3 ms·
That would eliminate 99% of news. Including anyone on social media.
by tootie 3y ago
That would eliminate 99% of news. Including anyone on social media.
- krapp 3y agoGood. 99% of news and almost everything on social media is garbage. Burn it all down.
- johnnyanmac 3y agoironically enough, it'd just mean that most news would end up being funded by the government where possible. Which is how the FSFE gets its funding.
- tootie 3y agoThe only government funded news in the US is VOA. The CPB gives out grants but public media are all responsible for their own budgets and a lot of them (notably NPR and it's largest affiliates in NYC and LA) have been crushed by a drop in ad revenue and cutting back severely on content production.
- JoshTriplett 3y agoNo, it would eliminate most news sites, and little value would be lost. Frankly, net value might be created that way. People will still write about things that happen, and people will still read that, and money just won't change hands. Or people will read paid news, and the quality will almost certainly improve as a result.
- tootie 3y agoNo, no they will not. News sites pay reporters. If news sites have no money reporters stop reporting. Journalism costs money.
- JoshTriplett 3y agoI said "Or people will read paid news", by which I mean news sites supported by subscriptions rather than ads. I don't think that's a likely scenario, but it's another possible alternative world that could arise.
- tootie 3y agoAside from industry news, nobody survives just on subscriptions.