3 ms·
> I think I would follow your preferences and focus on new research and development (like cancer research, or cheaper drugs/prosthetics, etc.). This very quick
by jniedrauer 8y ago
> I think I would follow your preferences and focus on new research and development (like cancer research, or cheaper drugs/prosthetics, etc.).
This very quickly devolves into pop-sci clickbait. Cancer gets solved roughly 3 times a week, along with Alzheimer's and every other scary sounding disease. And our battery capacity somehow goes up by an order of magnitude a few times a month. And so on.
Journalism is just broken in the internet age. Clickbait is more profitable than reality. Anger inducing clickbait is the most profitable of all.
- all2 8y agoI rather like EEVBlog's criticism of tech journalism. It seems 'journalists' are actually just curators, looking for content that generates clicks. We're trying to feed the ad machine to make a little revenue. What would a successful model look like? There are a few revenue models that are at least interesting: Hackaday was purchased by SupplyFrame, doesn't run ads, has an internal store, and has decent articles (with sometimes rage-inducing flaws). The bias is obvious, they are owned by a parent company that now uses the platform to advertise on. The Guardian is shifting towards an ad-less, pay what you want revenue model. Patreon isn't really a model that an organization can use... Or can it? All major players in the social media and news market tend to lean on ad-centered models. Do examples of successful social/media companies exist that don't depend on ad revenue?