Ground News presents you a "balanced" news diet by presenting you with two sides that are implied to be equally valid. Except one of the sides is just (relatively accurate) plain old news and the other side largely consists of institutions who publish a lot of nonsense and paid Ground News to be there, or have ownership in common with Ground News. Their target audience is people who were mostly consuming the first group before (not a single Ground News ad was ever run to an audience aligned with the second group) and the purpose is to make them gradually accept the second group as equals to the first group.

Also it doesn't actually show you the news. It just shows you links to news sites that you need to be separately subscribed to if you want to read them, so in that sense you're just not getting the product you probably thought you were getting (access to balanced news), so it's a double scam.

There's video essays about this on YouTube of course since that's where Ground News was mainly advertised.

What could possibly go wrong with a (I think) VC funded news aggregator that becomes your authority on what "Right" vs "Left" thought is and how to interpret a bunch of news without actually reading any of it?

Where could that possibly end up causing problems?

it doesn't give you anything, just links you to paywalled articles

there is the illusion of "balanced" or more in the know but they are no more balanced than any other curator, and in many cases try really, really hard to present a mixed view of something that is otherwise inexcusable.