Lauchs

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 hours ago

Back in the day, before ad blockers general unobtrusive ads generated more revenue per site visit. As ad blockers become popular, the value of those same ads were worth less.

So, to answer your question, they were able to pay the bills with discreet ads which we decided were too annoying, leading to the current spiral of decline.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 hours ago

Have you subscribed or paid for many? If so, thank you! But sadly, most of us don't.

I'm not talking big conglomerates, I'm talking about independent journalism or folks who are working to build something meaningful or beneficial to me, like webcomics or fantasy hockey.

Since people started getting news online for free, quality independent journalism has plummeted and we've been left with mostly corpo media with a few indies hanging on or getting absorbed into corpo. I think it's a tragedy which adblockers have accelerated.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago

Yup. Everyone wants everything free but simultaneously want a high standard of wages for everyone except whomever is providing them a service.

Folks dress it up in whatever nonsensical rationale they'd like but really, I think we're just selfish.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

So why should anyone make a website for you to visit?

Donations etc haven't been particularly effective. Should only giant corpo media exist? Should online news enter into sketchy deals with whomever?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago

Honestly, I don't use many random websites frequently, the ones I do tend to be pretty non intrusive in terms of ads (cbc, dobberhockey etc) so it might just be lucky on my part.

I dunno, I just think it's a race to the bottom. If everyone ad blocks then sites either don't exist, have to get more intrusive for the small sliver who doesn't ad block or sketchy partnerships.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

How do you expect the websites you use to exist if everyone ad blocks them?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 12 hours ago (13 children)

If it's a site I use regularly, I'll disable ad blocker, especially news. It'd be childish demand people provide me their time, labour and effort for free, especially when the ads cost me nothing.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Hundred percent. OP seems like a sympathy/pity vampire or something.

I feel terrible, so many people are taking tine to try and help and at best get met with a "no, I don't want that."

I keep waiting for them to take up my offer to find them free therapy...

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

Where did lil Napoleon hide his lil armies?

In his lil sleevies!

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 day ago

Why does Snoop carry an umbrella?

Fo drizzle.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

This is my casual go to, love freaking out as the second muffin.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

If you envy them, you can take proactive steps like therapy. Again, if you share the region in which you live, I can look for free resources for you.

 

It's a little light on the genre aspect (though there's a lot of blood a couple of times) but it's a funny, delightful and occasionally touching movie about a new Finnish band that plays "symphonic post-apocalyptic reindeer-grinding Christ-abusing extreme war pagan Fennoscandian metal."

PLUS there is a sequel coming out sometime. Usually I don't like them but an indie movie this good deserves one.

 
 

There's no wrong time; role play, dirty talk or aesthetic comparisons!

 

Just picturing an alien archaeologist "so, as they stopped being crippled by polio or losing their lives building railroads, they complained about having to wash the dishes?"

 

People also love surprises. These two bits of social insight can be combined to great effect.

 

Was about to answer the billionaires one, realized there are better ways to spend this limited beautiful moment of life than being virtually shouted at.

How about you?

 

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.

  • John Stuart Mill
view more: next ›