Open Menu
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
lotide
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
Login

So much for that dream.

⁨2559⁩ ⁨likes⁩

Submitted ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨FlyingSquid@lemmy.world⁩ to ⁨mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world⁩

https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/b6b05e5d-1c87-4f71-91da-e80270d44886.png

source

Comments

Sort:hotnewtop
  • geogle@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Charge your phone

    source
    • joelfromaus@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Yes officer, I’d like to charge this phone with battery.

      source
    • jdf038@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I doubt they can read this. Rip ops phone

      source
      • Patariki@feddit.nl ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        OP’s phone kept posting to keep Lemmy active until the bitter end. o7

        source
    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Perhaps he likes to live dangerously, and in the moment?

      source
    • sturdilypop@discuss.online ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      He totally didn’t knew about that

      source
    • nexussapphire@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      It’s giving me Vietnam flashbacks.

      source
  • stealthnerd@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The fall of newspapers led us down the path of click bait, low quality, ad driven “news”. Very few newspapers survived the transition to digital because suddenly nobody wanted to pay for access to something they could get online for free. Those that did survive mostly exist in a much smaller form with low funding and reduced quality.

    Personally, I’m excited to see it becoming more common for people to subscribe to news services again. I just wish there was more diversity and competition available like there was in the past but I’m hopeful we’ll get there as more people seem to be opening back up to paying for high quality publications.

    High quality journalism can’t exist without paid subscribers but there are still ways to access it for those who can’t afford it, visiting a local library for example.

    source
    • Holyhandgrenade@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I know “state-funded media” is an ominous word to Americans, but most European countries have their own government broadcaster and news organization, entirely funded through taxes.
      Those generally offer high-quality non-biased journalism (of course it’s always based on how authoritarian the government is). The British BBC, the Swedish SVT, the German DW etc. are all publicly owned broadcasting companies.

      source
      • IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        BBC is publicly funded but they collect the money themselves trough the TV license, they are not funded by the government trough taxes and they make a shit ton of money from commercial operations, like selling shows and formats to foreign networks. That’s probably the best way to keep an independent state network with minimal government meddling. Though we’ve seen that individuals with power at the network can bias the news reporting. Like BBC definitely favors the political right.

        source
      • flossdaily@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I think it would be great to publicly fund journalism. And make public funding contingent on whether news sources accurately represent the full substance of their source material, practiced evidence-based fact-checking, and had rules to prevent the selective application of either of those first two conditions, and by omission bias their audience.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • Whooping_Seal@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        The other nice thing for “state funded media” is they often have translations for international audiences

        For example CBC / Radio-Canada also have an international page, Radio-Canada International offered in English, French, Spanish, Chinese, Arabic etc.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • STRIKINGdebate2@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Journalism student here. Tbh in my experience I have come to the conclusion that news stations should never be state owned. I think state funding for news is good but I think the best solution is a non profit ngo group running the news. When the government owns the news they can change the news and manipulate what facts get shown as is the case with the BBC.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • NathanielThomas@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Or the CBC across the border. Also, PBS in their own country. Or TV Ontario. All public and successful broadcasters.

        source
      • bakachu@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        I honestly don’t think this is a bad idea for the US…for now at least. Right now your typical options for official statements from government leaders are either through (1) politically polarized media like CNN or Fox, (2) paid subscription to better journalism, or (3) social media monopolies like Twitter (X) and Instagram. Can we really not fund something entirely independent of a mega-corporation to get official info out?

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • nan@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        The US government broadcaster is the Voice of . For a long time it was unavailable to Americans (propaganda laws), but is now.

        We also have NPR and public broadcasting, both have news.

        source
    • flossdaily@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Journalism is a public good and should be publicly funded.

      source
      • 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Should have long term funding structures in place (longer than election cycles) so that you dont have different political parties influencing things once elected into power

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • masterspace@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Very few newspapers survived the transition to digital because suddenly nobody wanted to pay for access to something they could get online for free.

      This has nothing to do with click bait low quality ad driven news.

      The cut off of access to information is a fundamental problem of using capitalism to allocate resources in an information economy. Information does not behave the same as matter and energy, it is a fundamentally different physical property of the universe, and unlike matter and energy, it is not conserved and limited in the same way.

      With matter and energy, to replicate it, you need the same amount of resources as the original, if you possess the original, I cannot possess it, and to make a copy I need all the metal /energy that you did to make the first one. But with information, once it exists in a digital format, we can effectively replicate it infinitely and immediately to everyone around the globe, for next to nothing. At a fundamental level, information does not have the same property of scarcity as literally all physical goods.

      And that’s a problem now that we’re trying to use capitalism to fund an information economy. Capitalism is entirely based on the idea of scarce things being valuable; despite everyone needing oxygen / air to live, it is not valuable in most places because it is not scarce.

      So what has happened? Did we act intelligently and back up and examine whether capitalism is the right system of resource allocation for the information economy? No. We had fistedly spend billions and billions of dollars and wasted millions of people’s lives building the copyright system, and the patent system, and paywalls and DRM all in the pursuit of creating artificial scarcity where there was never a need for it.

      source
    • Spicylem@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I do agree that more competition with enough subscribers is better. I wish more regional “papers” had been able to convert. I live in a large city with a terrible paper and would gladly pay for better local news and Journalism.

      The trouble is it’s hard to subscribe to every paper. I like that you at least get a handful of free times articles.

      Medium attempts to provide quality work paid directly to the writers and journalists but it’s hard for them to do big projects.

      Several universities and business schools provide op-ed type pieces.

      source
    • ineedaunion@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Agree, yet disagree. That article on Suits that shows what the writers got paid vs the views vs the amount of money executives get, shows that all we need to do is get the money into the hand of the deserving people instead of the billionaire stockholders.

      source
  • NENathaniel@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

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

    source
    • 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.

      source
      • 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.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • 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.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • 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.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • 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.

        source
      • 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.

        source
    • eestileib@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I do pay for my local paper, cable, spotify, disney+, Netflix until a few months ago…

      Only do much blood in this here stone.

      source
      • 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.

        source
      • 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.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • 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.

      source
      • 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?

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • 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.

        source
      • 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

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • MaxPow3r11@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      If you are defending ADS (of all things) you are definitely part of the problem.

      source
      • 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

        source
      • 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?

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • 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.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • 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.

      source
      • Trekman10@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Firefox has an autoplay block setting, and I’ve never had it fail me.

        source
      • 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.

        source
    • Diabolicat@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      You can get NY times for just $4 a month. I personally think it’s worth it.

      source
      • 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.

        source
    • 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.

      source
  • Arsenal4ever@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Facts are behind a paywall and bullshit flows for free.

    source
    • notabird@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      There is a reason for it, isn’t there? Bullshit is motivated to manipulate, and spread propaganda. While, truth based journalism needs professionals to do due diligence. While we can argue for better journalism, wishing for everything to be free ain’t gonna work.

      Unless we are okay with… Ads. We won’t tolerate that either, would we?

      source
    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      NYT has a lot of bullshit tbf

      source
      • Arsenal4ever@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        This is why we can’t have nice things.

        source
  • Vespair@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It’s not talked about enough how “traditional news” is culpable for the rise of “fake news” by locking vital information and reporting behind exactly these kinds of pay walls, thus causing people to seek alternative free means instead. This is how fake news sites thrive; pushed into the forefront by traditional media who refuse to adapt their business models to the modern landscape.

    source
    • Cataphract@lemmy.ko4abp.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      How do you feel about government subsidies being used to bolster a free press? From past examples like oil, they don’t become a shell company of the governments whims and I feel journalism is just as important to an educated populace in comparison to oil for our commerce.

      source
      • Zengen@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        This actually isnt a terrible strategy. Right now the news sites require profit for survival. Leading them to do well frankly… Whatever it takes to make that happen. Which leads us to the road we are on now. If their survival was subsidized and they were simply paid to provide the service of good journalism. This would be beneficial as journalism at its core is a PUBLIC service. That is currently being sold as a commercial commodity.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • OrnateLuna@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      You can’t have actually free and truthful news as long as people need money to survive

      source
  • Spicylem@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Looks like a login wall. While I get the “joke” or irony, Journalism has never been free. Servers, journalists, investigations, and apps still cost money. So did printing and delivery. There are countless sources of information online so you do not have to join The Times but for some the journalistic value is worth the price.

    Wikipedia offers knowledge to the world for free and are maintained through donation (including myself) and philanthropy. It has its issues but provides free information.

    I think we can a enjoy a variety of options. Paid journalism, ad based news, and “free” community supported. There likely are other models we can adopt.

    Other free sources I use. Roca News app Gabe Fleisher’s Wake up to Politics Knowledge at Wharton

    source
    • NathanielThomas@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Journalism has never been free.

      When i was a kid if you hit the newspaper box just right with your fist it would open and you’d get a free paper.

      Sure, I’d only read the comics section…

      source
    • Carighan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Aye, very much this.

      I don’t know it is in other countries but here in Germany some “baseline” news is provided from money collected via a tax, which is very awesome as it ensures everyone has access to at least some news source. On top of that there’s Wikipedia, as you say, but beyond that everyone still has to be aware that investigative journalism takes a lot of time and effort.

      source
    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      This is an inherent problem with the concept of free information. I would love universal and free information, but that doesn’t take into consideration that quality information requires labor. Wikipedia isn’t free of that either, the labor is just largely unpaid.

      At the end of the day, we need to pay journalists, editors, curators, and contributors. If you want quality news, you need quality people. And to get quality people, you need generous compensation, whether that comes from subscriptions, advertisements, or taxes.

      source
  • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    That was the dream… Now it’s…

    Holy shit, someone get this man a charging cable.

    source
    • Tangent5280@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Now it makes sense. The dream of universal access to knowledge was actually the iphone’s - and it was because the phone was dying, and seeing death visions, like life flashing before it’s eyes.

      source
  • focalors@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Bypass Paywalls Clean will do the job for you.

    source
    • Trekman10@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      How long before this goes the way of 12ft.io

      source
      • Dogeek@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        What’s wrong with 12ft?

        source
        • -> View More Comments
      • fleetw16@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        What’s 12ft.io?

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • Zuberi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Came here to post this

      source
  • solidsnake2085@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    A former newspaper.

    source
  • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    It’s not a paywall, just a login wall. The account is free. Still funny however.

    source
    • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Hopefully when you log in you haven’t reached your limit of free articles for the month if you want to read it.

      source
      • wander1236@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        And that no one else on your public IP has reached it, since it seems to be IP-based.

        There are so many times I try to read an NYT article and it says I’ve reached my limit when I haven’t even visited the site in the past month.

        source
        • -> View More Comments
  • qjkxbmwvz@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Just curious — how would you like this to work? If you want high quality journalism, you need to pay journalists.

    You can pay them through ads, but 1) this is annoying, and 2) people just install ad blockers.

    You can have state-sponsored media, which can work reasonably well…or can end up a propaganda machine.

    Or…you can pay.

    Journalism is not a crazy lucrative career for most. Financially, most of the folks writing for NYT would be better off in PR — and I don’t think that’s a good thing for society.

    source
    • Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      You need to earn my trust if you want me to pay.

      Many of these legacy media outlets are demanding Netflix-level fees for fanfic level content.

      source
      • wahming@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        The NYT is one of the biggest, most recognised publications worldwide. If they don’t meet your requirements, I don’t think that’s a realistic expectation

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • FlyingSquid@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Or you can have voluntary sponsorship like NPR has done for decades and has high quality journalism because of it. Yes, they get a tiny bit of government money. Nowhere near enough to operate on. And they get corporate sponsors. Who they report against when they have a story about.

      source
    • lemmyman@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      As a paying NYT subscriber, I’d just like to add that unfortunately they still advertise to me.

      source
  • InternetTubes@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Sort of feel that dream really went downhill fast the moment troll factories and Cambridge Analytica / Emerdata showed how much it could be milked and paved the way for the expansions on doing it.

    source
  • ricdeh@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    You should charge your battery, sir!

    source
  • Adalast@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I choose to believe the author did this intentionally.

    source
  • virtualbriefcase@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Pro tip: Adblock + JavaScript disabled (Ublock Origin can do both) will block most paywalls

    source
  • CrypticFawn@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    We need a Netflix for online journalism/news. I’m happy to pay for my news… But I’m tired of subscriptions for everything. And basically all the major news organizations want their own damn subscriptions.

    source
  • NounsAndWords@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    You should look for an archive (dot) today that can get you around those paywalls.

    source
  • WtfEvenIsExistence@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The secret ingredient… is crime:

    archive.is/oE6m7

    Also, I didn’t see a paywall / login wall even when visiting directly

    source
  • jet@hackertalks.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    “democracy dies in darkness…”

    Is my favorite ironic walled garden gate keeping paywall byline… I think the Washington post uses it.

    It wouldn’t be so dark if the paywall wasn’t blocking the light…

    source
  • mrginger@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    All this talk of state-sponsored/subsidized news/media gives me the wiggins, at least as someone who lives in the US. I’m sure people smarter than myself could come up with a bullet proof system to prevent abuse, but really, I would have little faith it would stand the test of time. I feel like any protections you put in place would be eroded eventually. Maybe I’m wrong. It just feels so 1984ish.

    source
  • Bitlummo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    12ft.io is a really good site for getting around these kinds of paywalls.

    source
  • jayandp@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I wish I could just pay per article sometimes. Let the subscription be optional for people who read a lot from that source.

    source
  • Meas34Melon45@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I fucking hate this bullshit!

    source
  • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Once upon a time tabloids were a joke and everyone knew they were a joke.

    And then one day tabloids just became news sources and everyone decided their publishings were journalism.

    source
  • b3an@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    http://archive.today/bguar

    source
  • Jackthelad@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    You won’t obtain much in the way of knowledge from the NYT anyway.

    source
  • faintedheart@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    That person who took the screenshot doesn’t care about anything in his life. Look at his phone’s charge.

    source
  • outer_spec@lemmy.studio ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Just download Firefox, install UBlock Origin, and disable JavaScript.

    source
  • biofaust@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    News, and I would argue journalism in general, is not what the term knowledge is referring to in that sentence.

    source
-> View More Comments