Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

flowingdata.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 145 posts

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#121

Post by vonklaus »

jrs235 wrote: post #83

How would the Daily Mail feel about (and what would they do) if someone constantly scraped their website and redistributed the content? Perhaps a fun side project called TheLessAdsDailyMail.com?

That's a good idea! What if we repeatedly scraped their site and then display it to some of the users on our site. Then, we could charge them some small fee to click on the link.

We could sell them some of the data around who clicked on the link, and even charge their users after we segment them. We would probably have to crawl the site a lot of times and then display their content, but essentially we would own it.

Someone should try this. If it worked out, maybe you could expand to buzzfeed, techcrunch and then literally all of the sites on the internet.

Why didn't anyone think of this? You would just be able to charge websites (and their users) for providing you content!

edit: After thinking about it, it would probably be hard to do this. We could maybe create a standard and then show sites based on how well people listen to that, and then for the rest just see what are users look for and pick.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#123

Post by joepie91_ »

andy_ppp wrote: post #43
Silhouette wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is something like this enforceable? We'd better hope the general principle isn't, because otherwise every search engine, social networking site, traffic aggregator and directory service on the web is about to spend the rest of its very short existence fighting off lawsuits.

I suppose, maybe if you don't have a licence on things it's fair game, but I know the Daily Mail has ripped off Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial Licenced works.

Somebody already addressed part of it, but here's an introductory guide to how licensing works: http://cryto.net/~joepie91/blog/2013/03/21/licensing-for-beg...

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#124

Post by anon1385 »

dang wrote: post #107
anon1385 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't read the article did you.

> You didn't read the article did you. This comment breaks the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html More importantly, your two prior comments were personal attacks. Surely you realize that those are bannable offenses on HN. We hate to ban longstanding users. But please: no more uncivil comments or we will have to.

Well if you moderated comments/users that made threats of physical violence against me I wouldn't be tempted to make posts referencing them. You can't deny seeing the comment in question since you replied to it.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#125

Post by [deleted] »

anon1385 wrote: post #124
dang wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You didn't read the article did you. This comment breaks the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html More importantly, your two prior comments were personal attacks. Surely you realize that those are bannable offenses on HN. We hate to ban longstanding users. But please: no more uncivil comments or we will have to.

Well if you moderated comments/users that made threats of physical violence against me I wouldn't be tempted to make posts referencing them. You can't deny seeing the comment in question since you replied to it.

[deleted]

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#126

Post by notahacker »

madaxe_again wrote: post #118
jdimov10 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes! Why is this a problem? The Daily Mail is SHIT. The majority of people LOVE to read about shit. It's not my thing, so I don't read it. That's what free market means.

We have a closed market, however. It's free for incumbent massive media organisations like DMG who only exist because Lord Rothmere and descendents have The Right Friends. You and me, however, can pucker up, pay, and play by the rules the free ones make. Keynsian economics does not equate to "good and right" - it equates to Keynsian economics - and nepotism. So much nepotism.

I know Keynes is the default bogeyman in some circles of economic thinking, but I'm really struggling to see the link between established corporations having brands and governments running countercyclical policy...

Bearing in mind most newspapers' circulation is crashing and Buzzfeed got very big very quickly peddling similarly lowbrow content, I'm not even convinced the market power of print media is that high.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#127

Post by notahacker »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #108
jm_l wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another potential alternative: large trustworthy media outlets form a committee themselves, develop some review process for adding a stamp to the top of their sites that says something like "American Online Journalist" and thereby encourage good journalism in a way that's good for business without interference with the free market.

What would stop Daily Mail from stealing this stamp and slapping it on their site?

Trademark law. A more significant problem is that mainstream media publications often actively dislike each others' editorial stance, so the last thing they want to do is agree on a way of mutually endorsing each others' content. The UK, for example, has one right wing broadsheet, one left wing broadsheet that repeatedly attacks allegedly sloppy journalism at the right wing broadsheet and one notionally centrist broadsheet (run by a media empire that makes a lot of money from tabloids). None of them are likely to be receptive to the idea of certifying each other as being more reliable than other news sources.

Re: The Daily Mail Stole My Visualization Twice

#128

Post by dang »

anon1385 wrote: post #124
dang wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You didn't read the article did you. This comment breaks the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html More importantly, your two prior comments were personal attacks. Surely you realize that those are bannable offenses on HN. We hate to ban longstanding users. But please: no more uncivil comments or we will have to.

Well if you moderated comments/users that made threats of physical violence against me I wouldn't be tempted to make posts referencing them. You can't deny seeing the comment in question since you replied to it.

> I wouldn't be tempted

It's up to you (i.e. to each of us) to resist that temptation. Somebody else breaking the rules doesn't entitle you to as well.

Post reply on HN