The internet runs on ads.

Ad companies pay for all the “free” popular social media we use. Ad companies dictate to social media what their clients want their ads to be associated with, not associated with, and drive media of all kinds to push inflammatory and click-bait content that drives engagement and views. It’s why you indirectly can’t swear, talk about suicide, drugs, death, or violence. Sure, you technically can unless ToS prohibits it, but if companies tell their ad hosts they don’t want to be associated with someone talking about guns, the content discussing guns gets fewer ads, fewer ads = less revenue, low-revenue gets pushed to the bottom.

So lowbrow political rage bait, science denialism, and fake conspiracies drives people to interact and then gets pushed to the top because it gets ad revenue. Content that delves into critical thought and requires introspection or contemplation languishes.

Ads are destroying society because stupid and rage sells views.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 57 points 8 months ago* (18 children)

Agree. Which is why I get so irrationally annoyed when sharing a good piece of journalism that's not catering to ad-clicks and the peanut gallery here grabs their torches and pitchforks while shouting "PaYwALL!" despite me posting the gist of the article in the post body (enough to get the gist but not the full article for copyright reasons). It's one of several reasons why I don't even bother anymore.

Like, good journalism costs money. That money's gotta come from somewhere if you want good journalists to be able to eat and keep doing what they do.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    How can I tell they’re good journalists without reading their stuff first?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    By reading the gist that OP provided and deciding if you want to read more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    What if I want to read more but not enough to go find my wallet and hand over personal information?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    What if you want a cookie, but not enough to go to the grocery store and buy some cookies?

    Then you don't get any fucking cookies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    What if you want a cookie, but not enough to go to the grocery store and buy some cookies?

    I fixed that for you:

    What if you want a cookie, but not enough to go to the grocery store and buy some cookies, after showing your ID card for its number to be written up?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    The difference being that good journalism doesn’t die because I’m too lazy to get a cookie.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (3 children)

    Well, no. It dies because you're unwilling to fund it. Because apparently finding your wallet is too much effort.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (2 children)

    And multiply that times a few hundred million lazy humans and now you know why real journalism is dying.

    It’s not a viable business model because people are people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    despite me posting the gist of the article in the post body (enough to get the gist but not the full article for copyright reasons)

    when you (and others) do that, it is the best thing on the news/science/sharing articles communities. lets me know whether the article is something i'm interested in reading and something i can comment intelligently on or just something i can shitpost about. i really appreciate it, just thought i'd let you know

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    That's all well and fine but if you're presenting the topic for discussion on a public forum you're limiting the audience. The gist isn't enough for complete discussion. So the cries about it being paywalled are completely justified.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    Attach the whole article to the post. Copy/paste has been around longer than the author. "Look at what I can read and you can't" isn't good for discussion. Author wants food? Let them eat cake.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    So you don't think journalists should be paid for their work?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    So you think news should be a privilege for the rich?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    Journalists are being silenced by their work being behind paywalls. I am stretching the meaning of the word "work" here on account of today's LLMs doing the heavy lifting. I have grown skeptical of journalists consistently putting out organic prose.

    Are we stealing their lunch by copying a whole article to discuss something in a niche online community? I can get past some paywalls by disabling Javascript for that site and I'll still see ads. I'll gladly steal the toothpick shoved through an olive off the top of their shit sandwich. Subscription paywalls are a cancer growing in the arteries of the information superhighway.

  • source
  • parent