to support either. I see how they might lean left socially, but their election coverage has felt centrist and informational.

Have you tried AP? I've found it more fact driven than opinion.

As mentioned above im on abcnews now. My reuters and BBC was like 3ish years ago so maybe it have changed.

FWIW I tried Reuters daily aggregator for a while but came to the same conclusion. They claim to be unbiased but clearly are not, imo.

How can you be sure that personal bias isn't influencing your interpretation of their claims? I mean, even in this nonpolitical thread I see opinions all over the map regarding how left- or right-leaning media sources are.