#dogshit

I've used it a bunch now and frankly... yeah it certainly shows the bias, but... not the way people wanted me to think.

All it did was categorize, based on which website the article was on, based on their assumed ideas of which websites are "left" or "right" wing.

It does not easily indicate a trust level, makes no effort to really distinguish between articles it's grouped together, breezes over important context, mostly ignores historical info and context and artificially inflates the supposed number of sources in the main page (revealing the smaller more accurate number when you select the article).

Take this whole Venezuela situation.

No info I could see through multiple articles even TOUCHING on what the US tried to do a few years ago.

Nearly every article declared Maduro a dictator and an authoritarian but not a single summary or page that would load had any reasoning, accusations or anything to back the deeply loaded language they all used.

So much bullshit about the hot air coming out of trump's blowhole, but nothing actually useful or valuable to what's actually going on.

A complete lack of self awareness when discussing united states backed oil companies setting up to exploit Venezuelan oil and the massive harmful effects that will have, especially given the artificial scarcity game the US and it's allies have played with oil repeatedly to break Venezuela's economy specifically (amongst others).