241–250 of 360 posts
or maybe I just dont understand why people would subscribe digitally? Are there different articles?
I think people have moved away from what the internet is supposed to be, which is a way to share information, not force people to pay for information :/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> i.e you can be racist if someone attacks you on Twitter That is not what I said. I said she admitted what she said was wrong, publicly renounced the tweets, and stopped doing it. That is literally the opposite of what you are claiming I said. Yes, it also matters that her intent at the time was not a belief that white people are inferior but to mimic the style of people abusing her to point out the absurdity. Was i…
They don't change the facts, I agree, but they reveal the hypocrisy and incoherence of their stance with respect to racism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What I can imagine is a "digital pass" this makes me think that journalism should be funded out of a commons fund - like how the BBC is funded publically via taxes.
The BBC isn't directly funded by taxes in the usual sense (and therefore the government, which is a tricky situation to be in). It's funded by the collection of a license required when you have a TV, and it's collected by the BBC itself (in reality outsourced).
Offtopic: I am a European, and I like to read quality journalism. Which do you recommend, a subscruption to Washington Post or NYT?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Weaponizing old, out-of-context tweets is just the new alt-right playbook. James Gunn is the other obvious example. They merely adopted left's usual tactics. Personally, I don't support firing people over their private views, but in this case it's blatant hypocrisy. For example, a few months ago NYT fired Quinn Norton for almost the same thing[1]. Almost , because her old racist tweets weren't targeting white peopl…
Your link is broken, but she absolutely has apologised: https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/1025050118989332480 Yes, she was a victim, she also admitted she was wrong, and said she would not do it again, and she has not. > They merely adopted left's usual tactics. > Personally, I don't support firing people over their private views, but in this case it's blatant hypocrisy. For example, a few months ago NYT fired Qu…
Sorry, fixed now.
>she absolutely has apologised: https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/1025050118989332480
It's a non-apology, she basically said "some people were mean to me, which gave me a right to be a racist and I'm the real victim".
> If it was the same, then maybe it was wrong with her too. I can't find an apology, however, so it seems different to me.
As I said, I don't support firing people for that, I'm just pointing out hypocrisy.
Offtopic: I am a European, and I like to read quality journalism. Which do you recommend, a subscruption to Washington Post or NYT?
The difference is political. The Washington Post and the NYT both publish hate articles, take the news with a grain of salt and not as the truth (most of the time)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even the Financial Time is starting to drift in that direction...
I’m not alone then. I moved my subscription from the NYT to FT looking for a less politically slanted product but the tone at the FT is definitely going in the same direction. Any suggestions? P.s I have to phone the FT to cancel my subscription apparently.
There seems to be a natural opportunity for ISPs in a certain country to pay to have all their customers unblocked by major publications relevant to that public - and have a certain fraction of the customer bill disbursed depending on online circulation. I would gladly pay 20% more to my ISP to have hassle free access to major online publications, knowing that revenue helps journalists produce quality news, and that…
I like this idea, but I wonder, would that be a net neutrality violation? Honest question, because I can easily imagine this being rephrased: “If you don’t pay for the extra news package, you cannot access NYT for free”.
So as long as there is no technical discrimination and you can access and subscribe to other news sources, net neutrality is respected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I canceled mine last week exactly because of those dark patterns. They also show ads even if you have a subscription, which sounds very backward to me. I'd love to support them, but those practices don't belong in 2018. EDIT: Oh, looks like the cancellation didn't go through and they charged me for one more month, sweet. I might just go to my bank and tell them to block the source. Or even better, I may have found a…
> They also show ads even if you have a subscription, which sounds very backward to me. So are you also cancelling your cable subscription, any magazine subscriptions, physical newspaper subscriptions, no longer driving on toll roads with billboard...? I'm not saying it's right, or good, or valid--but the standard practice, for as long as I can remember, for most mediums, is to still show ads for things you pay for.…
The other things you mention - magazines, newspapers, and billboards - usually don't track you and build a profile on you so they are less objectionable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's interesting, I wasn't at all aware of her until a day or two ago. The first link I read about her was this: https://www.vox.com/2018/8/3/17644704/sarah-jeong-new-york-t... Which shows her "racist" tweets, and shows how they're only really racist if you strip away all context for them. It then shows how the alt-right use this as a tactic. I found that very interesting, and I also now find it interesting to see wh…
The context should be provided in the Vox article but it is not. Is there any article where all of the offensive tweets are available in their context?
Burden of proof is on Vox here...