Before this particular Enshittification some of the people from Vice formed their own journalist led site. Including the editor from Motherboard.
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024
453 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
60024 readers
3593 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I’ve been hugely impressed with their work thus far. They hit the ground sprinting and haven’t let off the gas
Oh, that’s who they are. I’ve seen that domain pop up some recently.
I like their writing style.
One of two newsletters I actually subscribed to read.
Selfh.st and 404media.co
Edit: Corrected to selfh~~o~~.st
Glad they offer an RSS feed. So many sites stopped doing that
Vice did a lot of very good, and generally in-moderate-depth reporting over the years. Hope an overabundance of people scrape that shit while we still have an opportunity. Once its hosted somewhere safe, you could probably even dump access to it somewhere like ... the fediverse.
Surely most of it is already on the Internet archive?
Very likely. Those are not secure in the long-run either though, hence the need for an overabundance. No single online service should be genuinely fully trusted. You need a lot of duplication for any kind of real future-proofing.
I don't know much about the internet archive's inner workings. But rather recently a huge collection of old 70s-00s tokusatsu shows and movies got deleted along with the uploader. Some remain on piracy sites, but a lot probably live now on some old torrents. We really need an archive of the internet archive.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The Internet Archive's time is very limited. People are uploading full-length copyrighted movies. Even Disney movies. They aren't getting deleted. They are going to be sued into oblivion, taking their whole web archive with them.
More personally to me since I've made a lot of use of it, they would also take the Prelinger Archives with them. The Prelinger Archives is a massive noncommercial online archive of industrial, educational, commercial and other types of short films not considered to be pure entertainment from the beginnings of the silent era up even into the 1980s.
Much of it has been backed up on YouTube, so it will not disappear entirely, but then the content will be in the hands of Google, not in the hands of the people.
The Internet Archive is making a huge mistake by not moderating their content and we will all pay for it.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Journalism has become an absolute dumpster fire for almost anyone trying to do actual journalism. No wonder corporations are running roughshod over us all, the industry is hostile to anyone not willing to be some sort of shill.
And people will bitch and moan about a paywall.
It's a double edged sword. Quality information should be accessible to everyone. We ensure that for kids through public school systems, but for adults you need to pay for it yourself. Which is a huge problems since that is the same demographic as "voters".
Libraries?
We're talking about paywalls for news articles. Libraries dont solve this problem.
load more comments
(3 replies)
The problem with paywalled isn't an unwillingness to pay for quality, its being attacked with a subscription when we don't want to be locked into a single source. Today I want a good article on popular particle physics, tomorrow I want to know whats going on with education in Nigeria. Let me make a quick crypto micropayment with no fuss and I'll read your article, try to make me a lifelong subscriber and get fucked.
Thank you. In an age where every single company is trying to wring $5-10/month out of you, sorry, I don't have the budget to subscribe to 10 different news wires. Now if we had a system of 25-50 cents an article, maybe even $1, that would be an entirety different story. I don't give two shits about sports analysis, what's happening on Broadway in NYC, or celebrity gossip. I read my news a la carte. The only exception is my town's weekly local newspaper, which I buy for $1 at the hardware store.
Chrome is looking into adding a website payment system, where you could have a refillable "tip jar", and when you visit websites with paywalls they could pop up with the cost for that specific article. Hit yes, it deducts that from your tip jar, and you read the article.
There are some similarities to a system that Brave browser already uses, except you generally earn money for brave's version by allowing the browser to show you ads (although I'm pretty sure you can buy the credits directly too). Either way, the internet is moving towards needing to pay for content, and trying to find more convenient ways for users to do that.
Exactly! Back in the day, you had two options: (1) subscribe or (2) buy a single magazine or newspaper. Now, there's no equivalent to the newsstand for digital media.
Or (3) go to the library and read it for free.
Does such a system exist, and how do you implement it without a third party login system?
I think you can charge per article on substack. Not entirely sure though.
Some newspaper charge X$ for Y articles, I think the NYTimes do it or used to. It’s usually a horrible deal compared to monthly subscription, but I think that’s the point.
I mentioned this in another comment, but Chrome browser is currently working on it's own implementation of this. It has a high chance of becoming the new standard with Chrome's marketshare, unless there's strong pushback against it (if Google made it a privacy nightmare or something like that).
Brave browser has a version of this already, powered by crypto. Websites need to opt into it before they can earn money from users though, and it's usually just used to replace revenue from brave blocking the websites ads.
load more comments
(2 replies)
You're a genius! I would stop removing paywalls if something like this existed.
Yeah, I understand that journalism needs to be paid for, but I don't think paywall's are much of a solution.
I don't want to pay a subscription for one publication's news. I don't even really want a subscription for a selection of publication's news. I just want to read whatever I want to read and I'm happy to pay a reasonable amount for that.
Could you explain more- so you want a la carte options, like pay on a per-article basis? And to be clear, you know that free high-quality print media has never been a thing historically, right? Like, you never could access all articles from the entire history of the NYTimes on demand for free, that was never a thing. The paper for that day was locked in a metal box you had to pay to open, and all you got to see was half the front page.
Or, you know, support libraries...
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's all our collective fault, mine included. I've never paid for news, yet expect unbiased news free from corporate fuckery....
And over here the state-funded media is getting less money every year because our right-wing parties don't like it.
Honest fact based journalism is an essential pillar of a functional democracy. Being informed is absolutely in the public interest, and government funding should support it, precisely because it often isn't profitable or sustainable for private companies (as we keep seeing over the years).
I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp. And the people whining about liberal bias and calling for defunding of public media are missing the forest for the trees (even if some of the journalism is questionable in quality).
There is no such thing as unbiased news free from corporate fuckery. But you can subscribe to several well-known and reputable news outlets, public broadcast services, and other varied reliable sources, and hope that the combined fuckery cancel each other out. For now, that's the best that you can do.
It's not easy and it's not cheap.
But Dixon wrote, rather cryptically, that remaining employees will put “more emphasis on our social channels as we accelerate our discussion with partners to take our content to where it will be viewed most broadly.”
In other words, the in depth reporting and niche shows aren't making enough money, so we're going to dump all that shit and jump on the reality TV bandwagon.
they'll just fire everyone and licence their stuff for AI training
I remember when they were a bunch of dicks. But, yeah, there was some really good journalism that got done - somehow - amongst all that.
https://pca.st/episode/26653693-fa5b-4d82-a7c2-683d1b29240d
Vice had a tech podcast called ‘Cyber’ and they dropped a final episode yesterday. It’s just a bunch of the staff bewildered and mourning the fall of Vice. Pretty interesting.
More amusing was that they did it ‘rogue’. Much of their CDN was inoperable, except for the podcast deliver infrastructure.
How nice. A site founded by a racist who once stuck a dildo up his ass live on streaming video as a "joke" is going to shove a dildo up the ass of all of its employees.
as a joke
sure
Congratulations, you have repeated the same point as the parent commenter, but removed the quotation marks to make it seem like they didn't do that, so to create for yourself an opportunity to say it again
load more comments
(1 replies)
That's sad. They did some really good things over the years.
back it up
I'd rather start saving my trash, thanks
These folks are backing it up, from a post on Bluesky by Aram Zucker-Scharff (@chronotope.aramzs.xyz):
Interesting fact about Vice's content: a full site archive, including saving outbound links, was performed by the volunteer Archive Team last year & it took ~6 months to capture all the Vice content across all the languages they publish in. They've published a lot! They're updating the archives now.
How was Vice not profitable with that much output?
view more: next ›