If a telecom that owns distribution has no chance of failing, what happened with go90?
Go90 was set up by 60 year old men trying to be cool to millenials in a space that was already highly competitive and which offered nothing new of interest. That was a space where there was real competition. Allowing for megamergers decreases competition.
And as far as algorithmicly driven news and it's impact , check out the election
Yes, we've discussed how that was completely overblown and how it was mostly confirmation bias.
I get too many pineapples have hit you on the head over the years. But it doesn't change the fact that the power is with apple Google and Facebook.
Yes, they have lots of power, but less than the telcos which have full access to everything. But you know that. Also, what's with the weird ad hom?
The first two can keep any telecom regardless of size out of the app store or hard to find.
Can you provide an example of them actually doing this to the telcos?
Also, how will that change if AT&T owns Time Warner?
Facebook can make or break a content provider
And how will that change if AT&T owns Time Warner?
And how much do fb apple and Google spend on content ?
Google these days spends quite a bit. But again, so what?
I get that you won't have much to talk about if you don't pick on telecoms , but that doesn't change reality
The apology was basically nothing. They kept the story up, because they wanted the traffic, and added a little tiny bit about "oh by the way, we're sorry".
Sure, but the legal issue here is important. If they hadn't retracted the story or put up the editor's note, they wouldn't have been liable. Do you at least see how crazy that is? They only got in trouble because of the apology?
They SHOULD be liable. And it SHOULD send a message. SEVERAL actually.
Again, that's easy for you to say, but the reality is that it's a lot trickier than that. It was bad reporting, absolutely. But the issue here is the apology alone.
One. Do REAL journalism, not this made up, activism "journalism". You know, where you have actual, verifiable FACTS. (Remember who, what, when, where and how?!)
There are serious First Amendment issues with your suggestion here that "activist journalism" isn't real journalism. That's very, very wrong.
Two. If you screw up, don't leave the story up to keep getting traffic or to be controversial. Take it DOWN. Write the apology and put it where the story USED TO BE.
Again, there are serious journalistic issues with doing that, because you are deleting the history of what happened, and that has its own problems.
They are getting what they deserve after that despicable excuse for journalism. And I hope it DOES have a chilling effect - a chilling effect on bad journalism.
Yeah, but because you're so angry about this article you don't seem to give two fucks about the real issue here and the impact it will have on good journalism.
I'd say the concept is awesome and the implementation has been dreadful. It needs a massive update.
And I don't see why it shouldn't be free. I know Carl Malamud has suggested that if they just raise the filing costs a little bit for corporations, it could recover more money and allow PACER to be free.
In my browser. I go to Google News, I tap a story, and it opens on the same page. Maybe it's only the top stories; I don't remember.
It sounds like you're talking about publishers that use AMP, which is Google's (open source) standard for fast loading stories. But publishers have to choose to use AMP. https://www.ampproject.org/ So, if you're clicking on AMP'd stories it may seem like they're still in the same window, but the publishers are still making that choice and setting up to use AMP. Otherwise, you're still going all the way to the publisher's original site.
I think you're confusing op-eds with news reporting. It's not uncommon for op-eds to have "point/counterpoint" style pieces. It sounds like that's what you saw. But an opinion piece is very different than "fake news."
That doesn't indicate changing someone's mind. That suggests just that someone likely predisposed to believing crazy false conspiracy theories about the Clintons believed one. My point is that it's not making Trump supporters like Clinton or vice versa.
So the list the WaPo published presumably only included right leaning sites and it could be argued that the WaPo is not absent malice in opposing such sites whose views differ mightily from it's editorial board. The WaPo should have known the story was bogus as other newspapers did but it furthered their narrative so they went with it. Could it be considered defamation? Doesn't appear to be as open or shut a case as you intimate Mike.
First of all, the WaPo didn't publish any list. It wrote an article about an organization. That organization published a list. WaPo did not.
Second, the list did not just include right leaning sites. It did include many, but also some left leaning sites. For example, Antiwar, Truthout & TruthDig are all considered left leaning.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Considering how may article titles on Tech Dirt say "Trump"
Sorry, but the left are the ones labeling and name calling and losing because of it. There is a complete refusal from the left to talk policy.
The only one labeling others that I see here is you. Also, have you realized yet that this story has nothing to do with Trump at all? Why make it about that?
I've been saying for a while that any comment that talks about "the right" or "the left" is almost 100% devoid of actual content. You're name calling for no reason other than tribalism. You want to talk policy? Stop with the team sports bullshit and talk actual policy. Starting with this post: let's talk about the problems of surveillance. We started with the post. You then shat in the comments about blue team/red team, rather than actually adding to the discussion about policy.
The idea that Techdirt was ever "pro-Hillary" is the most laughable thing I've seen. Can anyone point to anything positive we ever said about Clinton? Some people just keep insisting that anyone who criticizes Trump must be pro-Hillary. And all that does is reveal that they root for a team, and don't care about actual policies. This is true of many supporters of either candidate. It becomes rooting for a team or even a religion, rather than anything rational.
We haven't changed our position: we focus on policies and statements made by people, rather than what team they're on. It's why we rarely even mention party names, and why over the years we've criticized people from both major parties pretty much equally.
I know it's tough for Trump supporters to recognize this, but believing he's going to be a disaster doesn't mean we didn't also think Clinto would be a disaster (for what it's worth, I thought basically every candidate would have been a disaster and I wish we had a better system for finding a President).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now Trump is a book burner?
Getting quite testy these days.
No. Just sick of idiots who view everything on a left/right spectrum that isn't even remotely accurate. You keep attacking 'the left' as anything that disagrees with you.
Also, I notice that rather than respond to the multiple factual errors you made, you just attack me based on more falsehoods. This is not symptomatic of "the left" or "the right" but of foolish blowhards who identify more with a team than with reality. Stop identifying with a team and start learning.
The fact that you don't see the correlation between the leftist media blaming "fake" news for causing Hillary's loss as the first step to controlling the news and therefore the message is sad.
Um. You realize that I was one of the first to call out this exact risk, saying that the blaming of fake news is stupid, and a slippery slope to censorship:
EFF Deeplinks blog still doesn't have ANY comment section. But of course you won't write about THAT.
Um. You want us to write about every random website that doesn't decide to turn on comments? Why?
Should EFF's blog have comments? Sure. Maybe.
But that wasn't the issue here that were talking about. This was about media companies who HAD comments and basically ignored them until shutting them down claiming they were doing it because they were so interested in listening to their community.
Do you not do nuance? Or were you just trying (and failing) to be snarky?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Now Trump is a book burner?
Just look at FB, Google and Twitter. All founded by leftists who now wish to censor "fake" news.
Just so you know, basically everything in that sentence is flat out false. They were not founded by "leftists" (you might be able to make the case that one Twitter founder would be considered a "leftist" but even that's a stretch -- none of them are easily defined on the silly "left/right" political spectrum. Second, none of them wish to censor fake news. In fact, all three companies have actively resisted demands that it do so.
So, yeah. Get out of your bubble. You've been fed a line of bullshit.
Mike, do you have a preference for which vehicle receives support. I assume support directly through the Insider Shop would do the most good.
We want people to feel comfortable supporting us however they want -- that's the most important thing. Lots of folks seem to really like Patreon and we were interested in using the platform. So for people who want to support us that way, it's great. In terms of direct monetary contribution, sure, supporting us directly via the Insider Shop means more of the money goes directly to us (we still have some transaction costs) and it's more integrated into the site. But, really, it's up to everyone what they're most comfortable doing.