this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2025
34 points (76.6% liked)

You Should Know

38763 readers
1028 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.

Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:

**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.

Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated.

If you file a report, include what specific rule is being violated and how.

Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
_MoveSwiftly@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
ja2@lemmy.world
Rooki@lemmy.world
FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world
FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io
34
YSK Post Follow up: People Defended Ars Technica in my Previous Post, Here is a Proof That Ars Technica Parent Company Secretly Manipulate Reddit for Their Own Benefit. (programming.dev)
submitted 2 days ago by Pro@programming.dev to c/youshouldknow@lemmy.world
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

all 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Auntievenim@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] R3D4CT3D@midwest.social 4 points 2 days ago (2 children)

baby english, new band name, called it.

[–] Auntievenim@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Im glad this was what stood out in my comment lmaoo

[–] Gorge@lemm.ee 4 points 2 days ago

Babe Ruth + Billy Ellish = Baby English

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Pro@programming.dev 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] MisanthropiCynic@lemmy.today 1 points 7 hours ago

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

[–] azdle@news.idlestate.org 11 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't think that shows what you say it does.

First, deleting a repost is clearly not evidence of any kind of bias.

Second, maybe Ars is just more popular/trusted? Maybe it's more upvoted because the Ars title is more meaningful, it's super well known that people mostly only read the title.

I'm not saying reddit isn't manipulating things, I'd be shocked if they weren't. But this isn't really evidence that they are.

[–] Pro@programming.dev 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

First, deleting a repost is clearly not evidence of any kind of bias.

That is not a repost, this is an other article from ProPublica: https://www.propublica.org/article/inside-ai-tool-doge-veterans-affairs-contracts-sahil-lavingia

Second, maybe Ars is just more popular/trusted? Maybe it's more upvoted because the Ars title is more meaningful, it's super well known that people mostly only read the title.

Are you joking with me? They are using a paraphrased title.

I'm not saying reddit isn't manipulating things, I'd be shocked if they weren't. But this isn't really evidence that they are.

I am really curious, what sort of evidence you want/expect to see?

[–] azdle@news.idlestate.org 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

That is not a repost, this is an other article from ProPublica

Ah, I just assume that was a slightly different title for the same article. Maybe a mod made the same assumption.

Are you joking with me? They are using a paraphrased title.

Well, the first part is. But, I don't know what "munching" means. The second part of the Ars title actually says what it's about. Don't get me wrong, I can probably make a guess. But when you're scrolling social media, I don't think anyone is stopping to think about what a title really means. If it's not obvious at first glace most people are just scrolling by. The Ars title, at least to me, skims as "AI bad" since those are the words anchoring each end of the title, that's probably enough all by itself to get some people to upvote.

I am really curious, what sort of evidence you want/expect to see?

Literally anything vaguely conclusive. I'm not saying you should go find more evidence for me or anything. I'm just trying to explain why I don't find your evidence here convincing.

I suspect that Reddit has more than enough money to be competently shitty. So, if they are doing what you suggest, unless they fuck up or decide they don't care, you might not be able to find solid evidence.

[–] MisanthropiCynic@lemmy.today 2 points 7 hours ago

Yeah. I have no idea what the article is about because I don’t know what munching is. But the ArsTechnica headline gives me more contextual info

[–] huppakee@lemm.ee 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

But this isn't really evidence that they are.

So what you meant was: this isn't enough evidence to change my mind. That is a very different statement. I think this doesn't prove anything but it does support op's previous claims Reddit boosts Ars Technica content.

This isn't showing Reddit is shitty, it is showing it is used by it's parent company to influence the media landscape. That is not just shitty, it is amoral and can be very dangerous when it comes to political pieces.

Tech companies are using media companies to shape the world to their liking, just like robber barrons and aristocrats used to.

[–] azdle@news.idlestate.org 2 points 2 days ago

So what you meant was: this isn’t enough evidence to change my mind.

No.

One thing getting more upvotes than another isn't somehow evidence that reddit is manipulating anything. There's no immutible law that the original source of something should naturally get more upvotes than anything else. I find that the opposite is most often the case, even when the re-blogged story is crap.

[–] Fleur_@aussie.zone 2 points 2 days ago

Did people defend them, or did bots defend them?

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

That’s Sus. Ask the mod why the original was deleted?

[–] bluejuh@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Probably because it's off topic for the community

[–] Pro@programming.dev 0 points 2 days ago

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.