[-] xor 3 points 1 day ago

They're both the respective heads of state, and they're both not members of the legislative branches.

So yeah, in this context they are effectively the same.

[-] xor 4 points 1 day ago

I wasn't claiming that he hasn't been the president of France; I did, in fact, notice.

I said that's not what the president of France does.

It's like getting mad at the King of England for Canadian laws, that's just not his responsibility, even if he is head of state.

[-] xor 8 points 1 day ago

There's loads of issues with Macron, but I don't see how he's responsible for any of the above

The president doesn't legislate, and he doesn't command the police, he's the executive head of state.

[-] xor 2 points 2 days ago

I think 3) is a really interesting point, and probably the primary reason why a model like that may be less viable for e.g. the Guardian. I think having that parasocial relationship is key to having people take interest enough to be willing to pay for the extra content around the main news output. My concern is that a model like that might incentivise being intentionally divisive and/or making the main content be more like entertainment than information.

[-] xor 5 points 2 days ago

I think that's largely for the same reason; their legal obligations to ensure they don't facilitate illegal stuff means that the risk of working with companies that do e.g. amateur porn makes the potential consequences (financial processing ban, i.e. effectively the entire company being shut down) massively outweigh the potential benefits.

So you're right that PH's legal liability was part of the reasoning, but that pressure largely came from payment processors, for whom the legal consequences are more severe.

[-] xor 9 points 2 days ago

Sure, personalised ads can be seen as a form of an invasion of privacy, and everybody has a right to not engage with any organisation for any reason they like. But ads are an imperfect solution to the fact that it's impossible to run a news organisation at that scale on voluntary donations and un-personalised ads alone, and it's definitely preferable (in my view, at least) to having a total paywall.

Unless you have an innovative alternative income source to propose, I'm not sure I see what alternative there is.

[-] xor 24 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Respectfully, your argument seems to simultaneously be that they:

a) need a better source of income, because ads and subscriptions aren't raising enough revenue

b) are acting unreasonably by asking you to allow them to use one of those revenue sources

"Would you rather pay for this service, or have ads on it?" Doesn't seem like an unreasonable ask, frankly. Especially given that it can be trivially avoided with an ad blocker, anyway, and will not prohibit you from reading the article if you do so (this, to me, is the key difference compared to other outlets that have similar requirements).

As far as I can tell, their statement was that they will always make the content available for free. Serving that content with some ads alongside it doesn't violate that policy.

Edit: as an aside, having "my one news source" is a bad way to engage with the media. Every source will have their own priority, biases, errors and blind spots that will change over time; you should have a diverse set of sources, ideally with different mediums.

Per the above, here's some of the sources in my media diet, in no particular order: The Guardian, Byline Times, TLDR News, BBC News (digital & radio), Al Jazeera, Le Monde, the UN, Novara Media, PoliticsJOE, New York Times, Reuters, AP, Financial Times, Bellingcat

Edit: wrt "Centralist [sic] bore me", yeah, sometimes a reasonable take on the news is boring, but important nonetheless. Sorry 🤷

[-] xor 84 points 3 months ago

Worst. Coup d'etat. Ever.

[-] xor 83 points 8 months ago

That still doesn't prove the claim "America was always fascist"

Partially because being copied by the Nazis doesn't intrinsically mean you're fascist (they copied a hell of a lot of things, including but not limited to fascism)

And partially because that doesn't cover the "always" part at all

[-] xor 108 points 1 year ago

Amusingly, even the russian government corrected him on that too - to paraphrase, "we have lots of requests to interview Putin, he just doesn't want to do it"

[-] xor 71 points 1 year ago

But this isn't an M rated game, it's a transformative new technology with potentially horrifying consequences to misuse

[-] xor 150 points 1 year ago

And its cousin "yes, but your browser doesn't have the right DRM software embedded in it, go fuck yourself"

view more: next ›

xor

joined 2 years ago