Remix.run Logo
anthonj 4 hours ago

I have very strong, probably controversial, feeling on arstechnica, but I believe the acquisition from Condé Nast has been a tragedy.

Ars writers used to be actual experts, sometimes even phd level, on technical fields. And they used to write fantastical and very informative articles. Who is left now?

There are still a couple of good writers from the old guard and the occasional good new one, but the website is flooded with "tech journalist", claiming to be "android or Apple product experts" or stuff like that, publishing articles that are 90% press material from some company and most of the times seems to have very little technical knowledge.

They also started writing product reviews that I would not be surprised to find out being sponsored, given their content.

Also what's the business with those weirdly formatted articles from wired?

Still a very good website but the quality is diving.

tapoxi 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> I have very strong, probably controversial, feeling on arstechnica, but I believe the acquisition from Condé Nast has been a tragedy.

For the curious, this acquisition was 18 years ago.

airstrike an hour ago | parent [-]

God, I didn't need to know that

mbreese 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think the fact that they one of the last places surviving from that generation of the Internet says a lot. The Condé Nast acquisition may have been a tragedy, but they managed to survive for this long. They’ve been continuously publishing online for about 30 years. It’s honestly amazing that they’ve managed to last this long.

Yes, it’s very different than it was back in the day. You don’t see 20+ page reviews of operating systems anymore, but I still think it’s a worthwhile place to visit.

Trying to survive in this online media market has definitely taken a toll. This current mistake makes me sad.

phyzome an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It gets pretty bad at times. Here's one of the most mindlessly uncritical pieces I've seen, which seems to be a press release from Volkswagen: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/03/volkswagen-unveils-sedr... Look at the image captions gushing about the "roomy interior" of a vehicle that doesn't even exist! I actually wrote in to say how disappointed I was in this ad/press release material, and the response was "That was not a VW ad and we were not paid by VW for that or any other story". I find it interesting that they only denied the ad part, not the press release part...

As I mention in another comment, https://arstechnica.com/cars/2026/01/exclusive-volvo-tells-u... is in a similar vein.

dylan604 11 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

"I'm a professional shopper, and here's what I say you should buy" because someone sent me a free version of it or just straight copy to use in my listicle.

It is sad that this is what journalism has come to. It is even sadder that it works.

bsimpson 5 minutes ago | parent [-]

Wirecutter was a good premise, but now it and everyone copying it are untrustworthy.

It feels like the human version of AI hallucination: saying what they think is convincing without regard for if it's sincere. And because it mimics trusted speech, it can slip right by your defense mechanisms.

lokar 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm willing to believe it was not an ad.

They are just lazy / understaffed. It's hard to make $ in journalism. A longstanding and popular way to cut corners is to let the industry you cover do most of the work for you. You just re-package press releases. You have plausible content for a fraction of the effort / cost.

dylan604 12 minutes ago | parent [-]

Unfortunately, government is like that were most bills are written by lobbyists and barely if at all modified by the actual congress critter sponsoring it.

ktm5j 26 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

That car looks so unhappy :|

somenameforme 11 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They are basically the embodiment of the fact that sites and organizations don't matter, but individuals do. I think the overwhelming majority of everything on Ars is garbage. But on the other hand they also run Eric Berger's space column [1] which is certainly one of the best ones out there. So don't ignore those names on tops of articles. If you find something informative, well sourced, and so on - there's a good chance most their other writing is of a similar standard.

[1] - https://arstechnica.com/author/ericberger/

embedding-shape 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Ars writers used to be actual experts, sometimes even phd level, on technical fields. And they used to write fantastical and very informative articles. Who is left now?

What places on the internet remains where articles are written by actual experts? I know only of a few, and they get fewer every year.

rfc2324 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

https://theconversation.com/us/who-we-are is one of my favorites. Global academics writing about their research when something happens in the world or when they are published in a journal.

dotancohen 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

That may be for the technology and science sections. But the politics section is clearly pushing an agenda with regard to the current US administration - even though it is an agenda many people online might agree with. That section is not global, it is US-centric, and it heavily favours the popular side of the issue.

lokar 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

You prefer a "both sides" style of political coverage?

At what point in the slide to authoritarianism should that stop? Where is the line?

dylan604 7 minutes ago | parent [-]

Or the other side of at what point into ending capitalism in favor of socialism should that stop?

Yes, I enjoy "both sides" coverage when it's done in earnest. What passes for that today is two people representing the extremes of either spectrum looking for gotcha moments as an "owning" moment. We haven't seen a good "both sides" in decades

throawayonthe 29 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

i don't think these are as contradictory as you make them out to be

dotancohen 19 minutes ago | parent [-]

I'm not pointing out a contradiction. I am pointing out that this site - which otherwise seems great - it heavily promoting the popular-online side of a very controversial subject.

It looks like they know how to grow an audience at the expense of discourse, because those adherent to the popular-online side will heavily attack all publications that discuss the other side. Recognising this, it is hard to seriously consider their impartiality in other fields. It's very much the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect.

"Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know."

-Michael Crichton

rdmuser 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

One other thing people might like about the conversation is that it has a bunch of regional subsections so it isn't overrun by US news like a lot of news sites. Well outside the US section of course. I know I personally appreciate having another source of informed writting that also covers local factors and events.

justinclift an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The Register? :)

https://www.theregister.com

bloggie 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

techbriefs, photonics spectra, photonics focus, EAA Sport Aviation? I don't think it's going to be anything super popular, to become popular you have to appeal to a broad audience. But in niches there is certainly very high quality material. It also won't be (completely) funded by advertising.

ycombinete 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The London review of Books frequently has domain experts writing their reviews.

lapcat 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> What places on the internet remains where articles are written by actual experts?

The personal blogs of experts.

embedding-shape 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Examples? :)

alright2565 2 hours ago | parent [-]

First one that comes to mind is https://morethanmoore.substack.com/

Levitating 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

lwn.net?

hobs an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

https://www.404media.co/ I subscribe

GeekyBear an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> publishing articles that are 90% press material from some company and most of the times seems to have very little technical knowledge.

Unfortunately, this is my impression as well.

I really miss Anandtech's reporting, especially their deep dives and performance testing for new core designs.

zdw 27 minutes ago | parent [-]

The main problem with technology coverage is you have one of 3 types of writers in the space:

1. Prosumer/enthusiasts who are somewhat technical, but mostly excitement

2. People who have professional level skills and also enjoy writing about it

3. Companies who write things because they sell things

A lot of sites are in category 1 - mostly excitement/enthusiasm, and feels.

Anandtech, TechReport, and to some extent Arstechnica (specially John Siracusa's OS X reviews) are the rare category 2.

Category 3 are things like the Puget Systems blog where they benchmark hardware, but also sell it, and it functions more as a buyer information.

The problem is that category 2 is that they can fairly easily get jobs in industry that pay way more than writing for a website. I'd imagine that when Anand joined Apple, this was likely the case, and if so that makes total sense.

foobarbecue 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I presume you meant "fantastic," not "fantastical"?

Insanity an hour ago | parent [-]

Wanted to comment the same. Parent poster might not be aware that “fantastical” means “fantasy”.

But I think we do get his point regardless :)

airstrike an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I got banned for calling out the shilling back right after the acquisition. Apparently that was a personal attack on the quality of the author. It's gone downhill from there. I used to visit it every day, now I mostly forget it exists

episode404 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> they used to write fantastical and very informative articles

> Still a very good website

These are indeed quite controversial opinions on ars.

ReptileMan 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Culture was is helluva drug. The desire of the authors to pledge political allegiance when they don't have the capacity to think of nothing original or innovative on a topic gets tiring fast. In a way Gawker won - now every media outlet is them.

elgertam an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I used to read it daily. Even continued for a few years after the acquisition. But at this point, I haven't looked at it in years. Even tend to skip the articles that make it to the first page of HN. Of course, most of the original writers I still follow on social media, and some have started their own Substack publications.

idiotsecant 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Oh yes, quite a controversial take.

anthonj 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Well I am calling out an entire class of journalist. Every time I've made a similar statement I got some angry answer (or got my post hidden or removed).