I do pay for my local paper, cable, spotify, disney+, Netflix until a few months ago…
Only do much blood in this here stone.
Comment on So much for that dream.
NENathaniel@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Everyone hates ads but no one wants to pay for it lol
eestileib@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Trekman10@sh.itjust.works 1 year 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.
demlet@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Please tell me you aren’t getting your news from Disney. But seriously, a halfway decent local paper is probably more worth your attention than the latest attention grabbing headline at the NYT. Good choice.
eestileib@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
My local paper has actual investigative journalists and a city desk, I’m happy to fund them.
SIGSEGV@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
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.
Noodle07@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Unskipable ads when I’m browsing my files on my phone, how fucking obnoxious can you possibly make them?
NENathaniel@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Where did u experience this lol, Ive never heard of that
Noodle07@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Xiaomi, that was the worst update ever
Noodle07@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s a xiaomi, phone is great but the software bloat is horrible
Hardeehar@lemmy.world 1 year ago
What phone or service is this? Not in the states right?
lord_ryvan@ttrpg.network 1 year ago
Maybe install a different file browser, here’s one I think is nice
Noodle07@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yeah that’s what I ended up doing, but that never should have happen in the first place
scurry@lemmy.world 1 year 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.
NENathaniel@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Idk, 15 years ago I was watching cable and 1/3 of my time was spent subjected to ads on a paid service. I think I prefer them now lol
SIGSEGV@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
We’re talking internet here, bub.
MaxPow3r11@lemmy.world 1 year ago
If you are defending ADS (of all things) you are definitely part of the problem.
NENathaniel@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
I’m defending the right for people to make a profit from their labour 🤷♂️ even if ads aren’t my preference either
boyi@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
A little bird told me you’re in cognizance of the way to finance online journalism without depending on ads and subscriptions of readers. That’s a good news. Care to share how?
MaxPow3r11@lemmy.world 1 year ago
If you can’t do it without ads then it shouldn’t be done.
Fuck.
People are brainwashed.
ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
This is a very naive take.
boyi@lemmy.sdf.org 1 year ago
Nice to see you revealing your naivety. That’s what I’ve intended to do in the first place.
NuPNuA@lemm.ee 1 year ago
There’s nothing wrong with advertising in of itself, society has lived with advertisements for goods and services for a long time. Unless you’re unreasonably susceptible to suggestion you should be able to safely navigate them. Some sites take the mick with how they present them but they have to make money somehow.
dx1@lemmy.world 1 year ago
There is something wrong with advertising in and of itself. Imagine a sphere of all information available to humans, and inside that sphere there’s a corruption of information that’s deceitful, self-promoting for its originators, in excess of what people actually need to know about specific companies or products, and based on manipulation techniques and de-facto brainwashing. The only defense is that it’s a “necessary evil” because of the perverse economic structures in our society.
FluffyToaster621@lemm.ee 1 year ago
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.
Trekman10@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Firefox has an autoplay block setting, and I’ve never had it fail me.
NENathaniel@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
That’s why I use an inverted ad-block list. I see ads unless they get intrusive or unreasonable, and then I enable blocking on the site.
Diabolicat@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You can get NY times for just $4 a month. I personally think it’s worth it.
Trekman10@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
When I had more income I paid for the NYT, but tbh they’ve made enough questionable editorial decisions lately that I’ve decided it wasn’t worth it. The Guardian isn’t paywalled at least.
Reliant1087@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I’m perfectly willing to pay what I pay for the actual news paper for the subscription. The subscription turns out to be about 10x.
BurtReynoldsMustache@lemmy.world 1 year ago
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.
NENathaniel@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
Well there are 3 alternatives.
Ads, which everyone on here would endorse blocking, so that’s out.
All journalism becomes volunteer work, 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.
Smoogs@lemmy.world 1 year ago
If I have to pay for it:
If there is a free one with ads:
Wanna regulate? Well. Then. Let’s regulate.
NathanielThomas@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Journalism being private run has created the situation we’re in though.
NENathaniel@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
There are tons of countries that already have national and local publicly-funded news networks. Is your solution to move every currently private network to a public-funded model?
Cause to me that sounds like it sounds very expensive, and more importantly, very dangerous to give governments such extreme levels of control over information.
TheSaneWriter@lemmy.thesanewriter.com 1 year ago
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.
hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
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.
NENathaniel@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
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
masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 year ago
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.
dx1@lemmy.world 1 year ago
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.
ricdeh@lemmy.world 1 year ago
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.
BigNote@lemm.ee 1 year ago
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.
demlet@lemmy.world 1 year ago
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.
ricdeh@lemmy.world 1 year ago
But what keeps a local newspaper from creating an online service over which the papers can be bought, maybe even for a lower price because manufacturing costs are no longer extant?
Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Because classified ads used to pay for the paper.
Heck, ‘The Advertiser’ used to be a popular name for newspapers.
FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 1 year ago
You would sometimes pick up a newspaper specifically for the ads. You might be looking for a job or a car and that was a good starting place.
Dagwood222@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Back before VCRs were a thing, movies like ‘Deep Throat’ were only available in theaters. The local theaters ran ads for XXX movies on the same pages as the general stuff.
ryathal@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
Newspapers used to be full of ads and were also subscription based. You could buy a one off from a paper for relatively cheap, but their primary income was ads and subscribers.
cloudy1999@sh.itjust.works 1 year 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.