4 ms·

Of course they have. Off the top of my head examples include: Grants in the form of tax dollars (e.g. arxiv). To benefit the authors reputation (e.g. numerous s

by gpm 8mo ago

Of course they have. Off the top of my head examples include: Grants in the form of tax dollars (e.g. arxiv). To benefit the authors reputation (e.g. numerous scientists, developers, etc personal sites. zacklabe.com as a useful example). As a hobby (I think aiarena.net falls into this category). To collect data for research purposes (e.g. the original chatgpt release, and early recaptcha)...

raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
What could possible go wrong with the government funding media? It’s not like they would take away funding for media that they don’t agree with.
- Eisenstein 8mo ago
  Why would a government elected in a democracy be less trustworthy than a few private individuals? Do heads of large corporations not have an interest in controlling information?
  - raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
    Why are you acting like this is something hypothetical? The Trump administration just cut funding for both NPR and PBS because they are “too woke” The same government who threatened to take ABC broadcast license because Kimmel made a joke about a dead podcaster
    - gpm 8mo ago
      You're making the counter argument. Government funded media may be cut or controlled in times of (wannabe) dictators, but the same applies to privately funded media (see Kimmel, Colbert, CBS, Washington Post, etc)
      - raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
        So if the government controls the media - who is going to hold the government accountable? And then there is that entire “free press” thing in the constitution. And Disney quickly recanted as soon as people started canceling, even the conservative owned local affiliates had to back down.
    - Eisenstein 8mo ago
      And I would argue that they have been able to do this because a small group of private individuals control the information networks and either desired that purpose or are ambivalent to their cause in it. The potential failure of the system because of the effect of the wrong choice in this matter is evidence in favor of my argument, not against it.
      - raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
        I’m continuously astounded by people who want to give the government more power seeing the current state of the US government.
        Eisenstein 8mo ago
        You aren't amazed at how people advocating for privatizing things that are supposed to be for the public good keep doubling down when it doesn't work out? We couldn't be in the place we are if it weren't for those who constantly yelled 'smaller government!' while dismantling all features of accountability and balance of power in order to achieve that end.
        raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
        Well the difference is that a private company doesn’t have a full army, masked jack booted thugs who shoot people with abandon with “qualified immunity” and the legal right of force to take away my property without a trial (civil forfeiture) or prosecute me because they don’t like me (see the current administration). They also can’t stop me because I don’t “look like I belong” in my neighborhood (true story). I’d rather not give the government any more power.
        Eisenstein 8mo ago
        But everyone has been listening to your argument and doing what you are advocating for since Reagan and yet here we are. Have you every thought about the fact that power doesn't just disappear? Someone is going to have control over the jackbooted thugs. Claiming democratic norms and public control over them is bad just ensures that they become the tools of a few people without any way to constrain them. I'm sorry you had a bad experience and that we are currently having one as a country, but the solution is to push for more democracy, not more privatization.
- thfuran 8mo ago
  PBS and BBC are both pretty well regarded and receive public funding.
  - raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
    The government has been threatening to cut PBS funding since at least 1969 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Rogers%27s_1969_United_States_Senate_testimony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Rogers%27s_1969_United_St... And Trump just cut funding for both PBS and NPR
  - iso1631 8mo ago
    BBC's funding model is in its last 36 months
- tcfhgj 8mo ago
  Works quite well in germany
  - snowpid 8mo ago
    no it does not. We can argue about public media but Germany is a really bad example.
  - raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
    So let’s hypothetically say that some autocrat decided to take over Germany and decide a certain minority should be - I don’t know extinguished - wouldn’t a free non government run press be useful? Nahh that would never happen.
    - NekkoDroid 8mo ago
      I think your main issue in your argument is that you think that only government funded press is allowed to exist, which isn't what anyone was talking about. Also, what would stop the autocrat from outlawing any non-government news source?? A piece of paper written by people 250 years ago certainly won't.
      - raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
        What’s the use of any press that’s funded by the government? Would you trust them to do accurate reporting on vaccines when the government is run by RFK? Would you trust them to tell the truth about what was going on in Minnesota? Venezuela? Any government funded press would either be a tool of propaganda or be constantly worried about getting defunded - like what just happened to NPR and PBS. The government just required the press to get pre approval before they could publish anything - even non classified info. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-news/2025/09/pentagon-steps-up-media-restrictions-now-requiring-approval-before-reporting-even-unclassified-info/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-news/2025/09/pentagon... This idea was so abhorrent that not even Fox News would sign on. https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-reporting-rules-hegseth-defense-department-access-0d33768b22e9079049508a63bad89a91 https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-reporting-rules-hegseth-... Now the part of the press corps that has direct access to talk to Pentagon officials is literally made up of right wing social media influencers.
WarmWash 8mo ago
I agree that there will always be people who believe the Internet peaked in 1996. But I also agree it's when <1% of people where online, and it's never going back to that.

by gpm 8mo ago

raw_anon_1111 8mo ago

What could possible go wrong with the government funding media? It’s not like they would take away funding for media that they don’t agree with.

Eisenstein 8mo ago
Why would a government elected in a democracy be less trustworthy than a few private individuals? Do heads of large corporations not have an interest in controlling information?
- raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
  Why are you acting like this is something hypothetical? The Trump administration just cut funding for both NPR and PBS because they are “too woke” The same government who threatened to take ABC broadcast license because Kimmel made a joke about a dead podcaster
  - gpm 8mo ago
    You're making the counter argument. Government funded media may be cut or controlled in times of (wannabe) dictators, but the same applies to privately funded media (see Kimmel, Colbert, CBS, Washington Post, etc)
    - raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
      So if the government controls the media - who is going to hold the government accountable? And then there is that entire “free press” thing in the constitution. And Disney quickly recanted as soon as people started canceling, even the conservative owned local affiliates had to back down.
  - Eisenstein 8mo ago
    And I would argue that they have been able to do this because a small group of private individuals control the information networks and either desired that purpose or are ambivalent to their cause in it. The potential failure of the system because of the effect of the wrong choice in this matter is evidence in favor of my argument, not against it.
    - raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
      I’m continuously astounded by people who want to give the government more power seeing the current state of the US government.
      - Eisenstein 8mo ago
        You aren't amazed at how people advocating for privatizing things that are supposed to be for the public good keep doubling down when it doesn't work out? We couldn't be in the place we are if it weren't for those who constantly yelled 'smaller government!' while dismantling all features of accountability and balance of power in order to achieve that end.
        raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
        Well the difference is that a private company doesn’t have a full army, masked jack booted thugs who shoot people with abandon with “qualified immunity” and the legal right of force to take away my property without a trial (civil forfeiture) or prosecute me because they don’t like me (see the current administration). They also can’t stop me because I don’t “look like I belong” in my neighborhood (true story). I’d rather not give the government any more power.
        Eisenstein 8mo ago
        But everyone has been listening to your argument and doing what you are advocating for since Reagan and yet here we are. Have you every thought about the fact that power doesn't just disappear? Someone is going to have control over the jackbooted thugs. Claiming democratic norms and public control over them is bad just ensures that they become the tools of a few people without any way to constrain them. I'm sorry you had a bad experience and that we are currently having one as a country, but the solution is to push for more democracy, not more privatization.
thfuran 8mo ago
PBS and BBC are both pretty well regarded and receive public funding.
- raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
  The government has been threatening to cut PBS funding since at least 1969 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Rogers%27s_1969_United_States_Senate_testimony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Rogers%27s_1969_United_St... And Trump just cut funding for both PBS and NPR
- iso1631 8mo ago
  BBC's funding model is in its last 36 months
tcfhgj 8mo ago
Works quite well in germany
- snowpid 8mo ago
  no it does not. We can argue about public media but Germany is a really bad example.
- raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
  So let’s hypothetically say that some autocrat decided to take over Germany and decide a certain minority should be - I don’t know extinguished - wouldn’t a free non government run press be useful? Nahh that would never happen.
  - NekkoDroid 8mo ago
    I think your main issue in your argument is that you think that only government funded press is allowed to exist, which isn't what anyone was talking about. Also, what would stop the autocrat from outlawing any non-government news source?? A piece of paper written by people 250 years ago certainly won't.
    - raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
      What’s the use of any press that’s funded by the government? Would you trust them to do accurate reporting on vaccines when the government is run by RFK? Would you trust them to tell the truth about what was going on in Minnesota? Venezuela? Any government funded press would either be a tool of propaganda or be constantly worried about getting defunded - like what just happened to NPR and PBS. The government just required the press to get pre approval before they could publish anything - even non classified info. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-news/2025/09/pentagon-steps-up-media-restrictions-now-requiring-approval-before-reporting-even-unclassified-info/ https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-news/2025/09/pentagon... This idea was so abhorrent that not even Fox News would sign on. https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-reporting-rules-hegseth-defense-department-access-0d33768b22e9079049508a63bad89a91 https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-reporting-rules-hegseth-... Now the part of the press corps that has direct access to talk to Pentagon officials is literally made up of right wing social media influencers.

WarmWash 8mo ago

I agree that there will always be people who believe the Internet peaked in 1996. But I also agree it's when <1% of people where online, and it's never going back to that.