341–350 of 477 posts
They ran out of dangerous places to do designer drugs. In all honesty, Vice was a cool outlet for out-there stories for teens and adults alike. Shame it’s shutting down but then again I never supported it.
While the story is still online (hopefully it stays there), I’d like to point out this piece in particular: https://www.vice.com/en/article/qvg5z3/what-if-we-treated-we...
Also posted at Tedium: https://tedium.co/2019/10/17/historic-websites-preservation/
Too many good websites just get steamrolled out of nowhere. It would be deeply ironic if I spent a good chunk of my career writing pieces for a site that deleted its archive.
Shane Smith cashed out at Vice's highest...gotta say either he knows this is how he going to exit or he knows the industry (digital media)
Time to reset the "days since MBAs ran a company into the ground" ticker, I guess?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who said they are not letting the site stay online?
It wasn't in this post, but it was a separate rumor that the site would be deleted. This sounds crazy, but is exactly what other digital publications have done recently.
I was involved with some sites recently that stopped publishing new content. The plan is to keep most of it around for now. But I have no illusions that if it becomes a "project" for some reason or another in a few years, it will just be turned off.
Well Vice.com destroyed themselves after the founder left and was taken over. Ever since, they ran themselves into the ground and raised so much money all for what? Only for their website to be shut down after being bankrupt. All faster than their own deranged Twitter / X collapse predictions. Nothing of value was lost.
Shane Smith, who documented his own set up in one of the episodes? Which was about the cancer miracle cure.
Please elaborate.
This is my toot. I’d like to point out I have written a lot of content for Motherboard over the years about the importance of digital preservation. While the story is still online (hopefully it stays there), I’d like to point out this piece in particular: https://www.vice.com/en/article/qvg5z3/what-if-we-treated-we... Also posted at Tedium: https://tedium.co/2019/10/17/historic-websites-preservation/ Too many good we…
See: https://web.archive.org/web/2/https://www.vice.com/en/articl...
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)
So do you believe this is an action taken out of spite, or that there may be circumstances that a bunch of hackers aren't taking into account?
I'm genuinely curious, because I don't believe it's spite, but can't think of the reason. Outside of some long-tail potential liability for which the value of maintaining the site doesn't overcome.