@Advanced, you keep posting these digwatch articles, and AFAICT they are just copying, slightly rewording, and/or summarizing details from other sites that they even link to in the digwatch...
@Advanced, you keep posting these digwatch articles, and AFAICT they are just copying, slightly rewording, and/or summarizing details from other sites that they even link to in the digwatch articles. E.g. In this Temu article they link to a Euronews article which has all of the same details in it. And the X/Twitter, Kaspersky, and crypto fraud digwatch articles you posted earlier similarly link to a Reuters article, the Kaspersky blog and a cryptonewsz article, all of which they appear to have copied their information from.
This digwatch site doesn't feel like a proper journalistic endeavor, it feels like a straight-up link jacking racket. And TBH, given how minor most of the changes are, I suspect these digwatch articles are actually AI generated too (which @Deimos has already stated he does not want posted here), especially since the DiploFoundation operating the digwatch site seems to be heavily promoting its AI tools. As well as the fact that there is no actual authors listed for the articles, which is another red flag when it comes to for news sites, IMO.
I know you want to avoid paywalls and object to copyrighted articles on ideological grounds, but I don't think that should push you towards posting dubious sources like this instead of the primary sources of the information.
@Advanced, you keep posting these digwatch articles, and AFAICT they are just copying, slightly rewording, and/or summarizing details from other sites that they even link to in the digwatch articles. E.g. In this Temu article they link to a Euronews article which has all of the same details in it. And the X/Twitter, Kaspersky, and crypto fraud digwatch articles you posted earlier similarly link to a Reuters article, the Kaspersky blog and a cryptonewsz article, all of which they appear to have copied their information from.
This digwatch site doesn't feel like a proper journalistic endeavor, it feels like a straight-up link jacking racket. And TBH, given how minor most of the changes are, I suspect these digwatch articles are actually AI generated too (which @Deimos has already stated he does not want posted here), especially since the DiploFoundation operating the digwatch site seems to be heavily promoting its AI tools. As well as the fact that there is no actual authors listed for the articles, which is another red flag when it comes to for news sites, IMO.
I know you want to avoid paywalls and object to copyrighted articles on ideological grounds, but I don't think that should push you towards posting dubious sources like this instead of the primary sources of the information.