3 ms·
> This is plainly contradicted No, it's not. Only 14 minutes elapsed between me pointing out that ads made it possible and you pretending that never happened.
by notacoward 7y ago
> This is plainly contradicted
No, it's not. Only 14 minutes elapsed between me pointing out that ads made it possible and you pretending that never happened. Is that a new gaslighting record?
> It’s only with the undermining of subscription revenue
That's the world we live in, and will live in for the foreseeable future, so my original questions still stand untouched by your diversions.
- msbarnett 7y ago> Only 14 minutes elapsed between me pointing out that ads made it possible and you pretending that never happened. I’m not “pretending it didn’t happen” Literally what I wrote is “If, on the other hand, the organization is supported by a robust mix of sales and advertising”. It’s you who has constructed a ridiculous false dichotomy in which people who are calling for a return of subscriptions must somehow oppose the presence of advertising to supplement sales, an argument neither I nor the person you originally responded to made. The history here is quite clear: Sales allowed organizations to sell advertising space while also maintaining enough editorial independence to please subscribers and deliver high quality journalism. “Free news”, solely supported by advertising, is a toxic mess where editorial firewalls are routinely nonexistent.