Is MSN news feed now AI crap?
Executive summary
The short answer: not categorically—MSN’s feed has increasingly leaned on automated, AI-driven curation that has produced both efficient personalization and notable quality failures, so for many users it can feel like “AI crap” while for others it’s an improved, targeted experience [1] [2] [3]. Reporting shows Microsoft is intentionally moving news and discovery toward AI layers as part of a broader Copilot/agent strategy, but independent audits and past errors mean complaints about junk, false or tone-deaf items are rooted in documented problems rather than pure nostalgia for human editors [4] [5] [3].
1. What changed: automation and Copilot Discover replacing human curation
Microsoft has been reworking the Windows/MSN news experience, reportedly replacing MSN’s legacy feed with an AI-driven Copilot Discover that personalizes content based on interaction patterns and routes traffic to MSN pages—an explicit shift from human editorial selection to algorithmic recommendation [1] [2]. Microsoft’s broader public messaging frames this as part of a 2026 pivot where AI becomes a “sticky layer” across services and a partner in workflows, not merely a tool, and Microsoft’s PR about seven AI trends underscores corporate intent to bake agents into user experiences [6] [4] [7].
2. Why users call it “crap”: documented errors and editorial mistakes
Multiple reporters and former editors have documented cases where MSN’s automated systems elevated false, bizarre, or tone-deaf items—examples include fabricated or misleading headlines and poor contextual choices that human editors likely would have caught, which underpins critiques such as CNN’s reporting and The Verge’s analysis of the fallout from removing editorial oversight [3] [8]. Those failures illustrate a well-known class of problems in algorithmic curation: signal amplification of low-quality sources and headline optimization that prioritizes clicks over accuracy, problems highlighted in coverage of MSN’s AI-era missteps [3] [8].
3. The other side: scale, personalization and corporate strategy
Microsoft and its allies argue the shift is pragmatic: AI personalization can serve relevant content to millions more efficiently, integrate discovery into broader Copilot experiences, and support new product flows in Windows and Edge—outcomes Microsoft touts in its trend pieces and product descriptions that portray AI as a productivity partner and platform-level layer rather than a mere novelty [4] [5] [9]. Industry forecasting from the Reuters Institute signals this is not unique to MSN; publishers increasingly face a choice between “adding AI to workflows” and “getting added to AI,” which reframes the tradeoff as systemic, not just a Microsoft decision [6].
4. Practical reality: it’s mixed and contextual for users
Whether MSN feels like “AI crap” depends on individual experience: users who value tight personalization and quick discovery may prefer Copilot-driven feeds, while users who prize editorial judgment and source reliability will notice the shortcomings and occasional misinformation promoted by automation [1] [3] [2]. Media coverage documents both improved responsiveness and embarrassing editorial errors, so the label “crap” captures genuine frustration but overgeneralizes a spectrum of outcomes that includes useful innovations and predictable AI-era failures [4] [3].
5. What’s next and what remains unknown
Microsoft’s roadmap suggests deeper integration of agentic features and infrastructure investment in 2026, meaning the AI layer will only grow and will be further tuned—or litigated—based on user feedback and regulatory pressure [4] [5] [7]. Public reporting documents past problems and the company’s stated ambitions, but specifics about governance, real-time human oversight levels in Copilot Discover, and quantitative changes in misinformation rates on MSN after these deployments are not fully disclosed in the sources provided, limiting definitive judgement on long-term quality [1] [2] [3].