Please read: Blatant attacks on your Freedom to obtain Information

[gibxam]

Hello fellow Ubunters,

I am posting this as a call to arms among the open-source community. There is no doubt in my mind that one of corner stones of everything Linux and open-source stands for is the wealth of information and connectivity that the Internet provides. From what I have read, entire distributions and perhaps the entire Linux OS have been constructed and maintained using the Internet as the glue that holds our operation together! Where would Ubuntu be without the community of dedicated users who strive every day to help each other in a free and connected environment?

We can also thank the Internet for providing us with endless amounts of information; this helps arm ourselves against anyone who for good or bad tries to mislead us with lies. The Internet provides, perhaps, the last viable tool that we have as a society against anyone who tries to oppress us. It gives us the power to freely seek out our own truths. In a world that is filled with skewed/omited/blatantly false information provided by the mass media; the Internet is any free citizen's Excalibur in the dark world of censorship and propaganda.

I write this post because I believe that we should not take this freedom lightly. In a time of uncertainty and volatility there can be changes that take place in our society that often go unnoticed. We must act to squash any attempts to take this freedom from us; and be vigilant in exposing the methods to subdue our freedoms. Articles like the one I am including that I read in Time Magazine are outrageous to say the least. This is the most crude method of propaganda I have seen printed.

Personally I will be writing my own letter to the editors at Time Magazine expressing my discontent. I will be posting my letter and would love any revisions suggestions. Please read this article (link below) and tell others about it. Post your own ideas of how we can combat this subtle but blatant attack on our freedom. I am 18 and I am tired of sitting on the sidelines while my freedoms are slowly but steadily stripped away; I refuse to let the Internet join this list of stolen liberties.

Max

How to Save Your Newspaper - Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1877191,00.html)

[BuffaloX]

Sorry didn't care to read it, it's too long.
What's the fuzz about?

[mips]

What attack on freedom?

Seems you just want time magazine for free?

*Shakes head*

[Skripka]

What attack on freedom?

Seems you just want time magazine for free?

*Shakes head*

My head hurts.

[gibxam]

I understand that the article is long. Please take the time to read it though and you will see what I am talking about. I will be writing my own critique and summary of the article latter tonight. The article really has to do with the Internet more than just Time magazine or newspapers.

[bakedbeans4life]

While I sympathise with your plight, you are preaching to a user group that considers Microsoft (one of the organisations you probably protest against) as untouchable and beyond reproach.

To question Microsoft is to be labeled a freetard or worse. You question the quality of their products, then your name is worth ****.

Ubuntu attracts these people, unfortunately it is these people that will judge you.

Stick to your guns, voice your opinion. You may yet prevail. never give up, ever.

so as to my bias? LOL!

[unoodles]

Hmm. :-k A free internet news article about how free internet news is killing printed news. :-k

[BuffaloX]

So the article argues giving away content on the internet for free is a failed business model, and that a cheap and easy to use form of micro-payment could solve this.
How is this a problem for the internet?
PayPal sucks, something better would be absolutely cool with me.
If papers need to charge for content, it's alright too. How else will they be able to pay journalists?

I just think an online service should be cheaper than buying the paper edition.

[BuffaloX]

While I sympathise with your plight, you are preaching to a user group that considers Microsoft (one of the organisations you probably protest against) as untouchable and beyond reproach.

To question Microsoft is to be labeled a freetard or worse. You question the quality of their products, then your name is worth ****.

Ubuntu attracts these people, unfortunately it is these people that will judge you.

Stick to your guns, voice your opinion. You may yet prevail. never give up, ever.

so as to my bias? LOL!

Are you even on the right forum? :confused:
The above makes absolutely no sense to me.

[cinna]

Watching or listening to the news is so yesterday, It should be them paying people to watch/listen, not the other way round.

:D I stopped long ago and have been much better for it

[Skripka]

Hmm. :-k A free internet news article about how free internet news is killing printed news. :-k

They want to make sure someone might read it.

[wrtpeeps]

Hello fellow Ubunters,

I am posting this as a call to arms among the open-source community. There is no doubt in my mind that one of corner stones of everything Linux and open-source stands for is the wealth of information and connectivity that the Internet provides. From what I have read, entire distributions and perhaps the entire Linux OS have been constructed and maintained using the Internet as the glue that holds our operation together! Where would Ubuntu be without the community of dedicated users who strive every day to help each other in a free and connected environment?

We can also thank the Internet for providing us with endless amounts of information; this helps arm ourselves against anyone who for good or bad tries to mislead us with lies. The Internet provides, perhaps, the last viable tool that we have as a society against anyone who tries to oppress us. It gives us the power to freely seek out our own truths. In a world that is filled with skewed/omited/blatantly false information provided by the mass media; the Internet is any free citizen's Excalibur in the dark world of censorship and propaganda.

I write this post because I believe that we should not take this freedom lightly. In a time of uncertainty and volatility there can be changes that take place in our society that often go unnoticed. We must act to squash any attempts to take this freedom from us; and be vigilant in exposing the methods to subdue our freedoms. Articles like the one I am including that I read in Time Magazine are outrageous to say the least. This is the most crude method of propaganda I have seen printed.

Personally I will be writing my own letter to the editors at Time Magazine expressing my discontent. I will be posting my letter and would love any revisions suggestions. Please read this article (link below) and tell others about it. Post your own ideas of how we can combat this subtle but blatant attack on our freedom. I am 18 and I am tired of sitting on the sidelines while my freedoms are slowly but steadily stripped away; I refuse to let the Internet join this list of stolen liberties.

Max

How to Save Your Newspaper - Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1877191,00.html)

Ah, the old "I shouldn't have to pay for anything" chesnut. :rolleyes:

[zekopeko]

@gibxam

i think that you missed the point by a mile. for open/free source this can work because people do it in their free time. or they are getting paid to work on free software because his employer is building a service on top of the free software (think google, ibm, intel).
this can't be applied to journalism because you can't sell support or create a product from it that is financially viable (as seen in the recent months). journalism is one of the pillars of any democracy and the should charge (if they so wish) for high quality content. i would pay gladly for accurate and well researched information that is sorely lacking today.

[lisati]

How free is free?

Do we have the makings of a can of worms that's about to be opened here?

Most of us here enjoy the benefits of free speech, because we can count on most people being able to use discretion when it's called for. We can enjoy the benefits of free software because of the volunteers who donate their time and expertise and because of the kind souls who pick up the tab when some money or other resources are needed.

Need I continue?

[zekopeko]

Watching or listening to the news is so yesterday, It should be them paying people to watch/listen, not the other way round.

:D I stopped long ago and have been much better for it

what is on TV or radio for the last decade has rarely had well researched facts and can hardly be considered news.

in my country we pay 10$/per TV/per household to the state TV(please note the state TV isn't the governments propaganda machine but an independent entity that is financed by the state budget and ad revenue). The rest of the commercial TV houses usually try to further the agenda of their major stockholders (who usually have political ties to some parties).

[wrtpeeps]

How is this different from going into the shop and buying the fecking magazine off the shelf anyway?

Do you want that to be free aswell?!

[zekopeko]

How is this different from going into the shop and buying the fecking magazine off the shelf anyway?

Do you want that to be free aswell?!

well it would be nice :D

[bgerlich]

Strong words for a magazine that (as of now) considers 4 Chan's moot and Korean pop star Rain two most influential people in the world ;)

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1883644_1883653_1885481,00.html

[cinna]

Strong words for a magazine that (as of now) considers 4 Chan's moot and Korean pop star Rain two most influential people in the world ;)

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1883644_1883653_1885481,00.html

I do not advise to go to 4chan, i visited last year and bumped into things that are not considered legal in my country (mainly indecent images of youngsters), and it seemed to be a regular occurance. i am not trying to scare you off or anything it just seems a warning is right when 4chan is mentioned :popcorn:

[zekopeko]

Strong words for a magazine that (as of now) considers 4 Chan's moot and Korean pop star Rain two most influential people in the world ;)

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1883644_1883653_1885481,00.html

and if would agree. influence is a pretty broad term. it can encompass many things. from the worlds political borders to the shopping habits of fans.

[zekopeko]

I do not advise to go to 4chan, i visited last year and bumped into things that are not considered legal in my country (mainly indecent images of youngsters), and it seemed to be a regular occurance. i am not trying to scare you off or anything it just seems a warning is right when 4chan is mentioned :popcorn:

4chan regulars are a pretty interesting bunch. consider that for recreation they hunt pedophiles online.

[stderr]

[Fudgesticks, I double posted the below post. Sorry.]

[stderr]

Well, this is odd, I seem to be in the vast minority in agreement with the OP.

The web as we know it today, with search engines that index the vast majority of web content, and the ability to reference and view a heck of a lot of information, is wonderful (and cr*p in other ways, but hey).

Information is freely available equally to those (such as almost all of us) who are rich enough to afford "small subscription fees", but importantly equally to those who have no money or means of paying. Consider many in third world countries without so much as sufficient food (or a bank account) - what would you like them to do, pop down to their local Western Union branch and ask for a Mastercard?

And what does that mean? It means the rich have access to the news, and the poor don't. That sounds like unnecessary elitist capitalist disenfranchising trash to me.

But importantly, the article is making the point that internet advertising is suffering a fall, and therefore we must act. Well... everything else is falling too... it's a recession. That is rather the point, and what 'recession' means. If internet advertising were still on the up-and-up, frankly, that'd be weird.

I certainly don't think that just because profits are falling, that requires us to (as the OP rightly states) try to convert our 'net to an entirely pay-per-click system. In fact, it would be insane in the context of a free and open web, which is what we all (mostly...) enjoy today. To put it in 'American' terms though, it would also be insane monetarily.

In the middle of a huge recession, when nobody has any disposable income, they want to move away from the advertising revenue model, and ask people to pay for what they used to get for free? I certainly wouldn't.

How about we all just stick out the recession? It's our own fault anyway: consuming ever more, national debts ever growing, and ever more at the expense of poorer people. If some journalistic companies collapse amidst all the other company collapses, I won't be sorry for them. Just like I haven't been sorry that overall demand for products has dropped. Good. Who the heck needs all this stuff, all this choice?

Most of the news organisations are hopeless anyway. It's not 'news' any more. It's pure entertainment. Personally, I find the best information on the web tends to be the stuff written by individuals: which wouldn't likely to be charged for anyway. And they want me to pay for CNN/ABC/MSNBC/BBC/MEN/Sky/Times/Telegraph/Independent/.... online accesses? Hehe. All that'd do would be to drive readers away from main news sources and to free, independent bloggers/journalists/etc. Which would be pretty damn good :p

However, the article seems to be entirely suggestive, and I would assume that it wouldn't be taken seriously by the journalistic corporations in question.

[rocketflame]

my head hurts...

[zekopeko]

Well, this is odd, I seem to be in the vast minority in agreement with the OP.

The web as we know it today, with search engines that index the vast majority of web content, and the ability to reference and view a heck of a lot of information, is wonderful (and cr*p in other ways, but hey).

Information is freely available equally to those (such as almost all of us) who are rich enough to afford "small subscription fees", but importantly equally to those who have no money or means of paying. Consider many in third world countries without so much as sufficient food (or a bank account) - what would you like them to do, pop down to their local Western Union branch and ask for a Mastercard?

And what does that mean? It means the rich have access to the news, and the poor don't. That sounds like unnecessary elitist capitalist disenfranchising trash to me.

But importantly, the article is making the point that internet advertising is suffering a fall, and therefore we must act. Well... everything else is falling too... it's a recession. That is rather the point, and what 'recession' means. If internet advertising were still on the up-and-up, frankly, that'd be weird.

I certainly don't think that just because profits are falling, that requires us to (as the OP rightly states) try to convert our 'net to an entirely pay-per-click system. In fact, it would be insane in the context of a free and open web, which is what we all (mostly...) enjoy today. To put it in 'American' terms though, it would also be insane monetarily.

In the middle of a huge recession, when nobody has any disposable income, they want to move away from the advertising revenue model, and ask people to pay for what they used to get for free? I certainly wouldn't.

How about we all just stick out the recession? It's our own fault anyway: consuming ever more, national debts ever growing, and ever more at the expense of poorer people. If some journalistic companies collapse amidst all the other company collapses, I won't be sorry for them. Just like I haven't been sorry that overall demand for products has dropped. Good. Who the heck needs all this stuff, all this choice?

Most of the news organisations are hopeless anyway. It's not 'news' any more. It's pure entertainment. Personally, I find the best information on the web tends to be the stuff written by individuals: which wouldn't likely to be charged for anyway. And they want me to pay for CNN/ABC/MSNBC/BBC/MEN/Sky/Times/Telegraph/Independent/.... online accesses? Hehe. All that'd do would be to drive readers away from main news sources and to free, independent bloggers/journalists/etc. Which would be pretty damn good :p

However, the article seems to be entirely suggestive, and I would assume that it wouldn't be taken seriously by the journalistic corporations in question.

sure it's a recession.
the point of the article i would say was that you can't get GOOD journalism without paying for it.

All of the news sources you mentioned are mostly interested with profit.
the news that most of this "news" corporations are reporting usually don't have basic facts correct.
why? because it doesn't matter if there is any merit/worth to it but simply to entertain the people.

everything is an exclusive. or somebodies opinion. i want pure news loaded with proven/easily-verifiable facts. i want somebody exposing corruption and keeping society "in the loop".
"terrorist fist jabs" aren't news. columns aren't news for the most part.
journalism at it's best would probably be wikileaks and arstehnica (from my pool of news sources).they are reporting facts and their is really very little bias.
journalism at it's purest should inform the public with no bias. and every reporter and journalist should try to achieve that.

[stderr]

the point of the article i would say was that you can't get GOOD journalism without paying for it.

All of the news sources you mentioned are mostly interested with profit. [...]

Indeed, I do entirely agree wiht you, except with your point about the inability to get good journalism for free. I mean, you pretty much said it yourself.

CNN/ABC/... are entirely profit-oriented, as you say. Therefore doesn't it stand that the crap they're turning out tends to be what the majority are happy to read? Therefore most people would probably still click on the rubbish, whether they are paying per click or not. (Whether the dumbing down etc is more imposed or demanded is another debate.)


journalism at it's best would probably be wikileaks and arstehnica (from my pool of news sources).they are reporting facts and their is really very little bias.

Exactly my point. These don't charge. They're free; surviving on the donation model and the advertising model respectively

[bgerlich]

wikileaks and arstehnica (from my pool of news sources).they are reporting facts and their is really very little bias.

There is no such thing as little or no bias. The scope and selection of news is bias. News don't need to be unbiased, they need to be reported by many different, independent channels. Only pluralism in this field allows us to have an informed opinion on a subject, which, by the way, will also be biased and of course subjective.

[shatteredmindofbob]

Indeed, I do entirely agree wiht you, except with your point about the inability to get good journalism for free. I mean, you pretty much said it yourself.

CNN/ABC/... are entirely profit-oriented, as you say. Therefore doesn't it stand that the crap they're turning out tends to be what the majority are happy to read? Therefore most people would probably still click on the rubbish, whether they are paying per click or not. (Whether the dumbing down etc is more imposed or demanded is another debate.)



Exactly my point. These don't charge. They're free; surviving on the donation model and the advertising model respectively

um, Ars Technica is very much concerned with profit, especially since they're now owned by Conde Nast.

[BGFG]

The OP is wrong. period. The collection of quality, accurate news is a money spending excercise. If you want free news, go forth bravely and on your own strength, collect information you find relevant to your existance.

BUT, if another man's coin must be spent on transport, broadcast license, cameras, helicopter fuel(for those exciting moments in far off warzones) among thousands of other costs accrued in the process of collecting news etc. Then be an adult and pay for the service provided.

this you-tube mentality simply can't apply to everything children.
Next you'll want free access from your isp because information is free and you shouldn't have to pay to access it. Even your local library is not free, tax dollars keep it running. When was the last time you paid a bill or bought groceries with the strength of your ideals ?

[wrtpeeps]

Hello fellow Ubunters,

I am posting this as a call to arms among the open-source community. There is no doubt in my mind that one of corner stones of everything Linux and open-source stands for is the wealth of information and connectivity that the Internet provides. From what I have read, entire distributions and perhaps the entire Linux OS have been constructed and maintained using the Internet as the glue that holds our operation together! Where would Ubuntu be without the community of dedicated users who strive every day to help each other in a free and connected environment?

We can also thank the Internet for providing us with endless amounts of information; this helps arm ourselves against anyone who for good or bad tries to mislead us with lies. The Internet provides, perhaps, the last viable tool that we have as a society against anyone who tries to oppress us. It gives us the power to freely seek out our own truths. In a world that is filled with skewed/omited/blatantly false information provided by the mass media; the Internet is any free citizen's Excalibur in the dark world of censorship and propaganda.

I write this post because I believe that we should not take this freedom lightly. In a time of uncertainty and volatility there can be changes that take place in our society that often go unnoticed. We must act to squash any attempts to take this freedom from us; and be vigilant in exposing the methods to subdue our freedoms. Articles like the one I am including that I read in Time Magazine are outrageous to say the least. This is the most crude method of propaganda I have seen printed.

Personally I will be writing my own letter to the editors at Time Magazine expressing my discontent. I will be posting my letter and would love any revisions suggestions. Please read this article (link below) and tell others about it. Post your own ideas of how we can combat this subtle but blatant attack on our freedom. I am 18 and I am tired of sitting on the sidelines while my freedoms are slowly but steadily stripped away; I refuse to let the Internet join this list of stolen liberties.

Max

How to Save Your Newspaper - Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1877191,00.html)

Welcome to Earth by the way. Enjoy your stay.

[gibxam]

Watching or listening to the news is so yesterday, It should be them paying people to watch/listen, not the other way round.
:D I stopped long ago and have been much better for it
I'm sorry cinna but I would have to disagree with you; perhaps one of the reasons we (the world) are in the plight we are in is because our citizens have become to laxed in striving to inform themselves about events that happen globally and locally. I feel that it is our duty as citizens to be informed about what happens in our environment.


Ah, the old "I shouldn't have to pay for anything" chesnut. :rolleyes:
Alas wouldn't it be nice ;); however, this is not my point. I am saying that our ability to learn is, as of now, free! You and I have the ability to seek out our own truths without being taxed or charged for it. I feel that this should be preserved at all costs.


@gibxam

i think that you missed the point by a mile. for open/free source this can work because people do it in their free time. or they are getting paid to work on free software because his employer is building a service on top of the free software (think google, ibm, intel).
this can't be applied to journalism because you can't sell support or create a product from it that is financially viable (as seen in the recent months). journalism is one of the pillars of any democracy and the should charge (if they so wish) for high quality content. i would pay gladly for accurate and well researched information that is sorely lacking today.

I agree with you that journalism is of the pillars of democracy. However please ask yourself several questions.
1. Is our mass media (Time Magazine, CNN, NBC, Fox News, The New York Times, etc.) really independent as it is?
2. If yes, are they independent from Government or Corporate Big Business or both?

I would guess that if you did some research (on the free Internet) you would discover that there are several (about 6) massive corporations such as GE, AOLTimeWarner, NewsCorp, ext. that control the mass media.This is a whole new can of worms, however it begs the last question; if you truley do begin to be required to pay for "higher quality content" just what sort of content will you actually be receiving? There could be a conflict of interest between what our a Corporately controlled media (as most of the main stream media is) should or could be reporting and what they actually report. Why would we want to have to pay for this?

Note: You can freely investigate what corporations own what modes of journalism at this website cjr.org (http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=timewarner) I'm sure there are also many other methods to verify that what this website reports is accurate.


How free is free?

Do we have the makings of a can of worms that's about to be opened here?

Most of us here enjoy the benefits of free speech, because we can count on most people being able to use discretion when it's called for. We can enjoy the benefits of free software because of the volunteers who donate their time and expertise and because of the kind souls who pick up the tab when some money or other resources are needed.

Need I continue?
Wouldn't you add - Freedom to gain knowledge to that list?


How is this different from going into the shop and buying the fecking magazine off the shelf anyway?

Do you want that to be free aswell?!
I'm am not talking specifically of magazines. If magazines wish to charge more or less for their content that is up to them. However, I do not think that just because Time magazine or other corporately controlled journalist organisations are failing we should begin to charge money to people for using the Internet. Doing this would likely harm small organisations or alternative media whose only purpose is to inform its readers and citizens, while Corporate monopolies like AOLTimeWarner would flourish. The number of companies that control the media has already gone from well over 100 in the 1950's to under 10 currently. Don't you think that the corporations that who are in this game are good at squashing the competition? One of the main reasons that the alternative media, open-source software, and non-profit organisations survive is because it is free (as in freedom) to research/use/distribute. Just using Ubuntu as an example, how many people do you know who use Windows would just randomly decide to do some research in using an alternative operating system if it costed them 50 cents and hour or whatever price? How would people broadcast information to the public if the public had to pay to see it? We already have a hard enough time as it is informing about something such as our free operating system that we use, and its free! How hard would it be to accomplish our already daunting task if now we had to convince people to pay as well?

Note: In my letter to Time I will be backing up my above statements with evidence, and will also post it here.


sure it's a recession.
the point of the article i would say was that you can't get GOOD journalism without paying for it.

All of the news sources you mentioned are mostly interested with profit.
the news that most of this "news" corporations are reporting usually don't have basic facts correct.
why? because it doesn't matter if there is any merit/worth to it but simply to entertain the people.

everything is an exclusive. or somebodies opinion. i want pure news loaded with proven/easily-verifiable facts. i want somebody exposing corruption and keeping society "in the loop".
"terrorist fist jabs" aren't news. columns aren't news for the most part.
journalism at it's best would probably be wikileaks and arstehnica (from my pool of news sources).they are reporting facts and their is really very little bias.
journalism at it's purest should inform the public with no bias. and every reporter and journalist should try to achieve that.

I would answer your "Why?" question differently. I would say that because they are corporately owned it is in their best interest (the main motive of all corporations big and small) to only report some of the "News" while omitting other parts that may harm their image. If you want pure journalism that is unbiased how could you want to empower Journalist Organisations that BIASED by definition? There can be no doubt that a Magazine that is owned by GE will never say anything bad about GE or its interests; if that's not biased then I don't know what is.

I totally agree that media should be pure and with no bias. How can this be better achieved than to make the stream of information free and easily accessible? We have already proved that this method works with our very own OS; when the freedom was given to the people the end product was a stable, secure and dependable operating system. I feel that we can expect the same positive results to continue to show themselves if the Internet is kept free (as in Freedom) and open to the public.


The OP is wrong. period. The collection of quality, accurate news is a money spending excercise. If you want free news, go forth bravely and on your own strength, collect information you find relevant to your existance.

BUT, if another man's coin must be spent on transport, broadcast license, cameras, helicopter fuel(for those exciting moments in far off warzones) among thousands of other costs accrued in the process of collecting news etc. Then be an adult and pay for the service provided.

this you-tube mentality simply can't apply to everything children.
Next you'll want free access from your isp because information is free and you shouldn't have to pay to access it. Even your local library is not free, tax dollars keep it running. When was the last time you paid a bill or bought groceries with the strength of your ideals ?

There are so many things that run through my mind when you say that. The first is that collecting accurate news really is not a money spending exercise. If it were then why are there so many different ways to freely access information (that is often more accurate than that gained from mainstream/mass media) through the Internet or alternative media. I will again be backing up my sources in the future; but there were dozens (if not more) of alternative media presses that were warning about the housing bubble and the corporate deregulation of the banking industry, the whole while (all through the 90's to several years ago) we didn't hear a peep from mass media like Time or CNN or NBC or The New York Times. Perhaps the problem you are eluding to is that many organisations have MADE reporting "accurate" news a money spending exercise. And how could we expect otherwise? A corporation doesn't invest/buy/takeover a journalist column or magazine or broadcasting agency if they think that they will lose money. They do it because they feel they can make money; this holds true whether it is in our (citizens or readers) best interest. That is so indisputable; time and time again we see how corporations don't think twice before acting in their own interest before that of the common public. Why would we want to empower this system even more? Secondly; you tell me to go forth and bravely collect information! Of course I will! That is my whole point, I just as you or alternative presses do, have the power to collect my/our own information. Shouldn't we fight if necessary to keep it this way? Thirdly; do we really even need those helicopters you describe? Do we really have to pay for transport? In my own mind I am sure that in the time it takes for a helicopter to fly out to a war zone or another event, film the event, edit it, pay for transport and distribution and be read by the public that same event could be covered just as well and then be distributed across the Internet free of charge (or at the very least much less than the earlier example) It is in our best interest as citizens and readers to keep open all our viable methods of obtaining information, this perhaps most importantly includes the Internet.


Welcome to Earth by the way. Enjoy your stay.

Don't be such a defeatist ;)

Thank you to everyone who is taking the time to discuss this issue (as well as read the long Time Magazine article :)). Please, I am more curious than you know to be learn from what you have to say.

Max

[mips]

I'm am not talking specifically of magazines. If magazines wish to charge more or less for their content that is up to them. However, I do not think that just because Time magazine or other corporately controlled journalist organisations are failing we should begin to charge money to people for using the Internet.



They are NOT charging you for using the internet, they are charging you for their CONTENT.
Why should the content be free? Do you want the print copy free as well?
It cost them money to generate that content, why should they not recouperate it and generate a profit?

I honestly think you have lost the plot. Go start your own free news angency, come back in a year and tell us how it went.

[wrtpeeps]

Yea right enough. They should give away their content and all for free.

After all, I bet all those [very good] journalist will work for free.

[gibxam]

They are NOT charging you for using the internet, they are charging you for their CONTENT.
Why should the content be free? Do you want the print copy free as well?
It cost them money to generate that content, why should they not recouperate it and generate a profit?

I honestly think you have lost the plot. Go start your own free news angency, come back in a year and tell us how it went.

Mips I think you missed my point. Did you read the article? It is more than just the magazines begining to charge for their content. Please think: who in the right mind will spend 50 cents to read Time magazine when they could just as easily get that same information for free elsewhere on the Internet? The Corporations who are planning this know that. But as we know corporations are very good at slanting the playing field in their direction. The only way this would be profitable is if the Internet became entirely "per per view". This is eluded to in this quote from the article:

The system could be used for all forms of media: magazines and blogs, games and apps, TV newscasts and amateur videos, porn pictures and policy monographs, the reports of citizen journalists, recipes of great cooks and songs of garage bands. This would not only offer a lifeline to traditional media outlets but also nourish citizen journalists and bloggers. They have vastly enriched our realms of information and ideas, but most can't make much money at it. As a result, they tend to do it for the ego kick or as a civic contribution. A micropayment system would allow regular folks, the types who have to worry about feeding their families, to supplement their income by doing citizen journalism that is of value to their community.
It blatantly says - Would offer lifelines to traditional media outlets! Traditional, like the mass media that is owned by multi-billion dollar corporations; but what about all the alternative presses or website dedicated only to giving you information and not a profit. People will soon stop visiting those all together if they have to pay for it. Nourish citizen journal and bloggers should be read as stifle. As said above who will spend 50 cents and hour or whatever price to read someone's blog?
As for the people who do it for an "ego kick" perhaps we could read that as "the benefits of readers and citizens".

I wrote about this article because it puts a scary spin on an awful scenario. Please think about several things:

How would Corporations and their executives make money (as they always have, even in recessions while no one else is) if only some of the content on the Internet was "pay-per-click"?

What kind of steps would they take to insure they would make money?

What kind of information are you really getting from a Magazine like Time?

What do you think would happen if one day it became unprofitable for the Corporations who own our News Organisations to report all the news to its citizens? Do you think that they would just be benevolent enough to bite the bullet and tell us information that would harm their stock indexes?

My point is simple: There is an underlying (and carefully spun) message in this article that we should begin to charge money for using the Internet. The Internet has given so many people the power to educate themselves; it gives a tool to fight oppression, a way to stay connected to world, a way to stay connected to each other; I feel that we should guard tool very carefully and be aware of potential threats to it. I'm sure people can think of examples in the past where either Corporations or Government slowly and seemingly unnoticeable took advantage of a chaotic situation to make alterations that we now regret (Please think very [*read the last six years*] recently about when this has happened). What if one day we wake up and the Internet is no longer a freely available collection of information but instead just another way to make money and control people. If organisations wish to charge for their content, fine, but we MUST make it clear as citizens that we will NEVER allow the Internet to become a "money spending exercise" and that we are very aware of any attempts to do so.

Max

[stderr]

Woah, lots of views! I'll be brief, as I've already posted a lot of stuff here.

We live in a capitalist society. Personally, I HATE it, but unfortunately don't have much of an alternative aside from to say a little more socialism == better. To say that we should have to pay for everything is awful. Personally, I think every human is a human with as much right to life and information as myself. I think everyone should have access to food and water, regardless of whether they have money or not, whether they're from the UK, US, Zambia, Vietnam... and so when people say that you shouldn't get things for free, I say that is a really horrible viewpoint. I help people on these forums for free, as does everyone else here. I like helping other people: for free. I like the fact that there is free information online, and that those in Namibia can access it much as we can here. The more we move down the route of charging for everything, the more we move away from a society of human beings into one huge nasty dictatorial capitalist technocracy. And, my friends, I have to tell you, I'd rather be dead :)

[Rokurosv]

Well newspapers here are kinda....meh. During the election period papers clearly took sides, not all of em of course. During that time websites and TV provided a more relaible source of news than papers did. I still read newspapers but only for the national news, cause most of the other stuff are not that fresh.

PS: I don't live in USA :P

[t0p]

There is an obvious way for news companies to make money while still letting the readers onto the news sites for free - they can sell advertisements. And this isn't a new idea. When I was a child, over 20 years ago, there were a couple of "free sheets" in my town. They carried a certain amount of editorial/news content, some stuff sponsored by companies, and a bunch of ads. They even carried *free* classified ads, as they knew this attracted readers... which in turn attracted the advertisers.

Let me stress this: they carried *free* classified ads, *free* news and *free* features because that all attracted readers, which in turn attracted the advertisers who paid the bills.

Maybe you are not aware of this, but most newspapers make the majority of their money from advertisers.

One of the best news sites in the UK is the Guardian's site. They still sell newspapers too because many people will pay a premium for the news in hard copy. But their site is free and successful, because it is paid for by the advertisers.

A "pay per view" internet would be awful. I'm surprised how many people here can't see that.