4 ms·
> ...time for new players to step up and > disrupt this market, but not if that means > a loss for businesses. That's the challenge. No, that's not th
by crispyambulance 7y ago
> ...time for new players to step up and
> disrupt this market, but not if that means
> a loss for businesses. That's the challenge.
No, that's not the challenge. We've sadly reached the point where "loss of business" is on the table for people who care about ethics. If the only way a newspaper can stay afloat is by displaying junk from taboola/outbrain, perhaps it's time for them to close-up shop?
The "challenge" is to get more people to use adblockers, punish scammers ruthlessly, and demand that the journalism sites which are worth anything at all to screen the the ads they accept and perhaps even face consequences for displaying proven scammer ads.
- mean_jean 7y agoDoes that mean you're willing to pay for the journalism if it doesn't have ads? So far that model hasn't worked either. Or are you saying you would rather the reporting didn't exist than it be supported by ads you find distasteful? If that's the case, don't consume the news. If I believe my work is a valuable service to my community, closing up shop is more than a "loss of business".