4 ms·

Than it would mean that it shouldn't have been free in the first place. I really can't wait the time you have to pay for most content. It will reduce informati

Than it would mean that it shouldn't have been free in the first place. I really can't wait the time you have to pay for most content. It will reduce informational clutter and improve quality of the content.

blfr 9y ago
Vast majority of people aren't willing to subscribe so Internet outlets will become even more dependent on partisan funding. Many esteemed newspapers are already propaganda arms for their rich benefactors (see WaPo and Bezos) without whom they couldn't keep the lights on. This will only hasten this process for European media. Maybe accelerationism is the right approach here but it is very unlikely to improve quality.
- tyfon 9y ago
  Many countries have laws that prevent media conglomerates like that. Specifically, here in Norway, no entity is allowed to own more than 33% of a media company like a news paper etc.
  - blfr 9y ago
    How does it work? You cannot start a newspaper unless you convince two golf buddies to join you?
- avianlyric 9y ago
  Extreme partisan politics, and it’s associated funding, seems to be a very American thing. Many EU countries (like Germany) have proportional representation systems that eradicate two-party control. Even in the UK where we do have two-party politics, the minor parties still pull in substantial voter share. And you don’t see extreme spending during campaigns. UK politics looks pretty shabby compared to spectacular that is US policial campaigning. Anyway The point I’m trying to make is that publications relying on partisan funding isn’t really a danger in the EU. European media and politics is nothing like the US.
  - blfr 9y ago
    Americans spend a lot on politics because they're much richer than Europeans and can spend a lot on everything. You see it with healthcare, houses, cars... GDP per capita in the US is a third higher than in Germany and the US is four times more populous on top of that. The amount of wealth sloshing over there is incomparable.

blfr 9y ago

Vast majority of people aren't willing to subscribe so Internet outlets will become even more dependent on partisan funding. Many esteemed newspapers are already propaganda arms for their rich benefactors (see WaPo and Bezos) without whom they couldn't keep the lights on. This will only hasten this process for European media. Maybe accelerationism is the right approach here but it is very unlikely to improve quality.

tyfon 9y ago
Many countries have laws that prevent media conglomerates like that. Specifically, here in Norway, no entity is allowed to own more than 33% of a media company like a news paper etc.
- blfr 9y ago
  How does it work? You cannot start a newspaper unless you convince two golf buddies to join you?
avianlyric 9y ago
Extreme partisan politics, and it’s associated funding, seems to be a very American thing. Many EU countries (like Germany) have proportional representation systems that eradicate two-party control. Even in the UK where we do have two-party politics, the minor parties still pull in substantial voter share. And you don’t see extreme spending during campaigns. UK politics looks pretty shabby compared to spectacular that is US policial campaigning. Anyway The point I’m trying to make is that publications relying on partisan funding isn’t really a danger in the EU. European media and politics is nothing like the US.
- blfr 9y ago
  Americans spend a lot on politics because they're much richer than Europeans and can spend a lot on everything. You see it with healthcare, houses, cars... GDP per capita in the US is a third higher than in Germany and the US is four times more populous on top of that. The amount of wealth sloshing over there is incomparable.