A.I. Is Making the Sexual Exploitation of Girls Even Worse
nytimes.com
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
A.I. Is Making the Sexual Exploitation of Girls Even Worse::Parents, schools and our laws need to catch up to technology, fast.
Paywall. Nope. Exploit those girls with your AI then. The messages against it can't be heard without money.
Why do you think that journalists don't deserve to get paid? People on Lemmy are even more entitled than people on Reddit.
You shouldn't need an article to tell you not to exploit people.
Hey can you put that comment behind a paywall? I don't want to read it
they didn't say that. you're making a leap of logic and putting words in their mouth
Obviously they didn't say exactly that, but how else are they supposed to earn money?
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.
What ads? I don't see any ads.
Their privacy policy also doesn't seem too bad compared to most services.
What are you talking about? Do you think a 170 year old newspaper is an exit scam designed to get personal data, sell it, and then fuck off?
Novara media stream 6pm weekdays on YouTube, UK based news, free but with a supporter donation model
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.
sell their stories to newspapers
And those newspapers make money through magic?
Advertising?
Ads that pay enough are quite terrible for privacy though and why should manipulative ads be the only way you are allowed to finance your news? Plus the fact that a lot of people use adblockers (me included)
I agree that paywalls are annoying I also like free stuff, but crying about it like they did is just so entitled.
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?
25 USD? I pay 3
USDEUR for their everything included tier.The question is if a service should be priced for those that very rarely use it.
No other subscription is priced in a way that assumes that you will use it once a month.
You can also read like 5 articles a month for free if you registered.
Btw New York Times has a feature where any paid subscriber can "gift" an article to anybody so they can read it for free without registering or it counting toward the free limit. You can gift 10 articles every calendar month and there is seemingly no limit to how many can use one gift link. The links expire after 30 days though. Which I think is fair enough.
I have already posted a gift link above if you want to read the article.
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.
Yet you want ads lol.
Why would you pay full price? It's way cheaper to find a good deal and then cancel after it runs out and then renew when they offer you the deal again, because they likely will.
If paywalls are just as bad as ads, I'm assuming you just want it for free.
Again, it's just an entitled attitude.
I’d rather not waste my time chasing around deals when paywall bypasses exist.
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.
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.
I'm not experiencing any cognitive dissonance. I said what I meant.
Isn't most things in life restricted on ones ability or will to pay?
this seems like an is/ought problem
Hence why I don't own hardly anything, fuck consumerism
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.
Sure, but don't people that write important messages deserve to live?
I've never been paid for mine. Get a job.
Being a journalist is their job.
Why do you think that journalists don't deserve to live by being journalists?
Why don't you do your job for free? Why don't doctors work for free if their job is so important.
Also, where are your alleged "important messages"? I would like to read them.
Btw, I had never heard of your Karl guy but he does get paid for his work. Because of course he does. He even has a patreon.
And I wouldn't really call talking about speedruns to be important messages.
Think I should be paid for when I just do what's right when it's right? Rewarded maybe but idk about as a profession. Open source devs rarely get a payroll and they contribute to the world far more than payroll devs. Information is only good when it's free.