In the wave of AI controversies and lawsuits, CNET has been publicly admonished since it first started posting thinly-veiled AI-generated content on its site in late 2022— a scandal that has culminated in the site being demoted from Trusted to Untrusted Sources on Wikipedia.

Considering that CNET has been in the business since 1994 and maintained a top-tier reputation on Wikipedia up until late 2020, this change came after lots of debate between Wikipedia’s editors and has drawn the attention of many in the media, including some CNET staff members.

  • Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    131
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    With whom did CNET maintain a top tier reputation until 2020? It’s been a shell of itself for well over a decade at this point. That they’ve gone to full throated AI content seems to me the corpse standing up and shuffling around as a zombie.

  • viking@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    116
    ·
    9 months ago

    CNET lost my trust when they repacked software and drivers in their archive with a homebrew installer that bundled bloatware. Initially the bing search bar, then Opera, latest I remember was some antivirus solution. Sure, you can deselect them all, but I hate those business practices with a passion.

    • pdxfed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      Yeah, I mean prior to 2000 they were one of the trusted sources for software to be easily accessed and downloaded that was the up to date version. I would often learn about new features when installing what I downloaded from them because every piece of software didn’t have embedded auto update and publishers were often small and given the developing state of things, unknown.

  • anon987@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Tom’s hardware should be blacklisted. After it was purchased by a company that has a partnership with Intel, the bias and corporate propaganda is terrible.

    • TheControlled@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Ohhhh that’s why they have such a boner for Team Blue all the time. You just solved a mystery for me.

      A little while ago I read part of a review where the author goes on and on about this latest and greatest AMD processor and how shit it was because it was way too powerful and really you should just buy a Intel CPU that is way slower and just as expensive, if not more so. Because you don’t really need that much power do you? Or more money in your pocket? Give poor little indie developer Intel a try. I couldn’t continue reading.

      I was flabbergasted, yet impressed by the audacity of such a claim that has zero reasonable logic. Now it all makes sense.

    • w3dd1e@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      9 months ago

      Future’s portfolio of brands included TechRadar, PC Gamer, Tom’s Guide, Tom’s Hardware, Marie Claire, GamesRadar+, All About Space, How it Works, CinemaBlend, Android Central, IT Pro and Windows Central.

      -Wikipedia

      • TheFonz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        9 months ago

        Hate CinemaBlend. Just endless vapid Ai generated shit. Probably the same course for the rest.

    • galil3o@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      I deleted their bookmark when that story about the KFC gaming console was plastered on the front page for days

  • PrincessLeiasCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    My friend used to work for CNET. She was laid off along with a decent amount of her coworkers years ago, maybe as much as 10+ IIRC, but yeah - they’ve been going downhill for awhile now and it seems to only be accelerating.

    It’s really a shame because they used to be such a trusted source. Enshittification marches on to a steady beat.

  • milkjug@lemmy.wildfyre.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    9 months ago

    I have not consciously clicked on any CNET content since the early 2000s. In my mind their content are mostly puff pieces without much substance. Are they even still relevant?

    • TheControlled@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      Google doesn’t promote their pages until the middle or bottom of the search page which may as well be in the Mariana’s trench. That’s my anecdotal experience, anyway.

    • Bone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      That’s a good point, AI is not the reason for their downfall.

  • Venia Silente@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Wow. You know you dun goofed it when the “online encyclopedia anyone can edit” makes it very clear that “but not to write about you”.

    • ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Is it greed if the market environment means they can hardly make any money?

      I mean, greed is one reason why they might keep getting shittier, but newspapers similarly aren’t getting shittier because of greed.

      • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Newspapers are reducing in size and scope, not pumping out AI garbage.

        “I’m retiring soon, time to milk this for what it’s worth.” is not the thought going through most newspaper editorial departments right now.

  • NutWrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    Good for Wikipedia. A lot of “AI generated” content is simply plagiarized from existing sources.

  • Eggyhead@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    CNET: this parrot says a lot of things that seem accurate! Let’s have this parrot make articles for us!

  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    9 months ago

    Yet Wikipedia still rates the israeli propaganda think tank ADL as a reliable source. Very interesting website.

    • Sybil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      even a source which is generally reliable can have its reliability questioned in any context. and a source that is generally unreliable for some reason or another can be considered reliable in some context.

      • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Wikipedia is awful for information on geopolitics or any subjective history. People think that they are reading “objective information” but in reality they are reading propaganda

        They’ve been doing this for more than 13 years: Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups

        Since the earliest days of the worldwide web, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has seen its rhetorical counterpart fought out on the talkboards and chatrooms of the internet.

        Now two Israeli groups seeking to gain the upper hand in the online debate have launched a course in “Zionist editing” for Wikipedia, the online reference site.

        Take the page on Israel, for a start: “The map of Israel is portrayed without the Golan heights or Judea and Samaria,” said Bennett, referring to the annexed Syrian territory and the West Bank area occupied by Israel in 1967.

        • deathbird@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          Wikipedia is aweful for anything controversial, of which geopolitics is merely a good example.

          Probably fine for basic stuff like geology or the Napoleonic Wars or whatever.

        • Sybil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          you can edit Wikipedia too. The bureaucracy can be a little bit frustrating and daunting, but you can certainly keep the record accurate.

          • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            A great example is how Wikipedia uses Zionist lies is the 6 day war started by israel. It is stated as a “premptive strike” on Egypt.

            On 5 June 1967, as the UNEF was in the process of leaving the zone, Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes

            In reality everyone including israeli PM’s acknowledges that israel started that there was no threat. Factually stating it pre-emptive is a straight up lie. It is a highly controversial statement at best.

            Try removing the word “pre-emtptive” from that article and let me know how it goes.

            • Sybil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              isn’t it accurate to say it’s preemptive? you could say unprovoked, but I don’t think that’s strictly true. I think preemptive is the best way to frame it: it shows that they struck first and leaves it open as to whether anybody would have struck them at all.

              • Sybil@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                further, I wouldn’t just remove the word preemptive if I thought this was really an issue. I’d go find a reliable source that would support a rewrite of the whole sentence or paragraph or section.

                then I would go to the talk page and I would let everybody know what I’m doing and why. and then I wouldn’t do it for 24 hours. and then I would make the edits and if anybody reverted it I would revert it back and then direct them to the talk page.

              • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                Pre-emptive means that you are striking before being struck. Because there is a direct attack coming

                If there is no attack coming it is not pre-emptive.

                Unprovoked is an entirely different word which would fit. Try replacing it.

                • Sybil@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  if the source says preemptive, that’s going to be a hard sell. Go find another source and bring it up on the talk page.