420
We Finally Have Proof That the Internet Is Worse
(www.theatlantic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
420 points (95.7% liked)
Technology
58774 readers
3505 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Normally I'm all about "yes they should be paid" but in this case it's particularly ironic - modest ads used to be able to support newspapers. Now they need paywalls.
Title of article: internet is worse
QED.
I think the thing that bugs me most is everything is a subscription. Maybe if there was an easy way to do a la carte with reasonable pricing I would be more inclined to pony up for this and that. I'm just sick of attaching a leach to my ass anytime I am curious about something.
This is where something like Monero comes in handy. Since it's just like cash except in electronic form, you pay one time and there is no potential for them to just come and take money monthly from you. You have to pay manually yourself. It's a push system instead of a pull system.
"Modest ads" were never a thing: if you were on the internet 10-ish years ago, you'll remember that pop-up ads were everywhere.
Also, ads were never able to support newspapers, even if they used to be more lucrative. Newspapers were desperate to reach new audiences and they basically started to publish stuff at a loss. That's why media is in the situation they're in right now: underfunded and in perpetual search for new ways to monetize so they do not die altogether.
How much does it cost for any random person with a platform to say something?
A journalist is not a "random person". It's a profession like any other profession.
A journalist doesn't just "say something". A journalist works, like any other worker does.
So, to answer your question, I'd say it costs at least minimum wage.
Well clearly expecting to be paid for doing shit that anyone anywhere does for free is the problem. What's the point of the journalist?
Wait, what do you think journalists do? Do you think that they wake up, get to their workplace and start typing away about whatever crosses their mind? In that case, I can understand your confusion.
On the other hand, if you know what journalists actually do, I don't understand what you're saying. Or perhaps you think that reasearching information on a topic, interviewing people, going to your town hall to see what politicians are up to, go to warzones and report about what's happening, are tasks that "anyone anywhere does for free"?
Can you imagine what it would be like if the only people doing journalism were those paid by publishers? The real journalists are everyone with a phone who are where the story is happening.
Bullshit. Those can be sources, but they are not journalists. I beg you to look up what a journalist does, because you clearly do not know it and you're making a fool of yourself. Doing journalism is not as simple as saying "This thing happened".
A person with a smartphone does not do research, does not interview people, does not spend all day working on a story, does not have the support of other people whose job is to know stuff, does not try to understand what the implications of something are, does not have a code of ethics, etc etc. Journalists spend 100% of their day working on a story and that makes all the difference in the world. It's a job with specific duties. " Citizen journalism" is not journalism. YouTube personalities are not influencers. People researching stuff in their free time are not journalists.
Recording something with your smartphone and posting it on Instagram does not make you a journalist, just as me cooking pasta for lunch does not make me a chef.
And that's because - again - doing something for fun or by accident is very different than doing it as a job. I guess your skepticism may come from not yet having encountered good journalism, and I'm sorry if that's the case. My advice is just to keep looking for it, because finding a news org that you can trust makes all the difference in how you can understand the world.
People interview themselves. We have phones and want to be heard! We don't need your leading questions. We don't need your input. We don't want it and we won't pay you for it!
I don't know if you just want to be edgy, if you're just thick, or if a journalist fucked your mom, but I have the impression that you're not gonna care anyways, no matter the amount of level-headed arguments.
Good journalism is dying, you're being played like a fiddle, and I hope you're gonna soon realize how wrong you are and how much we need journalism.
For me, this conversation ends here. Peace
Thats never been true. You bought the paper for a small fee, and it still had ads.
Oh wow, you thought that you counter 1 and 1 together while completely missing that this is a complex equation.
Ads and ad revenue are not the same as they used to be, and the economics of the world and technology have changed. So until you understand the complexities of the world, please stop talking out of your ass and using shit like "QED" to sound smarter than you are.
I think you missed their point. They pointed out the irony. Which is valid. They didn't explore viability of monetization.
And then you fall into that kind of toxic tone...