697

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.

all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 139 points 8 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.

[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 41 points 8 months ago

They were still doing some decent journalism here and there, but yeah, it's been getting worse and worse very steadily.

[-] NewNewAccount@lemmy.world 13 points 8 months ago

Been going downhill since the death of James Kim in 2006.

[-] pdxfed@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

As an Oregonian, I remember that story almost 20 years later. "Tragedy" is an overused word, but not for that poor man.

[-] return2ozma@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

From the TechTV days. RIP James.

[-] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 8 points 8 months ago

Yeah, if it was a "reputable source" ten years ago someone dropped the ball.

[-] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

Lets you know the people writing these pieces are way out of touch.

[-] uriel238 105 points 8 months ago

I like it that Wikipedia is now an authority on trustworthy citation sources.

[-] EddieTee77@lemmy.world 38 points 8 months ago

Somebody needs to be! I like it being them

[-] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 25 points 8 months ago

I hope people are donating to them from time to time.

[-] deathbird@mander.xyz 7 points 8 months ago

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

[-] anon987@lemmy.world 83 points 8 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 60 points 8 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.

[-] Snowpix@lemmy.ca 18 points 8 months ago

They must have hired the clown that runs UserBemchark.

[-] TheControlled@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

Lol I found the review through there, holy shit

[-] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 3 points 8 months ago

I am out of the loop, are the benchmarks themselves still decent? Only part i ever used

[-] kuberoot@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 8 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

[-] Snowpix@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 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 22 points 8 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 11 points 8 months ago

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

[-] deathbird@mander.xyz 11 points 8 months ago

Oh that explains a bit. Who's decent these days?

[-] Neon@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

if you speak german (or are willing to use your webbrowsers built-in translator to read articles), https://Gamestar.de is really cool. It is subscription-based though for the majority of its Content.

[-] galil3o@lemmy.world 7 points 8 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 52 points 8 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.

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 12 points 8 months ago

That's not enshittification. It's just getting shittier.

[-] pete_the_cat@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

Cats were working at CNET?

[-] T156@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

It is possible for cats to have non-cat friends.

[-] baatliwala@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

The politically correct term for those in the cat world is "servant" or "slave".

[-] milkjug@lemmy.wildfyre.dev 44 points 8 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 12 points 8 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.

[-] veniasilente@lemm.ee 22 points 8 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".

[-] xavier666@lemm.ee 18 points 8 months ago

But wait, isn't AI the future?

[-] Scrollone@feddit.it 15 points 8 months ago

Yes, just like the blockchain

[-] tutus@links.hackliberty.org 11 points 8 months ago

The AI thinks so.

[-] TheControlled@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago

Always has been.

[-] rizoid@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 8 months ago

Shame. I remember when they were one of my favorite tech sites.

[-] EddieTee77@lemmy.world 6 points 8 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 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 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.

[-] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 8 points 8 months ago

CNET has been shit since the late 90s.

[-] NutWrench@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

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

[-] Eggyhead@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago

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

this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
697 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59407 readers
2256 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS