Live data from Hacker News

Vice website is shutting down

writing.exchange

61–70 of 477 posts

Re: Vice website is shutting down

#63
People still don't realize how many things from the last fifteen years were LIRPs. Low interest rate phenomena doomed the moment investors can get a halfway-decent yield from fixed-income investments.

Re: Vice website is shutting down

#64

It makes no sense to not let the site online in an archived form, for the posterity It wouldn't even be a significant cost and ads would recoup it anyway There should be a way to donate a website to the Internet Archive so that they run an online archive on it, basically keeping the site frozen forever (rather than relying on the Wayback Machine which has worse UX)

> It wouldn't even be a significant cost and ads would recoup it anyway I 100% don't get it when websites with lots of content and good SEO just delete everything. Fatwallet (fuck you Rakuten). Yahoo Answers (hey, I didn't say good content). Even on my own Drupal blogs that I didn't want to maintain/update anymore, I did a giant curl job, recursively regex'd out the login/comment submission fields and dumped them on…

I imagine they still have to organize paying royalties and the like

Re: Vice website is shutting down

#65

It makes no sense to not let the site online in an archived form, for the posterity It wouldn't even be a significant cost and ads would recoup it anyway There should be a way to donate a website to the Internet Archive so that they run an online archive on it, basically keeping the site frozen forever (rather than relying on the Wayback Machine which has worse UX)

Setting aside the content, I guarantee the domain name has value. The investors will ensure it's going to be sold for a fair bit of money.

Re: Vice website is shutting down

#66

It makes no sense to not let the site online in an archived form, for the posterity It wouldn't even be a significant cost and ads would recoup it anyway There should be a way to donate a website to the Internet Archive so that they run an online archive on it, basically keeping the site frozen forever (rather than relying on the Wayback Machine which has worse UX)

> It wouldn't even be a significant cost and ads would recoup it anyway I 100% don't get it when websites with lots of content and good SEO just delete everything. Fatwallet (fuck you Rakuten). Yahoo Answers (hey, I didn't say good content). Even on my own Drupal blogs that I didn't want to maintain/update anymore, I did a giant curl job, recursively regex'd out the login/comment submission fields and dumped them on…

Or even Digg... Lots of comments and discussions lost.

Re: Vice website is shutting down

#69
post #56
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Nothing of value was lost. Place your bets on what will die next. HuffPo? Vox? Salon (which I know had a near-death experience a few years ago; I doubt its financial health is any better now)?

> Place your bets on what will die next. The next one is Huffington Post (owned by Buzzfeed) then Buzzfeed itself. Either they need to be bought out or they will need to do more layoffs to increase their runway and make sure that they meet the stock price requirement of >$1.00 to avoid being delisted by May 2024.

> Either they need to be bought out or they will need to do more layoffs to increase their runway and make sure that they meet the stock price requirement of >$1.00 to avoid being delisted by May 2024.

I think this was the "near-death experience" I was thinking of regarding Salon. Didn't Salon do a reverse stock split to meet the price requirement? Can Buzzfeed do this too?

Re: Vice website is shutting down

#70

It makes no sense to not let the site online in an archived form, for the posterity It wouldn't even be a significant cost and ads would recoup it anyway There should be a way to donate a website to the Internet Archive so that they run an online archive on it, basically keeping the site frozen forever (rather than relying on the Wayback Machine which has worse UX)

If it makes no sense, there's someone mean behind it.

The deal to work with the media outlets likely dictates they cannot have their own distribution channel even for historical content.

Post reply on HN