Live data from Hacker News

Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)

baekdal.com

51–60 of 64 posts

Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)

#51
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The best I could come up with is "support for public healthcare" ... Wouldn't that be more than enough? They can easily spend tens of billions on advertising, in order to make hundreds of billions. You'd expect them to; if they're allowed.

>... Wouldn't that be more than enough? Did you stop reading right there and not the follow up sentence? The best example I could come up with doesn't past muster.

You've missed the point. The fact is, most of the US does support healthcare. That doesn't matter to the legislators. They have lobbyists convincing them to fight against any public option, they don't want to piss off their backers, or their club.

The reason US citizens are not more pissed off about being ignored, and shafted, is that the media don't bite the hand feeding them. They playact as if they do sometimes, but they know where their bread is buttered.

Media covers the worst abuses, but treats them like bad luck stories (no matter how obviously 'orphan crushing machine') rather than anything systemic and national.

Corporate media could cover a lot more of the tragic stories, and make people aware of the true statistics. They don't.

Instead, they ignore and attack poeple like Bernie Sanders for his healthcare plan, which would have saved the country money while providing better coverage. They do the same to anyone threatening the racket.

That's why your follow up sentence doesn't matter. Public opinion has been nearly completely disconnected from the levers of power, so it doesn't matter how public opinion changed after 1997.

Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)

#53
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do the streamers get 50% of that $12 like they would a subscription?

"We built Turbo with this question in mind, and streamers continue to earn revenue from ads that Turbo subscribers miss. For streamers – revenue you receive from Turbo subscribers who watch your channel is reflected in your “Ads” revenue estimate in your payout analytics." Source: https://help.twitch.tv/s/article/twitch-turbo-guide?language... Disclosure: I work here, but I'm not close enough to the Turbo folks to do…

If I subscribe to a user they get 50% of my subscription. So if I wanted to use this to support streamers and not Amazon, I’d expect 50% of it to go to streamers.

How many minutes of ads do I “skip” that they get paid for when I spend $12 on Turbo? I have a feeling the answer is going to be disgusting, and that no, Twitch Turbo is a terrible idea if you want to support streamers.

Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indirectly! Yes. That's the point. We don't ask about who will pay for the new police helicopter or military jet or who will pay for a bank bailout or corporate subsidy. But if it's in the public interest everyone puts on their reading glasses and pulls out their calculator and red pens. This is a function of priorities and we need to make sure they're being intentionally set and then the money will flow accordingly.…

So you are basically advocating for government funding it seems, is that correct? Do you have any concerns about that?

Not necessarily but there's lots of examples if that's the path you want.

BBC, NHK, CBC, PBS, France 24, ... these are all generally regarded as pretty decent. Even AJ+, RT and Al Jazeera has done decent journalism.

We can speculate based on fears or look at existing systems.

Some people gnaw at their fingernails and couch faint whenever "government" is mentioned like it's some masked moustache twirling cartoon villain from a children's show. I hope we can be a bit more reasonable and sober about this. The 101 year old BBC isn't the last thread being unwound from a totalitarian sword of damocles about to befall on an unsuspecting public.

To go back to the previous conversation, Stanford, Harvard, Yale, MIT, Caltech - all private. There's models that don't involve the government.

Even religious organizations like Christian Science Monitor are decent.

Teen Vogue does decent journalism as well these days, using the funds from their fashion and fluff to do real reporting. (Ex: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/harm-reduction-young-people-...)

Playboy funded some great journalism as well, for instance their 1985 interview with Steve Jobs https://allaboutstevejobs.com/verbatim/interviews/playboy_19... and I quote (again, 1985)

"The most compelling reason for most people to buy a computer for the home will be to link it into a nationwide communications network. We’re just in the beginning stages of what will be a truly remarkable breakthrough for most people—as remarkable as the telephone."

There's lots of possibilities. The point is to not link the Hayekian homoeconomicus profit machine to the institution of news production. That's what leads to clickbait advalanches

Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)

#55
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>... Wouldn't that be more than enough? Did you stop reading right there and not the follow up sentence? The best example I could come up with doesn't past muster.

You've missed the point. The fact is, most of the US does support healthcare. That doesn't matter to the legislators. They have lobbyists convincing them to fight against any public option, they don't want to piss off their backers, or their club. The reason US citizens are not more pissed off about being ignored, and shafted, is that the media don't bite the hand feeding them. They playact as if they do sometimes, b…

> You've missed the point. The fact is, most of the US does support healthcare. That doesn't matter to the legislators. They have lobbyists convincing them to fight against any public option, they don't want to piss off their backers, or their club.

I'm not denying there's a disconnect between what americans say they want in surveys, and what legislators actually do. I am skeptical that this purely a post 1997 phenomena, as like your theory would suggest. I suspect this disconnect existed well before 1997. The oldest survey I could find on this topic was was this[1], which showed public support for federally provided healthcare at 64%. Sure, it only dates back to 2000, but barring some major national event, it's hard believe why public opinion u-turn in the years prior. Furthermore, most developed countries had public healthcare way before this. UK and France implemented public healthcare shortly after ww2. Canada had public healthcare by 1984. This wasn't something that was on the cusp of getting implemented, and the pharma industry shot it down after 1997. Public healthcare clearly wasn't something that was going to be implemented in the 90s or in the 2000s, with pharma intervention or not.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/FT_17...

Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)

#56
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do the streamers get 50% of that $12 like they would a subscription?

"We built Turbo with this question in mind, and streamers continue to earn revenue from ads that Turbo subscribers miss. For streamers – revenue you receive from Turbo subscribers who watch your channel is reflected in your “Ads” revenue estimate in your payout analytics." Source: https://help.twitch.tv/s/article/twitch-turbo-guide?language... Disclosure: I work here, but I'm not close enough to the Turbo folks to do…

Twitch is only barely viable because it does not pay a penny to the copyright holders of the games streamed on Twitch, and if those rights are handled properly, it would be a completely unsustainable business. There is a notion that streamers can promote their games by streaming them, but there is no basis for this at all. I have seen many times where streamers flock to a game that has become popular, and when the popularity of that game wanes, they move on to other games en masse. In other words, the presence of streamers only hurts the game's bottom line. Funding streamers is as silly as advertising on 4ch, so to speak.

Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)

#57
post #42

News != opinions. I am willing to pay a fair price for real, objective news about things that matter. Factual reporting. Of course, there is no such thing as objective news but at least it is vision to strive for. But the news you can pay for only spends a tiny fraction on this. Instead you get tons of opinions, speculation amd reports about the political game. Basically gossip dressed up as news. And other pieces ab…

i may be being to literal with the definition of “objective” that i’m using and if i am, apologies up front.

i’m not sure there will ever be such a thing as an “objective” based news source. so often there is incredibly important information that needs to be part of the public knowledge base yet that piece of news is quite literally impossible to report on and be entirely “objective.”

i think a better standard would be for these organizations to actually follow already well established journalistic codes of ethics. so many of our organizations intentionally muddy the waters between opinion pieces and journalist pieces and frankly it’s gross. particularly because our schools put almost no emphasis on media literacy. this leaves most people vulnerable to crazy amounts of manipulation.

another piece of this which has bothered me lately is when folks use “objective” to imply that emotions aren’t an incredibly important piece of our decision making.

when we’re discussing wider society, EQ is absolutely just as important as IQ and this trend where certain people are trying to delude themselves and others into thinking they can somehow magically escape this basic fact is just wild to see.

i can’t help but question what i think is a naive obsession with “objective” and how much of a fools errand it is ultimately.

the final thing i’ll comment on is this idea that we seem to be stuck on, this idea of one or two major information sources. we do this with everything from social media sites to news sites. when i go to parties at friends houses, or out to bars with my friends, we don’t go to places where we won’t like the people. and that’s absolutely the norm throughout society in the real world. but for some reason We, the larger tech community delude ourselves into thinking it would be any different online.

from what i’ve read of the recent past, there used to be tens of thousands of places people got their news from. every town had multiple news papers. there were countless magazines. countless journals. etc… yet hilariously We, the tech community, keep convincing ourselves that shoving everyone into the same domain name is a good idea. and then we act so shocked when the obvious inevitable happens.

this kind of thinking causes problems in so many directions. if i’m in a group of classic Corvette fans, and i’m constantly over and over and over confronted by Camaro fans. “Explain yourself to me. if you don’t explain yourself to me, obviously that means camaro is objectively better than corvette!” this would be obnoxious and the organizers would ban the person for being toxic. we need to allow ourselves space to enjoy ourselves or discuss our passions without random dipshits constantly demanding we explain ourselves. and ironically, if there is one place where we should be able to spread out into countless directions, it’s the internet. and news should be no exception to this.

we need to uphold news orgs to already well established journalistic ethics codes and from there quit with this absurd idea that there should be only one.

Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are basically advocating for government funding it seems, is that correct? Do you have any concerns about that?

Not necessarily but there's lots of examples if that's the path you want. BBC, NHK, CBC, PBS, France 24, ... these are all generally regarded as pretty decent. Even AJ+, RT and Al Jazeera has done decent journalism. We can speculate based on fears or look at existing systems. Some people gnaw at their fingernails and couch faint whenever "government" is mentioned like it's some masked moustache twirling cartoon villa…

>> faint whenever "government" is mentioned

I don't believe the concern is necessarily the case that people fear current governments. The concern is that monotonic consolidation of power will eventually lead to a totalitarian state. Having a single, government funded, news channel is a tenet of any authoritarian state so likely best to avoid. Naturally the only way to have a single source is to have strong censorship laws which only allow government approved information. This is far riskier to democracy than random crack-pot journalists. Though we may have always lived in free countries, it is important to remember that even today the majority of the world's citizens live in non-free countries. Backsliding is possible - it has happened before and could happen again. I'd rather not think about this either but I think it is important to be mindful of the possibility.

>> BBC, NHK, CBC, PBS, France 24

I don't know anything about the others, but the CBC is considered controversial in Canada.

>> Stanford, Harvard, Yale, MIT, Caltech - all private

I don't really understand the analogy here. Elite universities are large institutions, but do not exclude smaller ones (good). Wouldn't this essentially be what we have now (New York Times, Washington Post, etc).

Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily but there's lots of examples if that's the path you want. BBC, NHK, CBC, PBS, France 24, ... these are all generally regarded as pretty decent. Even AJ+, RT and Al Jazeera has done decent journalism. We can speculate based on fears or look at existing systems. Some people gnaw at their fingernails and couch faint whenever "government" is mentioned like it's some masked moustache twirling cartoon villa…

>> faint whenever "government" is mentioned I don't believe the concern is necessarily the case that people fear current governments. The concern is that monotonic consolidation of power will eventually lead to a totalitarian state. Having a single, government funded, news channel is a tenet of any authoritarian state so likely best to avoid. Naturally the only way to have a single source is to have strong censorship…

You actually Are pearl clutching and reaching for the smelling salts.

I have multiple examples but you reach for some wild imagination because of some insane fanaticism of all things government. CBC has won multiple Pulitzers and Peabodies but I guess it's actually some communist menace.

Basically all the top countries in press freedom have a government news source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index#Ra...

Maybe 2 in the top 30 don't

This isn't productive. Let's end this.

Re: Forget Spotify for news – let's fix the real problem (2017)

#60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> faint whenever "government" is mentioned I don't believe the concern is necessarily the case that people fear current governments. The concern is that monotonic consolidation of power will eventually lead to a totalitarian state. Having a single, government funded, news channel is a tenet of any authoritarian state so likely best to avoid. Naturally the only way to have a single source is to have strong censorship…

You actually Are pearl clutching and reaching for the smelling salts. I have multiple examples but you reach for some wild imagination because of some insane fanaticism of all things government. CBC has won multiple Pulitzers and Peabodies but I guess it's actually some communist menace. Basically all the top countries in press freedom have a government news source https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_…

Sorry, I don't understand the smelling salts reference but I assume it is non-positive. Is the CBC not controversial among a material percentage of the Canadian population currently? If winning an award from a respected institution provides one with a lifetime free pass, then please inform Harvey Weinstein of the news.

Is it insane to think that some country that is currently free may one day become non-free? It has happened before, so it is not clear by what logic you conclude that it can never happen again.

This isn't productive because your arguments are rather weak and now you are resorting to ad-hominems which is particularly distasteful.

Post reply on HN