139 points mkeeter 53 minutes ago 33 comments
vr46 42 minutes ago | parent
Animats 26 minutes ago | parent
That why Salon is disappearing. I used to read it, and I thought it disappeared around the time Brill's Content and The Standard went under.
I haven't seen Salon in a Google search result in years.
cocacola1 42 minutes ago | parent
baggachipz 40 minutes ago | parent
EA-3167 34 minutes ago | parent
A whole class of site is on the chopping block as ad revenue and clicks dry up. For actual journalism worth paying for increasingly paywalls are popping up to compensate for these factors.
baggachipz 28 minutes ago | parent
Us: "Here Google, I've done your bidding to earn higher placement in your search engine"
Google: "Thanks for all the data, idiot. Now we'll show it on our site and claim it as ours"
Our organic traffic is WAY down despite nonstop kowtowing to their demands.
ToucanLoucan 21 minutes ago | parent
I don't understand this viewpoint at all. I follow specific writers for their voice, not in spite of it. A whole lot of people seem to be hallucinating this past moment in history when news was strictly factual information, delivered with no editorializing, from people who had no opinions or ideas, and I genuinely have no idea what they're talking about. Walter Cronkite would frequently editorialize about events he was reporting. All the major historical men and women of news would, that's... the point, you're not just tuning in to know what happened today, you're tuning in to experience those events through the eyes of someone you've at least got some vague trust relationship with.
And I categorically reject any notion that it's better to get a summary via AI. I can clock articles written with heavy AI use and I dislike their monotone and... well, inhuman writing style. Frequently, especially as of late, current events need the touch of an empathetic human with their own ideas.
If you require your news filtered through a bias-remover, IMO you just lack media literacy. I can read something from someone I disagree with on basically everything and still get the facts out of it. Frankly: skill issue.
lisper 29 minutes ago | parent
lenerdenator 26 minutes ago | parent
It's pretty much everywhere. I just assume it of apps on my phone.
cogman10 8 minutes ago | parent
That alone has made me much MUCH more leery to subscribe to anything if it's not something that can easily be canceled (For example, using Google play to subscribe to things since they make it easy to unsubscribe).
chmorgan_ 37 minutes ago | parent
benbayard 35 minutes ago | parent
tptacek 30 minutes ago | parent
DonHopkins 5 minutes ago | parent
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suck.com
Suck.com Net.Moguls Internet Mogul Trading Cards:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181211075708/http://www.suck.c...
Rick Adams, Front:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180802115113im_/http://www.suc...
Rick Adams, Back:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180802143444im_/http://www.suc...
And the hard hitting parody of fuckedcompany.com.
Fucked Company published an excellent documentary on the Digital Entertainment Network.
(It's from "Fucked Company", so obviously it's NOT SAFE FOR WORK, but who's at work any more these days?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W41Ttr73TqU
>Dot Com Boom & Bust - Digital Entertainment Network
>A parody of the founders of Digital Entertainment Network. DEN was "a quintessential example of the excesses and lack of control of the dot-com craze."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Entertainment_Network
>I rescued this from Web Archive, and it was originally posted on the Fuckedcompany.com website, which went defunct in 2007.
Yes, THAT guy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6iDZspbRMg&t=19m42s
>Cryptocurrencies: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fucked_Company
Oh no :(, the Internet Archive fucked them:
https://web.archive.org/web/2/http://www.fuckedcompany.com/
>Sorry.
>This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine.
Alternative alternative archive of the front page, only existing in the web.archive.org snapshot of wayback.archive-it.org:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240326164342/https://wayback.a...
Then they went from sorta fucked:
https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20091016001955/http://www...
To fucked:
https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20130104195206/http://www...
macintux 29 minutes ago | parent
https://web.archive.org/web/20210219012551/https://www.polit...
tptacek 24 minutes ago | parent
LogicFailsMe 25 minutes ago | parent
mushufasa 21 minutes ago | parent
nonethewiser 21 minutes ago | parent
lastdong 18 minutes ago | parent
slowin 16 minutes ago | parent
https://www.salon.com/1998/10/30/feature1_6/
Very, very different from what you'd expect from Salon in the later years.
I archived it, because the OP didn't really make it clear if salon.com is going offline or not: https://archive.is/PesDo
bashhq_r 16 minutes ago | parent
legitster 13 minutes ago | parent
This started long before the decline of the open internet and AI. If anything, the shift online covered up a massive hollowing out of the industry. We're getting fewer sources of news, and more national coverage. A lot of stuff that is reported on is coming from a scant number of wire services, or directly from PR teams themselves.
For the most part, your choice of news platform is just a layer of coverage choices and political spin on top of a very thin market of original coverage.
tptacek 7 minutes ago | parent
gausswho 10 minutes ago | parent
adamiscool8 7 minutes ago | parent
Guess that didn't work out. I enjoyed reading their creative journalism before they went all the way in on dogmatic politics.
mscarpino 7 minutes ago | parent