Oh, right, the article (without grandma)... I think the second selection in the second image has a bit of clever irony. Shouldn't those "edgy" (ouch, reaching for that tore a ligament) artists be compensating those who provide side benefits out of pure (apparent) adulation? This is a moral question.
Right around the last time someone passed a GED and cited MTV as the sole source of their knowledge... so, the mid 90's, when MTV still deemed rebellious sarcasm was the "in" thing for pissing off parents, and pretty much everyone else. Then it shifted to mindless obedience (you know, to be "different," like everyone else) and the intelligence level dropped below keeping even Beavis and Butthead on the air.
This action sounds like that of a manager wanting to "streamline" a database: ie. rearrange the rows to make it look pretty. Decisions in kind typically don't take into account the end user experience as they don't result in a directly related change in cash flows and have the nice side benefit of making it look like you did work to the higher-ups. Most of these kind of annual review fillers are innocuous.
This is part of your attempt to rationalize why you support paywalls for Louis CK and Kevin Smith, but you can't bring yourself to support a major media paywall.
Did you even stop for a moment to think about the exclusivity of delivery? I don't know about you, but I usually find jokes funnier when delivered by the competent comedian. In contrast, I couldn't care less where the news specifically came from since my confidence in such information is less dependent on the individual source and more dependent on my own heuristics and meta-analysis. To sum up, news is more reliable from multiple independent sources (which in text links make easy to quickly determine), whereas comedy is less reliable upon delivery in the same context. As soon as comedians figure out how to tell each others jokes, while citing each other, and remain funny, this will change; the logical conclusion of this is captured well by the present shift in the field of journalism.
... said the two registered users. I realize the significant difference between a signup requirement and the clear option of equally functional anonymity presented by Techdirt, but the great irony of your sentiments in spite of the clear influence of CWF+RTB was too much not to point out.
Hey, be fair: It's not the monopolies that are all that bad. It's not allowing them to die out naturally, codifying their protection in law, the associated regulatory capture and political corruption, and the pond scum sucking bottom feeder bitches trying to defend the whole state of affairs that are ruining the future of our culture.
On the other hand, what THEY COULD do is PROVIDE REASONABLE LICENSING OPTIONS to those using the word in what would otherwise be a completely innocuous manner AND NOT LITIGATE unless there was tangible proof of harm to or false association with their brand.
The world is ruled by hot button issues, while real serious problems are ignored.
Normally, as an engineer, I'd say "well, then we'll just have to fix that; I'll get back to you in a week," but there's only so much that can be done without "playing the game." And we've seen how well that's gone over just about every time it's been tried. Events like the revolution that founded this country that give me hope that the right conditions can still exist for real changes to occur. Maybe they'll even last a little longer next time.
Well, given the proximity, I'm not that surprised after the whole iiNet circus. If the content providers followed suit with the ISPs in the general region, this is the logical end point where people start developing a sense of humor and a thicker skin. Now, if only courts/lawyers on this side of the planet gave out similar advice... bah, I'm sure the result of that would be a decade of fearful lawyers and a bunch of very angry and clueless lawsuit-happy people not being drained of money fast enough.
Even though there is a silly fee attached to it, at least the value of access to research has been recognized, even if just indirectly. Access like this would have likely prevented issues like the debacle over vaccination with Nature. With more people reading the articles and critically analyzing them, the peer review process will benefit from the implicit check by the public.