Maybe you should have thought of that before you became peasants.

Free range?

Finally, a free* reduction surgery!

Overcast iOS app comes to mind.

Absolutely. I have no problem displaying a few ads with my content if it results in better content. If it’s done responsibly, which it never is. Instead, it’s always an abusive relationship.

CU vs FEC was specifically about campaign financing, but yeah basically ruled that organizations like corporations are protected by 1A, and money counts as free speech.

Which is obviously bullshit on every level, but just one way that a SCOTUS with a few corrupt individuals can destroy democracy for an entire country.

I don't think USA today or any other outlet should be protected. I do think the reporters that work there should be protected.

Corporations should be held accountable for what they say or "strongly encourage" others to say. Individuals should be protected if they get things wrong, though.

While I agree with you in principle, I'm not sure the newspaper example supports your position, although it is an apt analogy.

I would imagine that the counter argument would take the form of something like, "Yes, you don't have to read the whole paper, but you can't just buy the comics. You buy the whole paper, get access to the whole thing, and the ads come with it. Similarly, with our web presence, in order to access everything, whether you choose to consume it all or not, the ads must come as a part of it."

Personally, I don't fully agree with either that argument or yours, can see the merits and flaws of both, and fall somewhere in the middle.

I'd argue that while they're within their rights to create, distribute, bundle, and price their content as they see fit, just like the current debate with social media companies, your monitor is your own personal, privately owned platform, and you shouldn't/can't be forced to offer a platform to any content you don't wish to publish (to your audience of one). So you're perfectly within your rights to want and attempt to only view the content you wish to see, while they're also perfectly within their rights to want and attempt to package their content in such a way that links their articles with the advertisements of their sponsors.

So at that point, it's just an arms race between the producer doing their best to force ads onto screens and consumers doing their best to avoid same. Neither side is morally right or wrong, and while there likely is a middle ground that wild be acceptable to both parties, there's zero good faith between the two sides which would be necessary to establish that middle ground.

I don’t think they’re arguing that the ads are part of the free speech, I think they’re arguing the ads are a revenue source that allows them to fund free speech. Blocking ads in this case is more akin to sitting down at the newsstand for two hours while you read the paper, then putting the paper back without having paid for anything. Yes online advertising has become a massive breach of privacy, but they have no obligation to give away their product for free, and looking at ads is how you pay for it.

Free speech ≠ free beer.

Data laws aren't for you. They are for marginalized and vulnerable demographics, who are put at risk when they get doxxed.

I just don't feel comfortable having these big companies profiting from my information. If it's that valuable to them, then they should be paying me for it.

Seriously. When did everyone get so stupid? They obviously aren't saying ads are free speech

Choose a life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television. Choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers... Choose DSY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit crushing game shows, stucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away in the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself, choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that?

George Carlin bit?

Edit: reference

I miss that man

I'll take four!

Tell me you’ve never fucked without telling me you’ve never fucked….

Ben shapiro????

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects:

• The right to speak, specifically the right to political speech and to be critical of the administration or its officers
• The right to practice religion (right now this is being used to override other rights and duties)
• The right to publish, as per above
• The right to assemble with others
• The right to petition your representatives in office for redress of grievances.

When Justice Amy Coney Barrett was being reviewed for her bench position, she couldn't remember the last one.

But Pepperidge Farm remembers.

Because they said it poorly. Why would I trust their reporting if they can't communicate a simple message like that?

calm yourself i was obviously talking about the website usa today based in the usa. im not even from the usa...

The definition of "dark pattern" has been evolving. Today I think it means "UI design I don't like", or at least that's how everyone's been using it.

Recently saw someone accuse PayPal of using dark patterns when they clicked the submit payment button and the payment went through (they wanted one more interstitial).

I think they come with ublock itself and are called "annoyance filters" or something like that.

Objectivity is a myth.

It's not so much a myth, as an unobtainable goal that should be strived for. Like perfection. One can never be perfect, but one can always be better. There are such things as facts, and accuracy in describing them.

To say objectivity is a myth, seems to suggest nobody has any responsibility to try to accurately represent any facts. If someone claims blue light has a wavelength of 150nm, is that a perfectly valid opinion? Do lies exist?

Bias will always exist. That is a given

But many outlets have learned to make clear demarcations between editorial and reporting. It isn't always obvious if you aren't looking at it, but it is the idea that actual data is reported "honestly".

For example: Take a look at how most outlets report on the Israel/Palestine war. Some will list IDF casualties for Israel and civillian casualties for Palestine which introduces immense bias (I want to say Al Jazeera does this?). Others will use verbiage like "N Israeli citizens were killed. N*100 Palestinian civilians died" which introduces bias on the other side. A good outlet will use the same verbiage and data for both sides.

And that is immensely useful. Because, again, to harp on that war: There is so much FUD out there that it is REALLY hard to know what is true or not. And sure, social media is a lost cause. But so are a LOT of news outlets and that is why the hospital bombing immediately entered "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" territory.

And no, I am not going to list an "objective or unbiased" outlet. Because that never leads to a good discussion. It always results in "Yeah, well here is an example of them not being perfect. Checkmate" and, more importantly: People who understand the need to care about this should learn how to evaluate for themselves. Rather than rely on some rando on a message board to tell them how to think.

Objectivity isn't meant to be a destination in the sense that it's a place that one's reporting can arrive at. It's meant to be a process, one that can never be executed perfectly, but one that has the effect of improving the final product over what it would otherwise be.

As for your question, "when did WWII start?" The answer is that it's an objective fact that there are a number of events that arguably mark the beginning of the war, all of which have varying degrees of merit. Complexity, or the fact that there is no one right answer to a given question, doesn't mean that we have to throw out any effort at objectivity. It just means that we have to dig deeper.

Nah. I think they just assumed more people remembered the ad campaign by (if memory serves) The New York Times where they more or less showed every step used to investigate and verify a story before reporting. Also, I would be amazed if that was actually the NYT's campaign which... probably sums things up.

Before they were mismanaged to the shadow realm, Vice was similar. The idea that they very much were "good news" and ACTUAL freedom of speech/the press in contrast to "I want to say all the slurs"

What if I actually have a black sheep?

Yes?

It's actually the Google corporate police

http://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2021/09/renaming-whitelisted-domains-to-allowlisted-domains-in-admin-console.html