Annoying but you'd probably do the same, you categorically cannot be funding the media you're consuming when you're visiting the BBC on a non-UK IP. The ad impressions don't cover it, and BBC Worldwide take a cut before the BBC proper receives anything anyway.
The BBC proper doesn't receive anything from advertising, in fact. But that's because what most people think of as 'the BBC' actually isn't the BBC proper.
It is indeed the BBC proper (i.e. the corporation with the royal charter) that encompasses BBC News, which is the source of this article, as one of its divisions. But BBC News and the BBC proper are not the commercial organizations, i.e. BBC Studios and whatnot.
Inside the U.K., there are no advertisments on this or any BBC News article. Outwith the U.K., what people get is actually coming from a separate commercial company, BBC Global News Ltd..
> The BBC proper doesn't receive anything from advertising, in fact. But that's because what most people think of as 'the BBC' actually isn't the BBC proper.
Not only did I make this distinction in the comment you're replying to, but you're also just wrong -- the BBC takes about £5b a year from BBC Worldwide and part of that money is ad impressions. The point is that it doesn't cover the cost to supply the service.
Blind. The article is referring to blind and partly blind people. I'm visually impaired and thus I wear corrective lenses. This practice of applying euphemisms to every disability and impairment is stupid and unhelpful.
We need more stigma against those devices, not less.
But at the same time we need to make medical vision devices that are exempt from those bans because they give strong privacy protections to the passerbys.
Why? If we can make medical devices with strong privacy protections, why can we not make regular glasses with strong privacy protections? This is a totally incoherent take.
12 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 78.0 ms ] threadIt is indeed the BBC proper (i.e. the corporation with the royal charter) that encompasses BBC News, which is the source of this article, as one of its divisions. But BBC News and the BBC proper are not the commercial organizations, i.e. BBC Studios and whatnot.
Inside the U.K., there are no advertisments on this or any BBC News article. Outwith the U.K., what people get is actually coming from a separate commercial company, BBC Global News Ltd..
Not only did I make this distinction in the comment you're replying to, but you're also just wrong -- the BBC takes about £5b a year from BBC Worldwide and part of that money is ad impressions. The point is that it doesn't cover the cost to supply the service.
Really, acuity is a spectrum and almost nobody has perfect vision.
But at the same time we need to make medical vision devices that are exempt from those bans because they give strong privacy protections to the passerbys.
Sometimes, privacy is at odds with features. That is why those devices would no longer be marketable as "regular smart glasses."