The article decries constantly checking up on the news filling your mind with things that do not actually effect you which leads you to a more unproductive day. I signed up for grasswire a couple minutes ago and at the first moment I'm bombarded with a twitter-like feed of random news events all that have nothing to do with me.

How is this addressing the frustrations you claim to have in common with Swartz?

It's not just Aaron Swartz (he's wrong about this part).

Many people think the news is completely junk:

http://dobelli.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Avoid_News_Par...

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/10/01/the-low-informatio...

http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/why-tv-news-is-a-waste-of-human-...

http://www.stansberryradio.com/James-Altucher/Latest-Episode...

I find it interesting that someone who is making a news site would say that most of the news is "bullshit and a worthless time suck". Are you really saying that just 0.1% of the news on your site has value? Perhaps you should take Swartz's advice and stop fighting to improve something that has so little value to you.

> I find it interesting that someone who is making a news site would say that most of the news is "bullshit and a worthless time suck."

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. 99.9% of news is garbage, .01% of news is valuable. I want to make it easy for people to get that .01%.

> Perhaps you should take Swartz advice and stop fighting to improve something that has so little value to you.

I think news is badly broken, and I'm trying to fix it. I don't understand what problem you have with that.

But what about the other .09%?

I suggest that you develop a thicker skin when dealing with feedback. Not everyone thinks what you are doing is helpful or beneficial. I can't speak for Swartz, but his article clearly says that he considered ALL news to be bad and even unhealthy, including your 0.1%. So to claim common ground, or to speak for him, is self-serving.

As for Grasswire, I think your solution to trying to improve the news won't work. As someone who previously ran a collaborative fact-checking site (which included a factcheck watch that monitored the main fact-checking sites), I think fact checking is over-rated. Most people are not really that interested in fact-checking the news, or in even reading fact checks. Fact checks themselves are in most cases just as biased as the reports they claim to fact check.

Nonetheless, I am genuinely interested to see how it works out for you.

It seems to me that you could be a bit better at criticizing; you give this guy a hard time for having a thin skin, but you're being really antagonistic. I agree that his original post in this thread seemed a bit sales-pitch-y, and I resent that too, but you come off as being on full attack. Chill out a little, people will probably pay MORE attention, rather than writing you off as an angry competitor.

I am not a competitor (see post above).

For anyone reading this thread later, I should point out that my response above was to a now-deleted part of Austen's mail that accused me of stalking him on the net, and told me to stop commenting on his posts.