|
Luigi Thirty posted:https://twitter.com/imraansiddiqi/status/773970915210108928
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
ImpAtom posted:So you want information to be for-pay and you don't see the issue with that? ...dude, journalism has always been for-pay. Like, it's never going to be for free, because that would require government funding, and government holding the purse strings on journalism is never a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:So you want information to be for-pay and you don't see the issue with that? Who pays for the time taken to create it? Information doesn't grow on trees, not if you want it to be organized and edited and researched and contextualized. You need professionals spending full-time hours or more for this stuff like the MJ prison report to exist in the first place. Abusive ads are garbage and the backlash is totally deserved and understandable but money's got to enter the system from somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
FairGame posted:I don't see the issue with "having to see a few ads* when I read information," no. So do you think newspapers shouldn't be available at libraries. You danced around this question before by going "they pay for it" but that doesn't change the face they share it freely once they do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Random rear end in a top hat posted:Gosh, my local Barnes & Noble is chock full of thieves! On this note, I'm a lot more willing to wring my hands about circumventing a paywall where the workaround in question isn't "search for it on google".
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:So do you think newspapers shouldn't be available at libraries. You danced around this question before by going "they pay for it" but that doesn't change the face they share it freely once they do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Phone posted:Answer the questions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Ownership I honestly don't know what your point is, but I'm not particularly interested either so...
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:government holding the purse strings on journalism is never a good thing. good thing we don't live in a world like that
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:So do you think newspapers shouldn't be available at libraries. You danced around this question before by going "they pay for it" but that doesn't change the face they share it freely once they do. Tell you what: I will be fine with a libraries exception because libraries are extremely cool and good. So if all libraries want to install ad block on their browsers (and for gently caress's sake, they really should because otherwise some creepy gently caress is going to visit a site loaded with malware and ruin the machines) and people can browse all day for free at the library, I'm fine with that. It seriously blows my mind that you think news orgs--or really any content producer--should just magically provide their services for free.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:bezos owns the post, after buying it from the graham family a few years back What do you think of Gawker getting demolished? Also, I love how I ask about the Times and WSJ, and you talk about the Post. Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
incompetent posted:good thing we don't live in a world like that what are you trying to say?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Phone posted:What do you think of Gawker getting demolished? Please no, not this again
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:...You DID pay for the newspaper at the library. Through taxes. You're really stretching at this point. That isn't what anyone means when they're talking about paying and I am perfectly fine with using tax dollars to support things in the public interest. FairGame posted:It seriously blows my mind that you think news orgs--or really any content producer--should just magically provide their services for free. I don't? I just also don't think it's a crime for someone to look at that information for free. You're the one going "you're STEALING' for people looking at a news article without paying or allowing themselves to be advertised to by potentially hazardous things. I have no problem paying for a newspaper to read it. I also don't think my friend is a thief if I let them look at it after I'm done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
FairGame posted:At best, it's the equivalent of going up to a newsstand, reading someone's newspapers and magazines, and then putting them back without paying for them. That strikes me as stealing. It also strikes me as "a thing I'm not going to get the denizens of somethingawful dot com" to agree with me on, so *shrug* I should probably be in jail for the thousands of dollars of content I stole reading books and magazines during my lunch breaks at Barnes and Noble
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:what are you trying to say? the people on top run the news
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:They did good journalism, and the internet happened, and they stopped making money. then they had to change the way they did journalism. Other organizations learned that the only way to make money is clickbaity bullshit and headlines, and so now good journalism is turning to that, because it's not a charity. Maybe it should be! but it's not. I'm going to take a step back from some of my rhetoric, because some of it was incendiary and made out of annoyance at the election. It's lovely that good, hard working, talented people will lose their jobs because of the Internet rendering traditional media models obsolete. It's lovely that they're being taken advantage of by big corporations and their incessant drive for profit. But it's not fair to say to coal miners that they need to accept that their jobs are going away because of technological and social change, and that that's a good thing, and then turn around and say that nah, we can keep obsolete traditional journalists because we like them. The Internet is a big, scary new technology that has made a whole swath of media we take for granted functionally post-scarcity. In a capitalist economy like our own, that makes those types of media functionally worthless. It doesn't matter that meaningful time and dedication went into them, because rational consumers make decisions based on scarcity, and supply, not the labor theory of value. You can't blame me for the economic status quo. And like coal minors, we shouldn't be trying to litigate the Internet out of existence to protect obsolete models of selling media. We should be adapting and changing with if, even if it's hard. I mean come on, you can't even say clickbait journalism has to be bad by default. BUZZFEED does better journalism than most of NYT at this point. So yeah, I think they deserve to be poo poo on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Please no, not this again I still think Weiner should Hogan the Post
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:...dude, journalism has always been for-pay. State funded news/TV-stations are really common in other countries though (and often do really good work).
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Something somethung inherent contraditions, self-destruction, etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
John Oliver had a great segment on the death of print media and journalism. Here's the youtube version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjcrIyUv5SU Also, here's a good article from Michael Tomasky in The Daily Beast today on what should the media do about Trump. Condensed version: he's a liar and the media should call him that. quote:Trump is two things.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Andrast posted:State funded news/TV-stations are really common in other countries though (and often do really good work). If only US media was more like RT
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If only US media was more like RT If only BBC was more like Fox News
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:What the hell is with this 14 -> clothed 18 year old drama, is this a recent thing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:You're really stretching at this point. That isn't what anyone means when they're talking about paying and I am perfectly fine with using tax dollars to support things in the public interest. Here's the disconnect, though. 1.) I'm saying that using ad block is stealing, full stop. If some site has something YOU REALLY WANT TO READ, but it's also got some lovely loving malware ad on it, then you have to make a decision. You can either not read it. Or you can read it and get malware. Stealing is a third option, and all that does is compound the problem because the site then needs to run MORE ads. You're making it worse for the fellow man you clearly care so much about given that you like to share your content. 2.) Sharing a newspaper is inherently different from turning on ad block. Newspapers make money from ads (and also from subs, but let's table that for now). The ads are seen by multiple sets of eyeballs when you share your newspaper. Probably not enough to offset the cost of your friend not buying one of his own, but it's something, at least, and something that newspaper ad sales folks can go to advertisers with. "Our circ is only X, but thanks to sharing, your ads will actually be seen by 1.3X." Turning on ad block, or finding a way to get beyond someone's gate, or posting gated content on a non-gated place...nobody ever gets ads. The ads don't serve. The content creator gets nothing out of the transaction. You're trying to wedge newspaper sharing into a conversation about ad block but the models are sufficiently different that it's not a great analogy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
Like, I am genuinely aware that "how does journalism pay for itself" is an ongoing issue and I do not blame them for trying to find methods to pay for themselves and I attempt to support anyone I actually want to support in any way I can, be it buying newspapers when I could read articles online or whitelisting ads. but that shouldn't be obligatory for anyone who wants to read an important article. Nobody should be asked to expose their computer to malware or pay per-website-fees to read an article detailing the horrific corruption in the prison system or what-have-you. if this information is important than it should be available to everyone without them being called thieves for not paying for it. FairGame posted:. If some site has something YOU REALLY WANT TO READ, but it's also got some lovely loving malware ad on it, then you have to make a decision. You can either not read it. Or you can read it and get malware. Right. This is horrific. You're saying that people should be obligated to harm themselves to educate themselves. You think that important should only be shared if it is for profit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
I wonder what "Please continue Governor" moment we'll get, and if it even makes a difference.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Andrast posted:If only BBC was more like Fox News Well they both did their part to cover up lies about Iraq
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
radical meme posted:
quote:Second, he’s something we don’t even have an English word for. “Ignorant” is a start, but ignorant misses the key element, which is his I-don’t-give-a-crap pride in his own ignorance. I mean, we don't have a specific word for it, but I thunk "willfully ignorant" works well enough
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Like, I am genuinely aware that "how does journalism pay for itself" is an ongoing issue and I do not blame them for trying to find methods to pay for themselves and I attempt to support anyone I actually want to support in any way I can, be it buying newspapers when I could read articles online or whitelisting ads. Why? There are plenty of perfectly good sites out there that do good work whose ads aren't lovely and intrusive and filled with malware. There is no scenario at present in which people are unable to "educate themselves" without going to sites that'll infect their machines.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well they both did their part to cover up lies about Iraq There are a ton examples of examples of good public broadcasting services, I just used BBC because it's well known. Acting like the only alternative to American style media is RT is idiotic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Since I think this "pay for journalism" derail may have been started by the WSJ investigation I posted w/instructions on how to reveal the whole article, I just want to say that I know one of the authors and he specifically asked me/people to share it around. He has no problem with people circumventing the paywall. So please chill out a little.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Not viewing an ad is by definition not stealing because nothing was taken. The whole analogy of physical goods to the Internet is a farce because anything that is on the Internet is by definition post-scarcity. You can copy an article infinitely and the original owner still has it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
FairGame posted:1.) I'm saying that using ad block is stealing, full stop.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
FairGame posted:
If I picked up a newspaper and it loving stung me like a wasp I'd generaly lean towards the "gently caress yeah these things deserve to go out of business" side of things just off of principle. Why the hell should you have to choose between potentially getting hurt and reading an article? That's ludicrous
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
FairGame posted:Why? There are plenty of perfectly good sites out there that do good work whose ads aren't lovely and intrusive and filled with malware. Even the best websites do not have a 100% success rate when keeping dangerous ads off their website, and if your computer is infected that isn't just a mild inconvenience for most people. That can be the loss of work, tons of information, or at worst a complete disaster with extremely expensive repair bills. You have to take risks no matter what on the internet but that doesn't mean anyone should be obligated to take them when attempting to educate themselves about an important issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
So how many websites went down because everybody who visits them uses ad-block?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
FairGame posted:Here's the disconnect, though. A webpage is a file that you download. An ad is another file that you download. All that an adblocker does is selectively download the first file and ignore the part in it that automatically triggers the download of the second. Unless I signed some kind of agreement that says I have to download all of the files (and actually display them on my screen, not just redirect to /dev/null) if I download any of them, I am struggling to see how this would be theft. Do you think it is theft if you go to the bathroom or make a sandwich during a commercial break on TV?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
incompetent posted:So how many websites went down because everybody who visits them uses ad-block? Who knows, but you can be drat sure we're not getting investigative journalism like that prison article again anytime soon. I'm not arguing against using adblockers, but just the idea of "THIS INFORMATION SHOULD BE FREE!" Newspapers being able to turn a profit from their consumers is good for everybody.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:What the hell is with this 14 -> clothed 18 year old drama, is this a recent thing? No specific event, I was just generalizing. Though the person who got fired after a harassment campaign ended with them somehow obtaining information she was moonlighting in "another job that wasn't consistent with the companies values" was a very real thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
FairGame posted:Here's the disconnect, though. i'm going to click on links for sites i'm not familiar with, and those sites do not warn me about the potential of malware, so i will continue to use ad blockers, and i dont feel bad about this in the slightest i also ignore/mute ads in streaming television. i do not feel bad about this
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:51
|
|