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
    140
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    10 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
    122
    ·
    10 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.

        • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          10 months ago

          Wikipedia’s pay distribution is actually quite even. The C suite make much, much less than other companies. While I havent been able to confirm this, one article said they hold larger than usual sums of money, likely to pay salaries off interest, and look to donations for replenishment.

    • deathbird@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s not. Which makes this a particularly powerful indictment of a once-reputable mainstream news site.

      • Wolf_359@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        I would argue otherwise.

        Wikipedia is incomprehensibly large. Perhaps the largest database of vetted human knowledge ever.

        I know for a fact you can find inaccuracies and biased information if you look for it. But it’s rare relative to the amount of information that exists there.

        • SwingingKoala@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          45
          ·
          10 months ago

          So you know there is wrong information on wikipedia, but you still trust it as a primary source? That says a lot about you.

          • whoisearth@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            30
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Trust but verify my dude.

            What you’re saying is that you don’t trust anything because everything has a bias associated to it.

          • TheFonz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Not a primary source. Also, every Wikipedia page posts the primary sources at the bottom. Wikipedia is just a compendium, it’s not a peer reviewed journal. Use some brain matter before it rots my dude.

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

            It’s not considered a primary source. Nobody said it is. But it’s a good starting point for further research in most topics.

        • SwingingKoala@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          The problem with wikipedia is that people expect it to be neutral but on many topics it is far from that. It’s probably better to find a biased source where you know and account for the bias. Any “conservative” or “progressive” source where you know the bias is more reliable, at least you know which way they are leaning on all topics. And never trust a single source anyway.

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

            I always thought the advantage with Wikipedia is that you can find sources for the info right there on their site. If there’s any doubt about the info on their site, it’s easy enough to vet the sources. I wouldn’t trust nearly any site without being able to at least do that anyway. At least in this case you can see where the info is coming from, and it’s not just “trust me bro”

  • anon987@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 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
      60
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 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.

          • KubeRoot@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            9 months ago

            I remember hearing that when AMD surpassed Intel in multithreaded performance, userbenchmark adjusted they’re benchmark scoring to favor single threaded performance over multithreaded

          • ArxCyberwolf@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            They’re not useful for anything besides comparing individual parts with other parts of the same model. UBM heavily skews the results to favour Intel by heavily favouring single core performance over multicore performance, and they adjust it further if AMD dares perform better. It’s useless as an actual benchmarking site.

    • w3dd1e@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      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
    54
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 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
    44
    ·
    10 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
      12
      ·
      10 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.

  • Mastengwe@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    CNET has been garbage for well over a decade- as bad as AI is, that’s not the reason they went to shit.

  • Venia Silente@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 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”.

    • EddieTee77@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 months ago

      Me too! The problem is that we are running out of good tech sites. They’re all getting bought and turning into SEO spam

      • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        In recent months, 404media has been popular among lemmings. I think those articles were ok. Maybe they could fill the void left by cnet.

    • ripcord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 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
        ·
        10 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
    ·
    10 months ago

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