you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 94 points 3 years ago (65 children)

Everyone hates ads but no one wants to pay for it lol

  • source
  • hideshow 65 child comments
  • [–] 53 points 3 years ago (32 children)

    Journalism should be accessible to everyone. Not many people can afford 30 different subscriptions for every individual news outlet because they're all pay to read. Remember newspapers? Anyone could buy one on the cheap, now these fuckers have moved to a subscription service that's even more expensive than the average newspaper used to be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (21 children)

    Well there are 3 alternatives.

    Ads, which everyone on here would endorse blocking, so that’s out.

    All journalism becomes volunteer work, running off of optional donations, which seems unlikely :D

    Or all journalism becomes publicly funded via-taxes. This is probably the optimal option but I think most people would agree that ALL journalism being government funded has a ton of risks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 3 years ago

    If I have to pay for it:

    • it cannot be sensationalized. It cannot even veer mildly from the found facts.
    • it cannot be filled with agenda bias
    • it cannot hold any false, non peer reviewed information
    • they have to pay their sources. And They have to pay their sources well. Especially the ones who are expected to uphold to peer reviews (science journalists, I’m looking at you)

    If there is a free one with ads:

    • ads cannot fabricate their facts either.

    Wanna regulate? Well. Then. Let’s regulate.

  • source
  • parent
  • You can avoid the risk of tax-funded journalism by making it so that even though they're government subsidized they're still independent. There are multiple potential ways to evaluate which journalistic entities qualify for government funding, all with pros and cons, but it could work.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Here in Finland we have YLE, and it has news, movies/shows, documentaries, radio/podcasts etc. It is funded with tax money, and I consider the two biggest pros to be that news and more are easily accessible for free to anyone and that since YLE isn't trying to profit from journalism, there are no clickbait headlines. Though, the worst flaw is that goverment-funded journalism is prone to propaganda, and once you control the media, you control the whole country, so people need to be very careful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    Yea that’s precisely it. Publicly-funded media definitely can be the best option, but there’s always risks it can fall into pure propaganda some day

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    You can always have it be publicly funded but managed by a non profit designated by the government, and make it organized in such a way that if a politician or government institution had a problem with some reporting, there's nothing they can do.

    The same concerns about editorial independence and human fallacy apply in the private sector top. There has always been pressure between the editorial, marketing, and journalist parts of newspapers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (6 children)

    I think you're missing a potential 4th one, though I'm not 100% convinced as to its feasibility, but a Universal Basic Income and greater societal wealth redistribution raises the bottom so much that everyone can easily afford 30 news subscriptions.

    Though personally I think more arms length public funding is the better option since the incentives of capitalism often don't align with the incentives of high quality journalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    I love the idea of UBI. But I can’t help but worry I’m wrong.

    My love for UBI assumes that idle hands will make themselves useful in productive, please or at least non-destructive ways.

    I’m not clear I can justify that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children)

    I certainly can't speak for anyone else, but personally I would be useful in productive ways. I went through a period of every nerds' dream of staying home and playing video games all the time and it drove me nuts. Yeah, it was nice for a little while, but not having the money to go anywhere or do anything made me look forward to working again. If I'd have had money, I would not have been home very much.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    I did that too; it was during Covid :)

    I think/acted similar to you… which is why I think we might all be common minding.

    That said, people that aren’t motivated to do good things are most likely motivated to do nothing… so it might not be a big deal if they don’t show up for a job.

    TLDR: fewer workers at Burger King probably would t make service worse

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 years ago

    Very few people honestly want to do nothing. Even the image of the unemployed pot smoker who watched cartoons all day, maybe that person would find fulfillment in art? Or maybe they're passionate about something important in their community.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    My love for UBI assumes that idle hands will make themselves useful in productive, please or at least non-destructive ways.

    There's still an incentive to work and make more money to better your living situation and contribute productively back to society, but you wouldn't be as beholden to it.

    Another way to think about it was that in the 50s a single worker could make enough to support a family, whereas these days both parents have to work full time. Providing UBI would be a more equitable way of reducing the reliance on work and increase individual families' health and well being by providing the baseline financial assistance that would allow one parent to take time off work (or both parents to reduce time at work) to better support their family, community, and social structure.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) (2 children)

    All journalism becomes volunteer work, running off of optional donations, which seems unlikely :D

    It's not quite that simple with PBS or NPR, but that's the basic idea. Open public funding with no political or corporate control sounds like the safest bet. It's as viable as people deciding to support it.

    Not sure why you'd think "publicly funded" would seem like the "optimal" option. Same thing structurally as "state-run media", just friendlier phrasing. If we had direct democracy or something, that might be fine, but the fact that it has to run through politicians and bureaucrats with their own interests/agendas, that completely changes the picture. If you have that federally funded in the U.S., that basically just tucks under the executive branch like almost everything else, meaning it's just managed by the President, with basically only a paper tiger of regulations preventing interference in place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (1 child)

    In Germany, the independence of publicly funded media is guaranteed by the payment of a special fee that is collected independently of the normal taxes, and is distributed directly among the public media institutions. No parliament has to approve any funding, the only attack vector would be to change the legislation behind this financing but that would require a parliamentary majority and would therefore have to be the will of the people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 16 points 3 years ago (4 children)

    This is because the Internet killed journalism's revenue model. In the past a big metro daily had three main revenue streams; subscriptions, newsstand sales and classifieds/advertising. Newsstand sales is the only leg that didn't get gutted by the internet, so in order to keep it viable, they have to charge more than they used to, but even then, it's just not really cost efficient and many major metro dailies no longer print a hard copy version.

    One problem with journalism is that since everyone consumes it in one way or another, everyone imagines that they have an informed opinion about it, but unless you went to j-school and/or have worked in the field, you probably don't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    I work for a plant that prints local papers. They are an invaluable source of local news, and you are correct, the internet is slowly killing them. It's a real loss for civic engagement. People really need to pay attention to what's happening locally. National stories are sexier, but we actually have much more control over what happens in our own neighborhoods and towns.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Because classified ads used to pay for the paper.

    Heck, 'The Advertiser' used to be a popular name for newspapers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago

    This seems like a common theme. There are just so many things to subscribe to: Netflix, Spotify, New York Times, Amazon, Audible, individual app store applications, Paramount+, Hulu, Peacock, NPR+, Disney+, etc. Just keeping track of it all is complicated. And all content producers want to maintain the subscription framework, too, passing the costs on to us. This is a little off topic, but it still bugs me that Netflix became a content producer. I think it would have been a cleaner/cheaper arrangement if they'd remained a subscription service only.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 43 points 3 years ago* (3 children)

    I do pay for my local paper, cable, spotify, disney+, Netflix...

    Only so much blood in this here stone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago

    With so many shows getting canceled, or even un-confirmed and then obliterated from existence all for tax write offs, I'm kinda soured on Streaming these days.

    Hopefully the WGA and SAG strikes are successful and result in streaming improving again, back to how it felt during the mid 2010s.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 32 points 3 years ago* (13 children)

    No, not everybody hates ads. Everybody hates today's ads, because they're literally as intrusive and annoying as the designers can make them. I didn't have a problem with ads 15 years ago, but because I have to pay for my bandwidth, and because ads like to literally block what I'm reading with a giant, 100MB, unskippable video, I use an ad blocker.

    Advertising shot itself in the foot, and it isn't our fault for being pushed so far that we're fed up with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 years ago (9 children)

    Unskipable ads when I'm browsing my files on my phone, how fucking obnoxious can you possibly make them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago (3 children)

    Where did u experience this lol, Ive never heard of that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago

    There're some wack lowly made phones sold in countries without good standards that do this.

    A friend's phone shows ad in every app, from google stock apps to whatapp and even fucking phone/call app. Around 30 pixels of ad blocked at the bottom of the screen whenever mobile data is on.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 3 years ago

    I agree with most of that, but I feel like we weren’t using the same Internet 15 years ago. There were still ample popups and popunders, many of which you couldn’t easily close (more than a few did the funny ‘you are an idiot’ trick of just open windows faster than you can close them to me). They were loud, both visually but also they would actually play sound in non-video pages (sometimes multiple at once). Most of them were either disgust or porn based (or the really funny meme of both at the same time). And there were so. Many. Viruses. I feel like advertisers have never been particularly respectful of the end user, and the main difference is that now they’re actively spying, where they maybe weren’t 20 years ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Some sites (Fandom Wikis) are unbearable with ads. Sure, you could pay to remove them, but only because it’s so infuriating to navigate the content when it has multiple ads—some that follow you—INSIDE the content of the articles.

    Autoplaying videos, side banners, and scrolling ads are the worst and actively make me want to avoid the sites unless adblock is on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (8 replies)