4 ms·

"Toxic business model" - oh yeah? Like the same one that pays the bills for theguardian.com? (I just disabled my ad-block and saw scammy+nasty "feet" ads of s

"Toxic business model" - oh yeah? Like the same one that pays the bills for theguardian.com? (I just disabled my ad-block and saw scammy+nasty "feet" ads of some sort, pretty sure those would not be allowed on FB.com) (edit: fixed The Guardian link)

raspasov 6y ago
Screenshot evidence https://ibb.co/VV0TmyY https://ibb.co/VV0TmyY
aww_dang 6y ago
Love their self-righteous call to action in the footer. "just when we need it the most. The Guardian’s honest, authoritative, fact-based reporting has never mattered more. As we face the biggest challenge of our lifetimes, we’ll remain with you, so we can all better understand and combat the crisis. But at this crucial moment, news organisations are facing an existential threat. With advertising revenues plummeting, we risk losing a major source of our funding. More than ever before, we need your support to help fill the gap." According to The Guardian, The Guardian is honest, authoritative and fact-based. Easy enough to not use the site if I don't like it. The same applies for FB. Apparently non-violent opt-out isn't enough for The Guardian though. The Guardian (honest, authoritative) proposes that the state should guard us all from FB and their "supreme leader" Zuckerberg. At what point do the principles of private property and free speech no longer apply to the websites we create?
- raspasov 6y ago
  Exactly my thoughts. Posted in the "opinion" section, I'll give them that. It's disappointing, I generally like The Guardian, especially what they did around publishing the Snowden docs initially.
- makomk 6y ago
  Speaking of companies that want to regulate themselves, The Guardian is pretty much the only UK publication that's refused to join the industry-wide, nominally independent press regulator IPSO, which means that they're effectively the only one who are not held to any external standards regarding the honesty and factual accuracy of their reporting. Which is more than a little ironic in this context. They've also been using their opinion section to undermine IPSO for such offences as not being aggressive enough in helping their preferred political party send different messages to its members and its voters by forcing other publications to take down articles revealing to the everyone else what they've been telling their members. (Remember how we were told Facebook ads were a danger to democracy because they'd allow politicians to promote different, contradictory messages to different audiences?)
  - pmyteh 6y ago
    That's a slightly odd reading of the situation. The Guardian is a member of the other regulatory body IMPRESS. The history of both organisations is a bit complex, but the short version is that press self-regulation in the UK has been something of a joke for the last hundred years or so, and IPSO is the latest incarnation of that. The Leveson enquiry tried to set up regulators with more teeth, which was faced by a heavy rearguard action by the established press. This was either a principled attempt to head off censorship, or a shameless attempt to protect profits, depending on which side you were on. IMPRESS is the Leveson-compliant regulator, IPSO the continuation of the old PCC by another name. Most newspapers went with IPSO, The Guardian didn't.
    - makomk 6y ago
      As far as I can tell The Guardian isn't a member of IMPRESS either - at least, they're not on their list of members, and in fact none of the other major newspapers are either. Their complaints page also doesn't mention membership of any independent regulatory body - it suggests complaints are handled entirely in house with no avenue of external appeal or complaint, which is my understanding as well.
      - pmyteh 6y ago
        I apologise - you're quite right, I've misremembered. It looks like the Financial Times hasn't joined IPSO or IMPRESS either.
- raggi 6y ago
  I had two inaudible sounds play while reading the article too.
ChrisSD 6y ago
Asking users for donations is a very different business model to Facebook's history of abusing user data. I'm somewhat perplexed that HN users are apparently unable to see the distinction. Besides which, someone writing an opinion piece for the guardian has no control over the business model.
- raspasov 6y ago
  I don't subscribe to the view that random internet companies should be regulated by nation states more than our discussion here on HN.com should be regulated. If it applies to FB.com, it can apply to any company or individual online.
  - ChrisSD 6y ago
    I'm confused, what does that have to do with the Guardian's current business model?
    - aww_dang 6y ago
      Would you agree that the CCP should be given a chance to regulate The Guardian's coverage of Hong Kong?
      - ChrisSD 6y ago
        What does that have to do with the Guardian asking their users for donations?
    - raspasov 6y ago
      I was not referring to them asking for donations. I was referring to their ad-supported business model where they trade some of their customer's attention/data for money.
      - ChrisSD 6y ago
        The only intrusive "ad" is their call to action for subscriptions/donations. The others appear in normal ad boxes on the page. The same type you get with most websites.
LatteLazy 6y ago
The really toxic thing about the guardian is that they pretend to be a new source, and really they’re just Fox News for the left. Nothing but smug crap about evil capitalists...

raspasov 6y ago

Screenshot evidence https://ibb.co/VV0TmyY https://ibb.co/VV0TmyY

aww_dang 6y ago

Love their self-righteous call to action in the footer. "just when we need it the most. The Guardian’s honest, authoritative, fact-based reporting has never mattered more. As we face the biggest challenge of our lifetimes, we’ll remain with you, so we can all better understand and combat the crisis. But at this crucial moment, news organisations are facing an existential threat. With advertising revenues plummeting, we risk losing a major source of our funding. More than ever before, we need your support to help fill the gap." According to The Guardian, The Guardian is honest, authoritative and fact-based. Easy enough to not use the site if I don't like it. The same applies for FB. Apparently non-violent opt-out isn't enough for The Guardian though. The Guardian (honest, authoritative) proposes that the state should guard us all from FB and their "supreme leader" Zuckerberg. At what point do the principles of private property and free speech no longer apply to the websites we create?

raspasov 6y ago
Exactly my thoughts. Posted in the "opinion" section, I'll give them that. It's disappointing, I generally like The Guardian, especially what they did around publishing the Snowden docs initially.
makomk 6y ago
Speaking of companies that want to regulate themselves, The Guardian is pretty much the only UK publication that's refused to join the industry-wide, nominally independent press regulator IPSO, which means that they're effectively the only one who are not held to any external standards regarding the honesty and factual accuracy of their reporting. Which is more than a little ironic in this context. They've also been using their opinion section to undermine IPSO for such offences as not being aggressive enough in helping their preferred political party send different messages to its members and its voters by forcing other publications to take down articles revealing to the everyone else what they've been telling their members. (Remember how we were told Facebook ads were a danger to democracy because they'd allow politicians to promote different, contradictory messages to different audiences?)
- pmyteh 6y ago
  That's a slightly odd reading of the situation. The Guardian is a member of the other regulatory body IMPRESS. The history of both organisations is a bit complex, but the short version is that press self-regulation in the UK has been something of a joke for the last hundred years or so, and IPSO is the latest incarnation of that. The Leveson enquiry tried to set up regulators with more teeth, which was faced by a heavy rearguard action by the established press. This was either a principled attempt to head off censorship, or a shameless attempt to protect profits, depending on which side you were on. IMPRESS is the Leveson-compliant regulator, IPSO the continuation of the old PCC by another name. Most newspapers went with IPSO, The Guardian didn't.
  - makomk 6y ago
    As far as I can tell The Guardian isn't a member of IMPRESS either - at least, they're not on their list of members, and in fact none of the other major newspapers are either. Their complaints page also doesn't mention membership of any independent regulatory body - it suggests complaints are handled entirely in house with no avenue of external appeal or complaint, which is my understanding as well.
    - pmyteh 6y ago
      I apologise - you're quite right, I've misremembered. It looks like the Financial Times hasn't joined IPSO or IMPRESS either.
raggi 6y ago
I had two inaudible sounds play while reading the article too.

ChrisSD 6y ago

Asking users for donations is a very different business model to Facebook's history of abusing user data. I'm somewhat perplexed that HN users are apparently unable to see the distinction. Besides which, someone writing an opinion piece for the guardian has no control over the business model.

raspasov 6y ago
I don't subscribe to the view that random internet companies should be regulated by nation states more than our discussion here on HN.com should be regulated. If it applies to FB.com, it can apply to any company or individual online.
- ChrisSD 6y ago
  I'm confused, what does that have to do with the Guardian's current business model?
  - aww_dang 6y ago
    Would you agree that the CCP should be given a chance to regulate The Guardian's coverage of Hong Kong?
    - ChrisSD 6y ago
      What does that have to do with the Guardian asking their users for donations?
  - raspasov 6y ago
    I was not referring to them asking for donations. I was referring to their ad-supported business model where they trade some of their customer's attention/data for money.
    - ChrisSD 6y ago
      The only intrusive "ad" is their call to action for subscriptions/donations. The others appear in normal ad boxes on the page. The same type you get with most websites.

LatteLazy 6y ago

The really toxic thing about the guardian is that they pretend to be a new source, and really they’re just Fox News for the left. Nothing but smug crap about evil capitalists...