3 ms·
This. Bear in mind that Mozilla is experimenting with different monetisation models, be it subs, donations, relying on Google for search as well as partnerships
by rpastuszak 7y ago
This. Bear in mind that Mozilla is experimenting with different monetisation models, be it subs, donations, relying on Google for search as well as partnerships with companies such as Scroll (publisher content monetisation platforms).
Also, if you follow the discourse on anything published by Mozilla in the past 2-3 years—there's been a shift when it comes to how they speak about Googe. It's a marketing move, of course, but I think it's also a sign of the direction they are following.
I believe something will change here, for better, in the next couple of years. I'd sign for a Mozilla subscription if it included services such as better VPN, supporting those who cannot afford to pay directly, but pay with they data instead.
The move towards paid vs. non-paid services creates a risk that we'd end up with two types of internet users, with privacy being the currency of those who cannot afford an expensive mobile phone or a browser not trying to sell you things whether you want it or not.
The history of Guardian (in the past 5 years or so) shows that people are happy to pay for a valuable service just to allow the others to have access to it. Maybe I'm just being overly optimistic here, but I shudder every time I think about the alternatives.
- just_observing 7y agoThe Guardian has gone downhill in the last few years, just like the rest of UK mainstream news reporting. They have rolled over to do whatever the Government wants not reporting - take Assange for example. Their coverage is practically non-existent. I used to buy The Guardian every day, then I subscribed digitally. And then when their reporting slid downhill, I stopped subscribing. I still read it - but block their data scraping scripts and all ads. They are not worth supporting IMO.
- dageshi 7y agoThe more likely explanation is that people got tired of Assange's story and so the articles didn't get the clicks to justify covering them any more. The Guardian can get more clicks with a steady drip of vegan opinion pieces, stories laughing at Tories and the dreadfulness of brexit so that's what they'll do. Same as the Telegraph will feed its readers "the glory of Boris", "forwards unto brexit" and "Good lord look what Corbyn said today, he's a dreadful little man isn't he?" News organisations are slaves to their audiences and will just produce what their audiences want.
- k1m 7y agoThat's not a likely explanation when it comes to Assange. The Guardian has been terrible, and even its previous star reporter Glenn Greenwald (who won them a Pulitzer on the Snowden reporting) has been extremely critical. See for example https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-guardians-viral-blockbuster-assangemanafort-scoop-no-evidence-has-emerged-just-stonewalling/ https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-gua... Brought up again earlier this month: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1191681248453943296 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1191681248453943296 That piece of fake news from the Guardian has been shared more than 25,000 times on Facebook. I don't agree that honest reporting on Assange simply won't get clicks. But sensational fake news certainly does.
- foldr 7y agoWhat makes you so sure it's fake news? No-one really knows for sure whether or not that meeting took place.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jeltz 7y agoPretty much. Click metrics like this might become the death of journalism. I used to read a lot of news but have stopped due to how every news paper became more and more about click bait and about appealing to the audience. Sure, I presume I too clicked on more news until I one day stopped reading entirely.
- asjw 7y agoPeople realized that assange is a psyco It's just that