They said "they're probably one of those privacy weirdos", which is different.
I value privacy and am conscious of it, more so than the average user. I choose, willingly and knowingly, to use certain services that damage my privacy in exchange for their services.
The "privacy weirdos" are the people who see that statement and go "well you shouldn't ever be using service x because it's not secure you stupid dipshit! Just use service y, it's FOSS and has half the features but it respects privacy so it's better in every way!"
Dunno how the person got "I'm a privacy nut" from "ads aren't good for journalism" tho, that doesn't track
They should be preaching their privacy thingies to the people in real life, not on the internet 🙄 for maximum reach, like how the evangelists do.
Agreed. Lemmy shall be the tool to increase Linux adoption.
Our fediverse comrade
Da!
I mean, for some of the stuff I've seen here I wouldn't even necessarily disagree with a comment like this but the OP saying advertising violates journalistic integrity has literally nothing to do with that. That's just common sense.
"People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs."
– Banksy
So you think they should just make no money because you're mildly inconvenienced?
I’m not saying they aren’t allowed to show ads, but I am saying that once they do, they are no longer allowed to refer to themselves as independent.
No company that wants to advertise on your website is stupid enough to sign away editorial control, i.e. once you agree to display their ads, you are no longer allowed to say anything bad about them. And even if they did, there’s still the looming risk that if you do, they are well within their rights to pull their ads and there goes your income.
If you’re going to show ads, be honest to your readers about what that means.
No. If you make money from ads your clients are the adversers and your readers are an asset you seek to capitalize. That is in opposition to journalistic integrity.
And the servers run from exposure?
no, they don't. you (the reader) have to pay for them - if you want to be the client, that is. otherwise you are the goods that is being sold.
somehow I doubt most people on here including you pay for online newsletters.
i do care a lot about your doubts. do you have more of them? 🤣
In opposition to popular sentiment, good journalism actually does make money. It just doesn't make as much money. And bad journalism without advertising makes no money.
I think corporations should be crushed so they are small enough to drown in a dirty used toilet.
Either you pay for access like the good old newspaper by gatekeeping the page or run unrelated ads from google AdWords and get paid by people clicking on them.
Great choice of website:
That is the polar opposite of the truth.
NoteBookCheck is a legit website, what issue do you have with them? I always found their reviews and information and testing to be high quality
This is like shitting on GamersNexus because they removed some shitty product in every video to make money
The dude who wrote the message you responded to is probably a Linux user and privacy weirdo or something.
This is Lemmy. EVERYONE is either a Linux user, a privacy weirdo or both.
Source: I'm both
I showed up because of the IPO at that one website.
Me, the laziest person ever, motivated to come here. Truly an accomplishment.
Neither of them.
I appreciate more privacy but I will not limit or even chastize myself.
If neither, may I introduce you to our Lord savior Linus Torvalds?
...we need normal people on this platform...
I can understand the Linux part not being common.
But to say privacy is a weird thing is really sad. The average person should go out of their way to be privacy-conscious. In the US, we got people getting arrested for miscarriage, people getting on lists for watching YouTube videos/, and companies now getting people's ID before they can visit a site.
Not being privacy-conscious is just being stupid.
That's not what was said.
They said "they're probably one of those privacy weirdos", which is different.
I value privacy and am conscious of it, more so than the average user. I choose, willingly and knowingly, to use certain services that damage my privacy in exchange for their services.
The "privacy weirdos" are the people who see that statement and go "well you shouldn't ever be using service x because it's not secure you stupid dipshit! Just use service y, it's FOSS and has half the features but it respects privacy so it's better in every way!"
Dunno how the person got "I'm a privacy nut" from "ads aren't good for journalism" tho, that doesn't track
They should be preaching their privacy thingies to the people in real life, not on the internet 🙄 for maximum reach, like how the evangelists do.
Agreed. Lemmy shall be the tool to increase Linux adoption.
Our fediverse comrade
Da!
I mean, for some of the stuff I've seen here I wouldn't even necessarily disagree with a comment like this but the OP saying advertising violates journalistic integrity has literally nothing to do with that. That's just common sense.
"People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs."
– Banksy
So you think they should just make no money because you're mildly inconvenienced?
I’m not saying they aren’t allowed to show ads, but I am saying that once they do, they are no longer allowed to refer to themselves as independent.
No company that wants to advertise on your website is stupid enough to sign away editorial control, i.e. once you agree to display their ads, you are no longer allowed to say anything bad about them. And even if they did, there’s still the looming risk that if you do, they are well within their rights to pull their ads and there goes your income.
If you’re going to show ads, be honest to your readers about what that means.
No. If you make money from ads your clients are the adversers and your readers are an asset you seek to capitalize. That is in opposition to journalistic integrity.
And the servers run from exposure?
no, they don't. you (the reader) have to pay for them - if you want to be the client, that is. otherwise you are the goods that is being sold.
somehow I doubt most people on here including you pay for online newsletters.
i do care a lot about your doubts. do you have more of them? 🤣
In opposition to popular sentiment, good journalism actually does make money. It just doesn't make as much money. And bad journalism without advertising makes no money.
I think corporations should be crushed so they are small enough to drown in a dirty used toilet.
Either you pay for access like the good old newspaper by gatekeeping the page or run unrelated ads from google AdWords and get paid by people clicking on them.