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.
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.
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.
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 🤷
No, it isn’t. Acknowledging that a strategy is ideal for the people executing it isn’t the same as agreeing with that strategy.
In fact, the idiom “a perfect storm” refers to a disastrous situation caused by a combination of multiple problems. You wouldn’t argue that using that phrase means you support the disaster.
Can you elaborate on what you mean by web tech? I don’t know much about how matrix works
In the British monarchy, the monarch (“the Crown”) and the person who is the current monarch are considered distinct “people” with their own separate possessions (i.e. King Charles as the Crown owns property separately to Charles Windsor the private citizen).
So these oaths are meant to be pledging loyalty to the Crown, in its role as the embodiment of the British state, as opposed to the king personally.
The commons library is a treasure trove of information about the UK’s fascinating and complex constitution, I’d strongly recommend giving it a read if you’re interested in this sort of stuff!
Commons Library: the Crown and the constitution
In particular, I’d recommend checking out The United Kingdom constitution – a mapping exercise, which is a document intended to be a reasonably thorough summary of the UK’s constitution and where it comes from. It’s ~300 pages so I wouldn’t recommend reading the whole thing, but it’s great as a reference for the parts you find interesting.
I’ll be the guy who suggests the unusual options, then:
a steam controller; they take some getting used to, but they have some really nice quality of life features that nothing else has (mouse control via the joystick pads, and the paddles on the back!) and are ideal for bigger hands as it’s nice and chunky. They’re built specifically for PC use, so the support is as good as it gets. I think they don’t feel as “premium” as they’re quite lightweight plastic as opposed to the heavy metal of e.g. Xbox elite
the Nintendo Switch Pro controller; this one wins on the durability front imo, all Nintendo’s stuff is built to survive children, so they do a lot of drop testing, pouring drinks over it, basically all those fun things kids like to do to your expensive toys
That’s a very silly take
I wonder how differently the last US election would have played out if Murdoch had died before campaign season
Going to have a big party when he finally goes and joins Reagan in hell
It’s nice that this exists these days, but my god is it horrendously unreadable at a glance
I’m such a dunce, I didn’t spot your username 🤦
Thought I was asking a db0 random, not the NaN himself
Slightly off topic, is db0 one of the anarchist instances you’re referring to? I know it’s a generally leftist instance, but don’t know much more detail than that
Let’s go look at your comment history and check, shall we?
Defending yourself and launching invasions or orchestrating soldiers are two different things
It’s not defending yourself if you have an army! What a great take 👍
it sounds like the government is giving out plans and commanding the army. The government of ukraine and people from ukraine are two different things. When people ask what’s the alternative to send billions to the ukrainian government what they need to understand is that people can defend themself even without an authority on top of them playing war games with soldiers and possibly forcing conscript to go on missions
Oh, why did Ukraine never consider magically winning the war by sheer willpower instead of this “having an army” nonsense, smart!
I’m not twisting anything. Context matters, and the context of your post was you throwing a tantrum after around 10 different Lemmy users calling out your bad takes.
If you believe not being drafted blah blah blah
That’s not what I said at all, mere moments after you accused me of “twisting” what you said. What I said, louder for the people in the back is BEING UNABLE TO FIGHT BACK IN THE ENEMY’S TERRITORY, BEING DISALLOWED TO RECEIVE FOREIGN AID AND BEING DISALLOWED TO FORM AN ACTUAL ARMY is the equivalent of rolling over and dying.
The issue, from what I can tell, is that the question you’ve asked here doesn’t match the argument you just had in comments of a post about about the Ukraine war. The argument you were trying to make is not “war bad”, but specifically that Ukraine’s counteroffensive is bad. You were additionally arguing that it is morally reprehensible for other countries to provide economic support to Ukraine rather than leaving them to “defend themselves”.
There’s a few important details that such an argument (intentionally) ignores.
The combination of your proposals that Ukraine should not proactively fight back, and that they should lose access to the resources that would allow them to continue to defend their territory end us meaning that Ukraine would not be able to effectively defend itself.
From reading your comments alongside this post, it seems that the title should actually be “how do you make someone understand that rolling over and dying is good”, to which the answer is “oh fuck off mate”
And how do the gay paedophile heretics fit into your overarching problem?
I thought Putin said it was because “Ukraine is a neo-nazi regime”?
No, wait, he said it was because the west were using Ukraine to base their weapons
Oh, nevermind, I forgot that there is no such thing as Ukraine, it’s all part of Russia
Oh, or is it because the west are gay paedophilic gender-neutral-god-worshipping heathens
Or was it because Ukraine was planning to pretend Russia nuked them first so that they could actually declare war on Russia
Ah, was it to defend Donetsk and Luhansk’s independence? Or are they part of Russia?
Or is it that Ukraine has a government with no control, where the streets of Kiev are a lawless purge?
I seem to have lost track of why he’s invading. Could you clarify for me?
As a more serious aside to the above, it is generally worth paying a bit of attention to which instance other users you interact with. There’s obviously no blanket statement you can make about the users of particular instances, but there are definitely certain instances that are more appealing to… certain groups of users.
lemmy.ml in particular has a bit of a reputation for having tankies on it, but there’s lots of very interesting and reasonable people there (or here, I suppose, given this is an ml community), also.