Hacker News Reader

Comment by semiquaver | Hacker News Reader

The New York post should basically never be used as a source and this article is a great example of why. It is just obviously not journalism as most people would recognize the concept. Everything they post is ragebait, clickbait or both. They are institutionally allergic to any form of nuance.

Here is the (much, much higher quality) original reporting that this terrible ny post writeup is based on: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2026/...

View on HN

I was completly with you till the last moment when you posted... Exactly another of the same type of article.

Can we have a news feed the is parsed and checked again other sources to deliver the highest proportion of base factually unambiguous data, with maybe a tier 2/3 probable analysis/opinions as optional overlays? Seems doable

I can’t help the fact that the original article has a perspective on the matter. But I do know I would always prefer original reporting than what is basically a badly written blogspam rewrite.

https://news.kagi.com/google/2026102416/finland-suspends-goo...

You may enjoy Kagi’s News offering. Linked is the same topic.

Kagi is not an original source.

One was not requested.

You are describing Ground News

Yep, here’s their page for this topic: https://ground.news/article/lvv-made-a-request-to-the-police...

Ground News provides aggregated sources with factuality scores, although the scores are subscriber-only. I've been thinking about subscribing.

Here's their page for this story: https://ground.news/article/google-knocks-down-250-thousand-...

It also links to related coverage, such as the project being cancelled in response to the outrage.

Ground news was started by the right wing to shift the Overton window rightward. It's funded by Joe Ricketts, a conspicuous conservative super-PAC donor and gets its bias scores from AllSides, which grew out of Republican organizations.

Can you provide citations for all you claim? Ground News was founded in 2017 by Canadian siblings Harleen Kaur and Sukh Singh, through the University of Waterloo's startup ecosystem. I cannot find any evidence of what you say about its origin story, and to be honest I think you made it up (or are passing along claims that someone else made up)

Receiving investments from people affiliated with the GOP doesn’t seem itself that bad, unless you are so partisan that you yourself are infected with exactly the thing the site aims to combat. Left wing bias is also toxic in certain media sources and should be avoided unless you don’t actually care about bias and are more interested in an agenda.

The Joe Ricketts & AllSides connections aren't hard to find.

Hmmm... normally I would dismiss this type of comment. But such a service really shouldn't have to be funded by anyone, let alone political donors to any party.

Ideal service should be local small model run as a self hosted federated instance, piped data to your terminal of choice. The opinion layer could be pulled from federated comments, the analysis layer from sources based on some sort of trust rating. Variance from unambiguous data for instance. RSS friendly maybe?

If I have nothing better to do later I will try to start writing it maybe.

Point of order: allsides is a response to how crap the bias reporting was before. Its not perfect but it is better than what was.

> I was completly with you till the last moment when you posted... Exactly another of the same type of article.

Heh yeah. Sounded to me like “I agree with everything but realized this is a right wing article and just can’t.. so here’s a left wing rage bait instead”

I said nothing about politics, you are reading your own stuff into it. I linked to the original reporting that every other article is a rewrite of. Sorry that you find it biased.

> It is just obviously not journalism as most people would recognize the concept.

Disagree.

Most people would think this is journalism. This is the kind of journalism most people are interacting with in 2026.

What exactly is click bait here?

The article seems to just say, google cleared trees without a permit, it says where they did this and when.

At most maybe the headline implies they did it evily, where it sounds more likely it was beuticratic screw up. But on the whole the article seems to stick to the facts.

> the cool climate makes it especially attractive for saving on energy costs.

How cool climate helps saving energy ? My naive understanding is it helps with cooling which is mostly done by evaporating water. Does they also cool DS by compressing and expanding fluids?

Obviously a colder environment requires less energy for cooling

Also evaporative cooling is not used in most of the world, only in very hot and dry places

Cool climate lets you use the waste heat in district heating systems, getting more bang for your buck.

The Guardian is not an example of rage bait and click bait but is an an exemplar of solid journalism?

Why not news sources that eschew emotional manipulation, like Associated Press or Reuters. They aim for information rather than propaganda.

Graun can still be very good at times but i think it's a fair comment at this point that they're best assumed to be wrong about most things.

Even orgs like AP or Reuters cannot always be trusted. They do a more reasonable job in most cases, but this just makes it easier for when they do inevitably deploy influence operations bc they can hide behind their credibility.

China is paying for these right?

Or did China spark the fire in western countries to care about this stuff?

If it takes chinese propaganda to convince the us and eu to give a shit about the impending climate collapse and local environmental damage caused by data centers, we’re the idiots.

The enemy of my friend is my…. Frenemy?

It does almost seem like it, doesn’t it?

You are indeed idiots, if you think that climate collapse is a bigger and more acute threat to EU than the coming economic collapse caused by lack of growth and innovation compared to US and China. More environmental regulations will not help Europe rebuild the industrial base it needs to defend itself against Russia+China without the US.

Ranking an existential threat to our species lower than an economic recession is how we’ve ended up where we are today.

Ranking an existential threat to our species higher than an economic recession is how Europe ended up where it is today. Climate change will not be solved by austerity anyway (quite the opposite). The only thing austerity would accomplish is fade Europe into global irrelevance.

Ranking existential threat higher than economic recession is orthogonal to austerity. If your problem is austerity, complain about that - not climate action. Or, well, inaction.

It is not orthogonal. Economic austerity in Europe is caused by excessive environmental regulations (among other things).

If you ask someone to turn down the heat in your home, and they start smashing all your windows, one might come the conclusion that we can’t afford to turn down the heat because the cost of repairing the windows is too high. Window smashing is still unrelated (or “orthogonal”) to turning down the thermostat.

Would you care more about Google's crime here if you did not suppose China wanted you to care about it?

In what way is the Guardian’s article any less ragebait? They’re both presenting an utter non-story as some environmental catastrophe for “datacenter bad” ragebait

The guardian article, though obviously having its own thesis and perspective, presents far more context and detail so that readers can be informed and make up their own mind about the facts of the issue. The NYPost strips out all the detail and uncritically presents the worst possible spin as the ground truth.

I think your “datacenter bad” and “non story” comments indicate that you are biased in the opposite direction that you’re complaining about. You seem not to be interested in actually learning whether any serious misconduct occurred, which is genuinely up for debate.

This issue genuinely matters to a lot of people. Tribalism doesn’t help on either side.

>After the tech company illegally stripped the entire area to build a datacentre – taking even the top soil with it – all that remains is a vast expanse of mud indented with the trail marks of machinery, puddles and mounds of earth, roots and branches. Residents say that brown water flowing off the site is going into a stream that feeds the Oulujoki River.

Yup, definitely no partisan spin in the guardian article...c'mon

I never said anything about partisan spin?

I'm pointing it out to you.

"Dog whistling" is the formal term for the style of reporting being published.

Dog whistling refers to coded racist language that tries to appear deniable. I don’t see how this qualifies.

Just because it only means one thing in your bubble, doesn't mean that it only has that meaning. Dog whistle is in fact a general term.

Bubbles are bad, always be on guard about accidentally ending up in one. Because it does happen accidentally. A hallmark of it is only being aware of your bubbles word usage...

We're all in the bubble of our own personal experience though, and there's no escaping that. Even if you go travelling (which you absolutely should!) you're still only going to meet there people that you meet.

That's not too say you shouldn't try and recognize the bubbles that you're in, just that there's no escaping them, so it's hard to judge people and their bubbles when you're just as much in one as they are.

Those are facts. You may disagree with the presentation, but you can’t refute what happened.

Which bit are you disputing, the illegal behaviour, the nature of the site after the illegal behaviour, or the water flowing into the stream?

Like, are you claiming that this was actually legal? Otherwise, I'm confused as to where you're coming from.

The guardian is just lying more politely.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com