|
DACK FAYDEN posted:Holy loving poo poo why is anyone even arguing with this guy? gently caress ads, gently caress ad-supported journalism, and if they can't find a new model then that's a drat shame for me as a reader but they deserve to go under. What in the hell happened that this became an acceptable position for any human being with a brain to hold? Literally the entire history of journalism basically ever? Ads aren't new, guys.
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted: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. They sell their services in exchange for ad views or subscriptions, someone has to pay for it or we lose what little journalism we have left.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
As someone who has worked for a company whose whole business model was using OS/browser vulnerabilities in flashing banner ads to instantly install their software. gently caress ads forever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
FairGame posted:Here's the disconnect, though. Sorry. Online advertisers had their chance, and they decided to cram popups and viruses down peoples throats and have proven they can't be trusted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Internet ads, in their current form, are not a sustainable model for journalism or indeed many forms of media consumed online. Even now, with ad revenue, I'm going to go out on a limb and estimate that most income in the news media doesn't come from internet ad revenue. At this rate, the media is turning into a kind of ad-structure for big money or politicians — it seems like it's getting away from trying to figure things out — as that is expensive — and nudging towards copy-paste "reporting". Much of that has to do with what is actually making money for the media, and it's not really any of those organizations' fault that they're not really employing journalists at the same rate that they used to. I would love to push towards a kind of public fund to push for journalism far beyond what npr does, but it's going to be a lot of work to get that working and virtually no one with wealth or power is going to like it. Reading what's happened to the BBC in recent years (forgive me, there was a really good post around here recently, I don't have a link on hand) makes me anxious about the whole topic, too, because I kind of want something like a US BBC but I know that org has plenty of its own share of problems.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted: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 21:52
|
|
|
Luigi Thirty posted:https://twitter.com/imraansiddiqi/status/773970915210108928 Smeper fi debil dogs 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted: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. Really. Good for everyone? You can't think of any way that for-pay advertising and investigative journalism might have some conflict? If Coca Cola does a major ad buy do you think an article about how Coca Cola uses slave labor might not get silently shelved?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Pence is doubling down on Trump's Putin comments 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
Maybe we could have some kind of national tax, like on televisions or something. And then use that to fund some kind of media apparatus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:Pence is doubling down on Trump's Putin comments ... Pence is? Really?  I'm not surprise at Trump but I figured Pence would just shut up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted: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. Buzzfeed is a good - I assume you're thinking about andrew k who is amazing, but what he does appears to be more of what I think is called a researcher rather than an investigative journalist. Like, he digs into the history of published statements and digs up things and draws really good connections, but he's not going out and talking to people and finding new things, if you see the difference? Putting people out in the wild to talk to people and ask questions costs much, much more money than sitting in an office looking up past statements, and there's just no way around that. And I'm walking a tricky line here because I do think that (for example) the AP story about the clinton foundation meetings was bullshit and should be called out as such, but I think it's absolutely critical that that investigation happened, you know? And it costs money and somebody has to pay for that. In the world we live in today, the way that happens is that consumers give money to producers (and if you want to change THAT, investigative journalism will play a pretty loving big part) All I'm saying, I guess, is that you (one - not you personally) have much stronger grounds to criticize lovely journalism when you're willing to support good journalism. And support means money, not warm fuzzies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
FairGame posted:Literally the entire history of journalism basically ever?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:Maybe we could have some kind of national tax, like on televisions or something. And then use that to fund some kind of media apparatus. And you could call it, for example, Public Broadcasting Service. Or, PBS for short.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
adblockers are bad because they sometimes prevent the malware and viruses that is just a natural part of consuming content condoms are bad because they sometimes prevent the viruses and infections that are just a natural part of having sex of course the news world would be much better off if predominantly people had a monogomous relationship with a single trusted news source and shunned all others
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:... Pence is? Really? Pence is actually really, really stupid. Like, he's a little better at restraining himself than Trump, but he is not a clever man.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:... Pence is? Really? overdesigned posted:https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/773982781290446849 (and yes, he's contradicting his own previous statements against Putin)
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:They sell their services in exchange for ad views or subscriptions, someone has to pay for it or we lose what little journalism we have left. And the biggest ad blockers have a whitelist feature for non-intrusive ads. If they could restrain themselves in what they put up it wouldn't be a problem for them, but they can't help but make obnoxious, stupid ads.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
kaleedity posted:Internet ads, in their current form, are not a sustainable model for journalism or indeed many forms of media consumed online. Even now, with ad revenue, I'm going to go out on a limb and estimate that most income in the news media doesn't come from internet ad revenue. At this rate, the media is turning into a kind of ad-structure for big money or politicians — it seems like it's getting away from trying to figure things out — as that is expensive — and nudging towards copy-paste "reporting". Much of that has to do with what is actually making money for the media, and it's not really any of those organizations' fault that they're not really employing journalists at the same rate that they used to. Your limb is wrong, in this case. For anyone who's print+digital or digital only, the majority of revenue comes from ads. No loving clue what the breakdown looks like for properties that have television. But if you're talking WSJ, WaPo, NYT...all of them are incredibly reliant on digital for revenue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
I use a flash blocker, not a full ad blocker. That gets rid of virtually all the malicious stuff as well as 99% of the audio. Static image and text ads can stay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:And the biggest ad blockers have a whitelist feature for non-intrusive ads. If they could restrain themselves in what they put up it wouldn't be a problem for them, but they can't help but make obnoxious, stupid ads. Sure lets say ads are bad but everyone keeps ignoring the other half, what started this was someone posting a way to get around the subscription to the site.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:(and yes, he's contradicting his own previous statements against Putin) Hahaha, holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Who knows, but you can be drat sure we're not getting investigative journalism like that prison article again anytime soon. You realize that Mother Jones has revenue streams that aren't ads, right? Like donations? And the entire reason we know the cost of that piece is because they wrote an article about it to convince more readers to start donating? Pretty sure the pitch was "we want to continue doing journalism like this, so please consider donating," not "we're never loving doing that again because of you dirty adblocking scum"
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Ads as revenue are dying, anyways. Nobody clicks them and buys poo poo. People aren't browsing the Something Awful forums, see an ad to buy a $4000 Samsung TV and saying "yeah actually I had no plans to buy a {THING} but now that I saw this ad I guess I really should buy {THING}"
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
FairGame posted:Your limb is wrong, in this case. For anyone who's print+digital or digital only, the majority of revenue comes from ads. No loving clue what the breakdown looks like for properties that have television. emdash posted: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. Like seriously. You're the one calling people thieves, not the guy you're claiming they stole from
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Dubstep Jesus posted:You realize that Mother Jones has revenue streams that aren't ads, right? Like donations? And the entire reason we know the cost of that piece is because they wrote an article about it to convince more readers to start donating? They haven't reached the needed revenue level from the donations yet. Please donate to MJ!
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Sure lets say ads are bad but everyone keeps ignoring the other half, what started this was someone posting a way to get around the subscription to the site. Subscription models are bad and dumb. I don't have a problem with ad driven journalism if they actually still do good journalism and the ads aren't super obnoxious. But they clearly can't manage either of those simple loving tasks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
emdash posted:They haven't reached the needed revenue level from the donations yet. Please donate to MJ! Actually thank you for posting this. I'm going to go donate now, I didn't realize they hadn't hit it yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Subscription models are bad and dumb. I mean it's not like print where you have a department soliciting advertising and selling full page/quarter page/whatever. You set up a site and you contract that poo poo out to a third party (Google) and they host the ads.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
Just saw that " I would have gone to jail if I had done what you did " goober from last night doing a talking head segment on Fox News 
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
Hey fairgame, is not installing flash stealing? Cause I'm not going to do it, and most ads run on flash.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:I mean it's not like print where you have a department soliciting advertising and selling full page/quarter page/whatever. You set up a site and you contract that poo poo out to a third party (Google) and they host the ads. SA manages to have non-intrusive ads I always see. I even read and click some of them. Because they aren't super loving annoying.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
FairGame posted:Here's the disconnect, though. So when people copy articles in here, do you just close your eyes and scroll down while humming the national anthem or what 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. I hate myself for engaging this even further but... do you have any awareness that this "all news sites are basically the same, just choose another one!" argument directly undermines the "journalism is precious and it's immoral not to value it" argument you're trying to make? Tiny Brontosaurus fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Sep 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Most ads are not Flash. Flash is essentially EOL at this point. It's a vulnerability ridden nightmare and new browsers are actively blacklisting it from being installed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Andrast posted: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. The BBC has some of the same problems US media does: 'balance' over Truth, self-important and arrogance. They are by no means a standard of excellence when it comes to reporting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
FairGame posted:Your limb is wrong, in this case. For anyone who's print+digital or digital only, the majority of revenue comes from ads. No loving clue what the breakdown looks like for properties that have television. nyt 2016 q2 earned $45 million from digital ads out of $383 million total. That's about 12%. They need that to survive, yeah, but my original statement about "most income" seems fairly accurate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:SA manages to have non-intrusive ads I always see. I even read and click some of them. Because they aren't super loving annoying. Really? Because last I checked it was 95% Aggro Gator poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:Most ads are not Flash. Flash is essentially EOL at this point. It's a vulnerability ridden nightmare and new browsers are actively blacklisting it from being installed. And thank Christ in Heaven for that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
BiohazrD posted:Really? Because last I checked it was 95% Aggro Gator poo poo. Most of them for me seem to be from goons. Also some Donald Trump and Johnson ads.  But always simple banner ads at the bottom and top.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Like seriously. You're the one calling people thieves, not the guy you're claiming they stole from In this instance, the author isn't the one being stolen from anyway. It's the WSJ. Which I guess is part of the problem, since "I want everyone to read my stuff" and "I want to maximize revenue from stuff written by this author" are in opposition to one another. Anyway, ad block is still theft. We're not going to convince one another otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 22:06
|
|