Chinese Courts Rule Companies Cannot Fire Workers Simply to Replace Them With AI - Judges classify AI adoption as a controllable business strategy rather than an unavoidable disruption, shielding employees from automation-driven layoffs
Bias is situational; look at AP’s reporting of the Israel-Palestine conflict for an example of their obscene bias towards western interests. Bias should be assessed on a per-claim basis to avoid logical fallacies like ad hominem.
When I Google search for bias in AP’s coverage of Israel-Palestine, all of the sites I encounter claim they have highlighted harm to the Palestinians more than threats to the Israelis. I feel like this isn’t what you’re talking about though? This level of bias (highlighting the concerns of one side over another) is still substantially less egregious than what you are accusing them of: just getting facts blatantly wrong/ opposite of the truth in Xinjiang.
Look, without speaking Mandarin, traveling to Xinjiang, and having access to all the sites in question, I can’t really know what’s happening there. The best any outsiders can do is try to study through the sources available and pick out who we trust.
I trust the AP. As an organization, they trade on their reputation for quality and unbiased coverage. When I read pieces by them of extremely controversial events in the US, they give only facts. I am absolutely going to trust them more then an unsigned document, hosted by a site I don’t know, that largely engages in character assassination of names I don’t even recognize.
The AP is about as unbiased as you can get: https://apnews.com/article/269b3de1af34e17c1941a514f78d764C
And Lemmy is also full of propaganda. That commenter didn’t even cite a source.
Bias is situational; look at AP’s reporting of the Israel-Palestine conflict for an example of their obscene bias towards western interests. Bias should be assessed on a per-claim basis to avoid logical fallacies like ad hominem.
Here’s a good, neutral take on the unreliability of Uyghur related reporting in sources like the AP: https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=4767d3ce-8490-464f-8508-d8f3b7878808&subId=703775
When I Google search for bias in AP’s coverage of Israel-Palestine, all of the sites I encounter claim they have highlighted harm to the Palestinians more than threats to the Israelis. I feel like this isn’t what you’re talking about though? This level of bias (highlighting the concerns of one side over another) is still substantially less egregious than what you are accusing them of: just getting facts blatantly wrong/ opposite of the truth in Xinjiang.
Look, without speaking Mandarin, traveling to Xinjiang, and having access to all the sites in question, I can’t really know what’s happening there. The best any outsiders can do is try to study through the sources available and pick out who we trust.
I trust the AP. As an organization, they trade on their reputation for quality and unbiased coverage. When I read pieces by them of extremely controversial events in the US, they give only facts. I am absolutely going to trust them more then an unsigned document, hosted by a site I don’t know, that largely engages in character assassination of names I don’t even recognize.