3 ms·
> First, consider the people who will be denied access to information on the basis of class. People who consider it a luxury to be online at all, let alone log
by abdullahkhalids 8y ago
> First, consider the people who will be denied access to information on the basis of class. People who consider it a luxury to be online at all, let alone logging on to find a paywall for basic news.
I am confused. Haven't (good) newspapers been paid products for a long time? Whats different about the internet version of newspapers?
- kd5bjo 8y agoThere’s no secondhand market for digital newspapers. Physical newspapers were often given away for free by customers that had finished with them.
- berti 8y agoThat doesn't mean we should continue perpetuating such biases when it's avoidable. It annoys me greatly when politicians use this line of reasoning. If what we had before was working we wouldn't need to change it.
- abdullahkhalids 8y agoI don't think creating a surveillance dystopia that gives corporations and potentially evil governments enormous powers over the population is quite the right price to pay for free news. I believe that it would be great if free news is available to everyone, but there are alternate ways of achieving it. For instance, in a microtransaction system giving poor people a reasonable sum to spend every month.
- speedplane 8y ago> Whats different about the internet version of newspapers? High quality newspapers used to be the only way of getting information. Today, those same newspapers generally still serve high quality material, but they now compete against tons of low quality material. So in the past, if you were poor and didn't have access to high quality newspapers, you were simply ignorant. Now if you're poor, you have access to low quality news, which can lead ignorance, and much worse.