• N-E-N@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    105
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

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

    • BurtReynoldsMustache@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      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.

      • N-E-N@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        49
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        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, running off of optional donations, 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.

        • Smoogs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          25
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          If I have to pay for it:

          • it cannot be sensationalized. It cannot even veer mildly from the found facts.
          • it cannot be filled with agenda bias
          • it cannot hold any false, non peer reviewed information
          • they have to pay their sources. And They have to pay their sources well. Especially the ones who are expected to uphold to peer reviews (science journalists, I’m looking at you)

          If there is a free one with ads:

          • ads cannot fabricate their facts either.

          Wanna regulate? Well. Then. Let’s regulate.

          • N-E-N@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            There are tons of countries that already have national and local publicly-funded news networks. Is your solution to move every currently private network to a public-funded model?

            Cause to me that sounds like it sounds very expensive, and more importantly, very dangerous to give governments such extreme levels of control over information.

              • Trekman10@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                The same issue applies to government-run news too. You see it with the BBC as a government owned and funded institution. It’s domestic UK news is pro-Monarchy, pro-Tory, and this is because of how it’s set up.

                Private news media, when there’s a lot of it, tends to be less biased in the end because they’re trying to compete with each other, meaning they can’t go too far in one overt political slant. When one person controls more and has a wider reach, that dynamic becomes less important as they gain greater control over where journalists go and what events they cover.

                I support public news media, but community-owned papers would avoid the monopolistic issue of either corporate consolidation or a government funded alternative.

                • Richard@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I think the best solution would be to just have the best of both worlds, wouldn’t it? We could attempt to create a balanced environment of specially funded public media and nuanced private news companies.

                  • Trekman10@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Removing the need for existing newspapers to rely on advertising to keep costs low enough for the consumer to be able to purchase an issue would go very far.

                    The problem has always been that the academic or “platonic” ideal of journalism as this “objective, 4th estate” that “speaks truth to power” has always been at odds with the costs of doing business. In fact, the first newspapers were owned by Political Parties and wore their affiliations on their sleeves. Switching to advertiser-supported models enabled more independence from political parties in the 1800s.

                    What’s also true is that most local newspapers (heck, papers in general) are at least on paper, objective in the sense that their journalists are free to pursue and write the stories they want using their professional judgment.

        • hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          Here in Finland we have YLE, and it has news, movies/shows, documentaries, radio/podcasts etc. It is funded with tax money, and I consider the two biggest pros to be that news and more are easily accessible for free to anyone and that since YLE isn’t trying to profit from journalism, there are no clickbait headlines. Though, the worst flaw is that goverment-funded journalism is prone to propaganda, and once you control the media, you control the whole country, so people need to be very careful.

          • N-E-N@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yea that’s precisely it. Publicly-funded media definitely can be the best option, but there’s always risks it can fall into pure propaganda some day

            • Trekman10@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              You can always have it be publicly funded but managed by a non profit designated by the government, and make it organized in such a way that if a politician or government institution had a problem with some reporting, there’s nothing they can do.

              The same concerns about editorial independence and human fallacy apply in the private sector top. There has always been pressure between the editorial, marketing, and journalist parts of newspapers.

              • Richard@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The problem with this is that a government could simply decide to cut the funds for public media if there are views contrary to the executive branch and thereby establish a degree of control. An approach to mitigating this attack vector would be to do it like Germany does, collecting a special fee independently of the taxes that goes directly to the news organisations. This means that the parliament cannot control or withhold the funding of the public media unless there were a major legislation change, which would have to be the will of the majority of the population.

        • TheSaneWriter@lemmy.thesanewriter.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can avoid the risk of tax-funded journalism by making it so that even though they’re government subsidized they’re still independent. There are multiple potential ways to evaluate which journalistic entities qualify for government funding, all with pros and cons, but it could work.

        • masterspace@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think you’re missing a potential 4th one, though I’m not 100% convinced as to its feasibility, but a Universal Basic Income and greater societal wealth redistribution raises the bottom so much that everyone can easily afford 30 news subscriptions.

          Though personally I think more arms length public funding is the better option since the incentives of capitalism often don’t align with the incentives of high quality journalism.

          • persolb
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I love the idea of UBI. But I can’t help but worry I’m wrong.

            My love for UBI assumes that idle hands will make themselves useful in productive, please or at least non-destructive ways.

            I’m not clear I can justify that

            • TurtlePower@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I certainly can’t speak for anyone else, but personally I would be useful in productive ways. I went through a period of every nerds’ dream of staying home and playing video games all the time and it drove me nuts. Yeah, it was nice for a little while, but not having the money to go anywhere or do anything made me look forward to working again. If I’d have had money, I would not have been home very much.

              • persolb
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I did that too; it was during Covid :)

                I think/acted similar to you… which is why I think we might all be common minding.

                That said, people that aren’t motivated to do good things are most likely motivated to do nothing… so it might not be a big deal if they don’t show up for a job.

                TLDR: fewer workers at Burger King probably would t make service worse

                • TurtlePower@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Eh, the actual problem is that most people are shite.

                  People. What a bunch of bastards.

            • Trekman10@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Very few people honestly want to do nothing. Even the image of the unemployed pot smoker who watched cartoons all day, maybe that person would find fulfillment in art? Or maybe they’re passionate about something important in their community.

            • masterspace@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              My love for UBI assumes that idle hands will make themselves useful in productive, please or at least non-destructive ways.

              There’s still an incentive to work and make more money to better your living situation and contribute productively back to society, but you wouldn’t be as beholden to it.

              Another way to think about it was that in the 50s a single worker could make enough to support a family, whereas these days both parents have to work full time. Providing UBI would be a more equitable way of reducing the reliance on work and increase individual families’ health and well being by providing the baseline financial assistance that would allow one parent to take time off work (or both parents to reduce time at work) to better support their family, community, and social structure.

        • dx1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          All journalism becomes volunteer work, running off of optional donations, which seems unlikely :D

          It’s not quite that simple with PBS or NPR, but that’s the basic idea. Open public funding with no political or corporate control sounds like the safest bet. It’s as viable as people deciding to support it.

          Not sure why you’d think “publicly funded” would seem like the “optimal” option. Same thing structurally as “state-run media”, just friendlier phrasing. If we had direct democracy or something, that might be fine, but the fact that it has to run through politicians and bureaucrats with their own interests/agendas, that completely changes the picture. If you have that federally funded in the U.S., that basically just tucks under the executive branch like almost everything else, meaning it’s just managed by the President, with basically only a paper tiger of regulations preventing interference in place.

          • Richard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            In Germany, the independence of publicly funded media is guaranteed by the payment of a special fee that is collected independently of the normal taxes, and is distributed directly among the public media institutions. No parliament has to approve any funding, the only attack vector would be to change the legislation behind this financing but that would require a parliamentary majority and would therefore have to be the will of the people.

            • dx1@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s better than “all media is run by the Fuhrer” I suppose, but probably still preferable for people to have the choice of which to support.

      • BigNote@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        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.

        • demlet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          I work for a plant that prints local papers. They are an invaluable source of local news, and you are correct, the internet is slowly killing them. It’s a real loss for civic engagement. People really need to pay attention to what’s happening locally. National stories are sexier, but we actually have much more control over what happens in our own neighborhoods and towns.

          • Richard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            But what keeps a local newspaper from creating an online service over which the papers can be bought, maybe even for a lower price because manufacturing costs are no longer extant?

            • demlet@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              They are all trying. I’m honestly not sure yet whether it will work. I hope so.

            • BigNote@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              In a word the answer is cost, or economic viability. Local papers can’t operate for free, even strictly online. It costs money to hire and maintain a functional staff of college-educated reporters and editors who are willing to live and work in small towns and rural communities.

              Without classified ads/advertising, a physical subscription base and real newsstand sales, where is the money supposed to come from?

              The answer is that it’s not there at all, and that’s why local news has basically died over the course of the last two decades.

              If you can think of a new workable revenue model for local news, by all means please do tell. The entire nation is screaming for a solution, though many of us may not know it.

      • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because classified ads used to pay for the paper.

        Heck, ‘The Advertiser’ used to be a popular name for newspapers.

        • FlexibleToast@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          1 year ago

          You would sometimes pick up a newspaper specifically for the ads. You might be looking for a job or a car and that was a good starting place.

          • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Back before VCRs were a thing, movies like ‘Deep Throat’ were only available in theaters. The local theaters ran ads for XXX movies on the same pages as the general stuff.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        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.

      • cloudy1999@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        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.

    • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I do pay for my local paper, cable, spotify, disney+, Netflix…

      Only so much blood in this here stone.

      • Trekman10@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        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.

      • demlet@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        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.

    • SIGSEGV@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      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.

      Advertising shot itself in the foot, and it isn’t our fault for being pushed so far that we’re fed up with it.

      • Noodle07@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unskipable ads when I’m browsing my files on my phone, how fucking obnoxious can you possibly make them?

      • scurry@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        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.

      • N-E-N@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        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

    • FluffyToaster621@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      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.

      • N-E-N@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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.

      • Trekman10@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        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.

    • Reliant1087@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      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.

      • N-E-N@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        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

      • boyi@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        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?

        • dx1@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          There is something wrong with advertising in and of itself. Imagine a sphere of all information available to humans, and inside that sphere there’s a corruption of information that’s deceitful, self-promoting for its originators, in excess of what people actually need to know about specific companies or products, and based on manipulation techniques and de-facto brainwashing. This twists decision-making for the entire society.

          The only defense is that it’s a “necessary evil” because of the perverse economic structures in our society.

          And P.S., the fact something’s been around for a long time is not an ethical defense, and people “unreasonably susceptible to suggestion” (i.e. influenced by ads) are a staggering % of the popularity, probably a majority.