200
A.I. Is Making the Sexual Exploitation of Girls Even Worse (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
74 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A.I. Is Making the Sexual Exploitation of Girls Even Worse::Parents, schools and our laws need to catch up to technology, fast.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 39 points 2 years ago (30 children)

Paywall. Nope. Exploit those girls with your AI then. The messages against it can't be heard without money.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
    •
  • [+] -20 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (29 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago (21 children)

    Why do you think that journalists don’t deserve to get paid?

    they didn't say that. you're making a leap of logic and putting words in their mouth

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [+] -5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (20 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    They already make money on the ads, and of course you have to make an account, so they sell your info... and then they fire the journalists... I would pay for a good source of real new that didn't have ads and didn't sell my info. But they don't exist.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    I encountered many New York times articles behind a paywall. I was :o that this wasn't behind a paywall for me.

    I use archive.md for paywalls.

    I hope the New York times doesn't sell user data. If it does, public rage can move it from being 1 of the top news sites to the bottom.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 2 years ago (15 children)

    sell their stories to newspapers

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [+] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (14 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Advertising?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Many of these companies are asking for a substantially high price when someone may want to view an article as low as once or twice a month. NYT has a monthly cost of ~$25/month, is that a fair ask to read the odd article someone happens to post?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [+] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    Their current “deal” is $1 a week billed at $4 every 4 weeks, their standard price is $25 for a 4 week period. You can verify this easily by checking their site.

    I’m neither registering for them to harvest my personal data, nor paying them to do the same.

    Paywalls are BS, and just as bad as ads on the internet. Even if they are “free” ways to get limited access.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    I don't give a fuck. sell subscriptions, push ads, whatever. but if you deny access based on an ability to pay, what you have to say isn't worth my time.

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

    I can't believe you're pushing that dumb take in the same comment that you're suggesting the newspapers sell subscriptions. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

    The internet has made people feel very entitled to every form of content.

    If you feel these organizations and their posts aren't worth your time, stop commenting on them like a smug edgelord without actual solutions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    If you think your message is important, you shouldn't bury it. Their message isn't important. Their message is just to bring in money. "Journalists" can fuck right off. A real journalist is someone in the right place at the right time and telling about it because it's important, not to make a career out of it. Consider Karl Jobst. He's a journalist. He's even getting paid. You know what he's not doing? That'd be sitting in an office promoting a website with a subscription fee. Jobbers are not journalists.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I've never been paid for mine. Get a job.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •