Media channels get paid even when they are free: in goodwill, reputation, visibility, etc etc - all that stuff they are so keen to bestow on their workers in the lower organizational rings.
Regardless, the guilt trip you're so keen to induce would maybe trigger if I could pay these folks by article, rather than with feudalistic subscriptions that are notoriously hard to cancel. As it is, my conscience is unblemished.
Stealing is the wrong word, but then we've had this conversation for 30 years so clearly you know what you're doing. If you must, "freeloading" would probably be a better term.
> Artists are paid by exposition I guess!
If it allowed them to pick political candidates and set the nation's agenda, yeah, I guess they would be.
No I chose stealing for a reason. Freeloading is not the right term. I'm not a native english speaker, freeloading seems to mean "to impose upon another's generosity or hospitality without sharing in the cost or responsibility involved". It's not the right word to convey my idea.
Ah! This is good logic. Next time I'm at a restaurant, after service and food have been rendered, I will say, "You won't let me pay in the amount and manner in which I want, so I'm not going to pay at all!" Thanks for the tip!
> all that stuff they are so keen to bestow on their workers in the lower organizational rings
So two wrongs make a right? Come on. These are ethics that are intuitively grasped by grade school children.
> Media channels get paid even when they are free: in goodwill, reputation, visibility
Oh good. So when it comes time to pay their server bill, office rent, employee payroll, etc. etc. they will just forward goodwill, reputation, and visibility on. What is the current conversion between reputation and USD these days?
The basic and inexorable truth is this: journalism isn't free. Never has been, never will be. Especially good journalism. Childish, self serving rationalizations on why its not only OK but "good" to never pay for it are exactly what's got us in the current mess we're in (worse and worse clickbait, the slow merging of editorial and hard news, the rapid merging of monetization and 'news', etc. etc.)
> my conscience is unblemished
Might be worth a deeper examination. Seriously. What would it do to the incomes in your field if people were able to just take your work product without paying? How would you feel if those takers said to you, "my conscience is unblemished because <reason>"?
Definitely better logic than bringing unrelated business models into the conversation. Do you take a subscription, when you enter a restaurant? Will they refuse to stop charging you after you stop calling at their fine establishment?
I expect the NY Times bullpen would be disappointed to know it has such poor defenders among the public. Surely their material helps develop better logical skills. Then again...
> So two wrongs make a right?
More like two can play the market game. Except they have access to better capital markets than most, so there is a natural power imbalance to correct.
> So when it comes time to pay their server bill, office rent, employee payroll, etc. etc. they will just forward goodwill
In other cases, it will be the money of new-money owners, Russian oligarchs, cult abusers, etc etc. But not to their interns, of course - for them it's goodwill and love all the way, I bet.
> journalism isn't free.
Indeed it isn't - in most cases you're paying for it every day through the political choices that these privately-owned media channels support and legitimize.
> What would it do to the incomes in your field if people were able to just take your work product without paying?
It depends - when the value of my product is indeed that it gets in the hands of everyone that matters, regardless of whether they paid for it or not, there are many ways I could leverage this influence into other stuff behind the scenes. Which is indeed what most of the media-supporting barons tend to do.
One of the best tricks the devil played on people is convincing them that conservative media like the NYTimes is a bastion of progressive society.
Whatever it is, I will say to you: that's a paid hobby or a side gig. Then I will take the product of your efforts without paying for it. See how that works?
Perhaps it would be worth thinking through the consequences of your attitudes if they were applied back to you?
Right only I program tangible chips which serve a purpose, and you cannot just take them. Or maybe you fork the open source repos? You're welcome?
Like I said, I'm not paying for bla bla entertainment. Whether that means I read a free news site instead, or I circumvent your paywall, it's the same to you because I'm not paying. That's the same reason piracy doesn't cost publishers anything, most people weren't in commerce in the first place.
> that's the same reason piracy doesn't cost publishers anything, most people weren't in commerce in the first place.
There's a subset of users who are able to pay, and were willing to pay, but chose to not pay because the piracy option was available and convenient.
If piracy doesn't cost anyone anything, then lets scale the experiment up; lets say piracy is absolutely unpunished and totally legal. That means netflix clones spawn up, Steam clone clients are released, and all content is extremely convenient and accessible for free.
Not a bad suggestion (particularly now that libraries are increasingly digital-oriented), but I doubt I'd find a library in my corner of Northern England that subscribes to the New York Times.
> Indeed, many men self-police their hands around each other. In younger men this manifests in the ubiquitous “No homo!”
If you think men police their hands around each other, just wait 'til you see how much they police their hands around women.
(There's also the empirical pattern that men show more physical affection with one another in cultures where homosexuality is more off-limits and strictly punished. For reasons that make sense if you stop to think about them. But enough about that...)
> There’s a reason the majority of clients seeking private services from the nascent professional cuddling industry are overwhelmingly male
In like every interview with a prostitute, they say that a lot of their clients want to spend most of their time talking. And, yes, there's sex, because of course that contributes to those (ersatz?) feelings of closeness and wellbeing they're looking for. So how is this substantially different? Or different from going to a shrink? It sounds to me like these things are all more closely related than we admit. Oh, and, as we all know, most prostitutes' clients are men. Why is none of this a surprise?
> men are “more likely than women to report that they received less affection from others than they wanted.”
I'll bet rich men and old women break this pattern. Because rich men have something people want, and old women don't.
Didn't Donald Trump have a line about that? Something like, "Being rich, being famous -- it's amazing, you can do anything and they love it -- you can grab 'em by the pussy!" I forget exactly, I'm paraphrasing.
> the 30 heterosexual undergraduate males interviewed felt safer cuddling, hugging and, especially, confiding in platonic male friends than they did with their girlfriends. These “bromances” provided less judgment and increased “emotional stability, enhanced emotional disclosure, social fulfillment, and better conflict resolution, compared to the emotional lives they shared with girlfriends.”
I mean, men don't typically "cuddle" with each other, but yeah, there is male bonding, and some of it is somewhat physical, albeit gender-conjugated. And it's not surprising that men often get along better with their friends (I believe this is called "a boys' club" and "misogyny", when it happens).
Not a great comment on the state of heterosexual relationships in 2022 though, is it?
I also laugh at this line about there being more "emotional stability" with men ("that's a dog whistle!"), but, uh, yeah, not uncommonly...
> "Women have it right," I said [...]. "They find friends or sisters to talk with when things are rough"
If "men are defective women" is the only framing you can use to get this published, go ahead, do what you need to do.
In my early 20s I worked in a shitty kitchen with a bunch of Mexicans and Ecuadorians, some of them illegals. I was one of two white people working there.
I don't know if it's in their culture to touch a bunch but after awhile we were /always/ smacking each other on the back and leaning on each other or whatever other friendly male touching you could think of. It was seriously awesome therapy for the soul and despite how shitty the job was and how bad I wanted to get out of there for my 1.5 years there I always felt 'wholesome' in a sense that died pretty quick after entering corporate world.
36 comments
[ 4.5 ms ] story [ 77.3 ms ] threadRegardless, the guilt trip you're so keen to induce would maybe trigger if I could pay these folks by article, rather than with feudalistic subscriptions that are notoriously hard to cancel. As it is, my conscience is unblemished.
I'm not sure why using the archive for stealing has become the norm here.
> Artists are paid by exposition I guess!
If it allowed them to pick political candidates and set the nation's agenda, yeah, I guess they would be.
??
> freeloading
No I chose stealing for a reason. Freeloading is not the right term. I'm not a native english speaker, freeloading seems to mean "to impose upon another's generosity or hospitality without sharing in the cost or responsibility involved". It's not the right word to convey my idea.
> "to impose upon another's generosity or hospitality without sharing in the cost or responsibility involved"
This is precisely what another user here accused me of, so I would say it fits very well.
Ah! This is good logic. Next time I'm at a restaurant, after service and food have been rendered, I will say, "You won't let me pay in the amount and manner in which I want, so I'm not going to pay at all!" Thanks for the tip!
> all that stuff they are so keen to bestow on their workers in the lower organizational rings
So two wrongs make a right? Come on. These are ethics that are intuitively grasped by grade school children.
> Media channels get paid even when they are free: in goodwill, reputation, visibility
Oh good. So when it comes time to pay their server bill, office rent, employee payroll, etc. etc. they will just forward goodwill, reputation, and visibility on. What is the current conversion between reputation and USD these days?
The basic and inexorable truth is this: journalism isn't free. Never has been, never will be. Especially good journalism. Childish, self serving rationalizations on why its not only OK but "good" to never pay for it are exactly what's got us in the current mess we're in (worse and worse clickbait, the slow merging of editorial and hard news, the rapid merging of monetization and 'news', etc. etc.)
> my conscience is unblemished
Might be worth a deeper examination. Seriously. What would it do to the incomes in your field if people were able to just take your work product without paying? How would you feel if those takers said to you, "my conscience is unblemished because <reason>"?
Definitely better logic than bringing unrelated business models into the conversation. Do you take a subscription, when you enter a restaurant? Will they refuse to stop charging you after you stop calling at their fine establishment?
I expect the NY Times bullpen would be disappointed to know it has such poor defenders among the public. Surely their material helps develop better logical skills. Then again...
> So two wrongs make a right?
More like two can play the market game. Except they have access to better capital markets than most, so there is a natural power imbalance to correct.
> So when it comes time to pay their server bill, office rent, employee payroll, etc. etc. they will just forward goodwill
No, they will forward the money of their wealthy and influential old-money owners: https://web.archive.org/web/20201101011614/https://www.vanit...
In other cases, it will be the money of new-money owners, Russian oligarchs, cult abusers, etc etc. But not to their interns, of course - for them it's goodwill and love all the way, I bet.
> journalism isn't free.
Indeed it isn't - in most cases you're paying for it every day through the political choices that these privately-owned media channels support and legitimize.
> What would it do to the incomes in your field if people were able to just take your work product without paying?
It depends - when the value of my product is indeed that it gets in the hands of everyone that matters, regardless of whether they paid for it or not, there are many ways I could leverage this influence into other stuff behind the scenes. Which is indeed what most of the media-supporting barons tend to do.
One of the best tricks the devil played on people is convincing them that conservative media like the NYTimes is a bastion of progressive society.
What would you call it?
[1] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/labor
Whatever it is, I will say to you: that's a paid hobby or a side gig. Then I will take the product of your efforts without paying for it. See how that works?
Perhaps it would be worth thinking through the consequences of your attitudes if they were applied back to you?
Like I said, I'm not paying for bla bla entertainment. Whether that means I read a free news site instead, or I circumvent your paywall, it's the same to you because I'm not paying. That's the same reason piracy doesn't cost publishers anything, most people weren't in commerce in the first place.
There's a subset of users who are able to pay, and were willing to pay, but chose to not pay because the piracy option was available and convenient.
If piracy doesn't cost anyone anything, then lets scale the experiment up; lets say piracy is absolutely unpunished and totally legal. That means netflix clones spawn up, Steam clone clients are released, and all content is extremely convenient and accessible for free.
What happens to those companies/industries?
https://web.archive.org/web/20220209122625/https://www.nytim...
I got these through the browser extension https://github.com/dessant/web-archives
or just going to the sites and searching.
HN is actually how I found out about archive.is/fo/today
If you think men police their hands around each other, just wait 'til you see how much they police their hands around women.
(There's also the empirical pattern that men show more physical affection with one another in cultures where homosexuality is more off-limits and strictly punished. For reasons that make sense if you stop to think about them. But enough about that...)
> There’s a reason the majority of clients seeking private services from the nascent professional cuddling industry are overwhelmingly male
In like every interview with a prostitute, they say that a lot of their clients want to spend most of their time talking. And, yes, there's sex, because of course that contributes to those (ersatz?) feelings of closeness and wellbeing they're looking for. So how is this substantially different? Or different from going to a shrink? It sounds to me like these things are all more closely related than we admit. Oh, and, as we all know, most prostitutes' clients are men. Why is none of this a surprise?
> men are “more likely than women to report that they received less affection from others than they wanted.”
I'll bet rich men and old women break this pattern. Because rich men have something people want, and old women don't.
Didn't Donald Trump have a line about that? Something like, "Being rich, being famous -- it's amazing, you can do anything and they love it -- you can grab 'em by the pussy!" I forget exactly, I'm paraphrasing.
> the 30 heterosexual undergraduate males interviewed felt safer cuddling, hugging and, especially, confiding in platonic male friends than they did with their girlfriends. These “bromances” provided less judgment and increased “emotional stability, enhanced emotional disclosure, social fulfillment, and better conflict resolution, compared to the emotional lives they shared with girlfriends.”
I mean, men don't typically "cuddle" with each other, but yeah, there is male bonding, and some of it is somewhat physical, albeit gender-conjugated. And it's not surprising that men often get along better with their friends (I believe this is called "a boys' club" and "misogyny", when it happens).
Not a great comment on the state of heterosexual relationships in 2022 though, is it?
I also laugh at this line about there being more "emotional stability" with men ("that's a dog whistle!"), but, uh, yeah, not uncommonly...
> "Women have it right," I said [...]. "They find friends or sisters to talk with when things are rough"
If "men are defective women" is the only framing you can use to get this published, go ahead, do what you need to do.
I don't know if it's in their culture to touch a bunch but after awhile we were /always/ smacking each other on the back and leaning on each other or whatever other friendly male touching you could think of. It was seriously awesome therapy for the soul and despite how shitty the job was and how bad I wanted to get out of there for my 1.5 years there I always felt 'wholesome' in a sense that died pretty quick after entering corporate world.
I still miss that shitty fucking job.