4 ms·

This is the future if everything has to be free. Since you can't make money by creating content for readers, you have to instead create content for advertisers

by api 11y ago

This is the future if everything has to be free. Since you can't make money by creating content for readers, you have to instead create content for advertisers and propagandists.

williamcotton 11y ago
The future is already here: http://shonduras.com/ http://shonduras.com/ If you want to experience the magic of Disney from your phone following Shonduras is a must! He has teamed up with Disney multiple times to make interactive snapchat stories throughout their parks. Shonduras and AT&T are joining forces to bring you the AT&T Hello Lab! Over the course of the year Shonduras is leading an innovative series, live experiences, albums, giveaways, podcasts and more. Follow along and see what he’s creating in the AT&T Hello Lab.
jacquesm 11y ago
There is plenty of content that will always be free and free of advertising. That's content made by people who either care about a subject or that are otherwise given the feeling that they contribute to something larger than themselves (wikipedia for instance, plenty of blogs, courses and so on). The problem is that newspapers evolved in lock-step with the advertising industry and that they had carved out an - in retrospect - extremely fragile position based on a balance that they thought was stable. Unfortunately for many quality news publications it turned out that wasn't the only stable state, the other one is the state in which they are simply gone, maybe a few with hopefully benevolent wealthy sponsors would endure. This was an unforeseen consequence of reducing the value of printing presses to near zero. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_Digital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_Digital Pretty much predicted this, the only thing it got wrong was the timetable, it took a little bit longer. So now the question is do enough people actually put enough value on real news to employ journalists to do their work. Right now it looks bleak.
- scholia 11y ago
  The problem is that the content that's "free and free of advertising" probably won't be very good, or very well researched, or independent. High quality content often depends on access (which can be hard or impossible to get even if you're a real journalist), a lot of time, and quite a lot of input from support staff (editors, subeditors, researchers, picture editors etc). > So now the question is do enough people actually put enough value on real news to employ journalists to do their work. Right now it looks bleak. Agreed.
  - Godel_unicode 11y ago
    If by content you mean specifically news and product reviews, that's certainly possible. If by content you mean "long-form writing on a specific subject", then you're quite wrong and the parent is right. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/ http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/ High quality content comes from two sources, similar to high quality software. It either comes from an organization which makes and sells high quality content to make money (the new York times::Microsoft) or it comes from individual contributors who create it out of passion for the subject (wikipedia::FSF)
    - scholia 11y ago
      People will produce "long-form writing on a specific subject" but usually only if they have an axe to grind. They are not necessarily independent and their work is not necessarily subject to the editorial checks and balances that you get from a properly set up news organisation like, for example, the New York Times. You're moving from a situation where stuff is mostly trustworthy to mostly untrustworthy. Free software is not a good analogy. It works regardless of the social and political opinions of the people who write it. I don't think it would have as many users if this were not the case ;-)
      - pjc50 11y ago
        Free software is not a good analogy. It works regardless of the social and political opinions of the people who write it. This is completely false: every act of writing or releasing Free software is a political act. That's the point of doing it, of giving your labour away. Free software only exists because of the social and political opinions of its authors.
        slackstation 11y ago
        "Everything is political" is fine in theory but, the reality is that Rails or Node.js or Bash or Linux works equally well for dictatorship filtering the internet and the dissident speaking out despite it. Software is a tool. The idea that hammer is imbued with the political views of the person who crafted it is a bit of romantic mysticism. The political actor is the person using the software. To put it another way, if my software cared what my political opinions were, it wouldn't be used. One of the greatest freedoms afforded me by Free Software is freedom from others' political opinions on how to use said software.

by api 11y ago

This is the future if everything has to be free. Since you can't make money by creating content for readers, you have to instead create content for advertisers and propagandists.

williamcotton 11y ago

The future is already here: http://shonduras.com/ http://shonduras.com/ If you want to experience the magic of Disney from your phone following Shonduras is a must! He has teamed up with Disney multiple times to make interactive snapchat stories throughout their parks. Shonduras and AT&T are joining forces to bring you the AT&T Hello Lab! Over the course of the year Shonduras is leading an innovative series, live experiences, albums, giveaways, podcasts and more. Follow along and see what he’s creating in the AT&T Hello Lab.

jacquesm 11y ago

There is plenty of content that will always be free and free of advertising. That's content made by people who either care about a subject or that are otherwise given the feeling that they contribute to something larger than themselves (wikipedia for instance, plenty of blogs, courses and so on). The problem is that newspapers evolved in lock-step with the advertising industry and that they had carved out an - in retrospect - extremely fragile position based on a balance that they thought was stable. Unfortunately for many quality news publications it turned out that wasn't the only stable state, the other one is the state in which they are simply gone, maybe a few with hopefully benevolent wealthy sponsors would endure. This was an unforeseen consequence of reducing the value of printing presses to near zero. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_Digital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_Digital Pretty much predicted this, the only thing it got wrong was the timetable, it took a little bit longer. So now the question is do enough people actually put enough value on real news to employ journalists to do their work. Right now it looks bleak.

scholia 11y ago
The problem is that the content that's "free and free of advertising" probably won't be very good, or very well researched, or independent. High quality content often depends on access (which can be hard or impossible to get even if you're a real journalist), a lot of time, and quite a lot of input from support staff (editors, subeditors, researchers, picture editors etc). > So now the question is do enough people actually put enough value on real news to employ journalists to do their work. Right now it looks bleak. Agreed.
- Godel_unicode 11y ago
  If by content you mean specifically news and product reviews, that's certainly possible. If by content you mean "long-form writing on a specific subject", then you're quite wrong and the parent is right. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/ http://ilpubs.stanford.edu:8090/422/ High quality content comes from two sources, similar to high quality software. It either comes from an organization which makes and sells high quality content to make money (the new York times::Microsoft) or it comes from individual contributors who create it out of passion for the subject (wikipedia::FSF)
  - scholia 11y ago
    People will produce "long-form writing on a specific subject" but usually only if they have an axe to grind. They are not necessarily independent and their work is not necessarily subject to the editorial checks and balances that you get from a properly set up news organisation like, for example, the New York Times. You're moving from a situation where stuff is mostly trustworthy to mostly untrustworthy. Free software is not a good analogy. It works regardless of the social and political opinions of the people who write it. I don't think it would have as many users if this were not the case ;-)
    - pjc50 11y ago
      Free software is not a good analogy. It works regardless of the social and political opinions of the people who write it. This is completely false: every act of writing or releasing Free software is a political act. That's the point of doing it, of giving your labour away. Free software only exists because of the social and political opinions of its authors.
      - slackstation 11y ago
        "Everything is political" is fine in theory but, the reality is that Rails or Node.js or Bash or Linux works equally well for dictatorship filtering the internet and the dissident speaking out despite it. Software is a tool. The idea that hammer is imbued with the political views of the person who crafted it is a bit of romantic mysticism. The political actor is the person using the software. To put it another way, if my software cared what my political opinions were, it wouldn't be used. One of the greatest freedoms afforded me by Free Software is freedom from others' political opinions on how to use said software.