this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
1860 points (97.9% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

35559 readers
1635 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...


7. Content should match the theme of this community.


-Content should be Mildly infuriating.

-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] geogle@lemmy.world 100 points 1 year ago (5 children)
[–] joelfromaus@aussie.zone 67 points 1 year ago

Yes officer, I’d like to charge this phone with battery.

[–] jdf038@mander.xyz 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I doubt they can read this. Rip ops phone

[–] Patariki@feddit.nl 7 points 1 year ago

OP's phone kept posting to keep Lemmy active until the bitter end. o7

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] stealthnerd@lemmy.world 70 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The fall of newspapers led us down the path of click bait, low quality, ad driven "news". Very few newspapers survived the transition to digital because suddenly nobody wanted to pay for access to something they could get online for free. Those that did survive mostly exist in a much smaller form with low funding and reduced quality.

Personally, I'm excited to see it becoming more common for people to subscribe to news services again. I just wish there was more diversity and competition available like there was in the past but I'm hopeful we'll get there as more people seem to be opening back up to paying for high quality publications.

High quality journalism can't exist without paid subscribers but there are still ways to access it for those who can't afford it, visiting a local library for example.

[–] flossdaily@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Journalism is a public good and should be publicly funded.

[–] 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

Should have long term funding structures in place (longer than election cycles) so that you dont have different political parties influencing things once elected into power

[–] masterspace@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Very few newspapers survived the transition to digital because suddenly nobody wanted to pay for access to something they could get online for free.

This has nothing to do with click bait low quality ad driven news.

The cut off of access to information is a fundamental problem of using capitalism to allocate resources in an information economy. Information does not behave the same as matter and energy, it is a fundamentally different physical property of the universe, and unlike matter and energy, it is not conserved and limited in the same way.

With matter and energy, to replicate it, you need the same amount of resources as the original, if you possess the original, I cannot possess it, and to make a copy I need all the metal /energy that you did to make the first one. But with information, once it exists in a digital format, we can effectively replicate it infinitely and immediately to everyone around the globe, for next to nothing. At a fundamental level, information does not have the same property of scarcity as literally all physical goods. Information is fundamentally different at the physics level, then matter and energy.

And that's a problem now that we're trying to use capitalism to fund an information economy. Capitalism is entirely based on the idea of scarce things being valuable; despite everyone needing oxygen / air to live, it is not valuable in most places because it is not scarce.

So what has happened? Did we act intelligently and back up and examine whether capitalism is the right system of resource allocation for the information economy where information has the ability to flow freely to everyone? No. We had fistedly spend billions and billions of dollars and wasted millions of people's lives building the copyright system, and the patent system, and paywalls and DRM, all in the pursuit of creating artificial scarcity where there was never a need for it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] NENathaniel@lemmy.ca 51 points 1 year ago (10 children)

Everyone hates ads but no one wants to pay for it lol

[–] BurtReynoldsMustache@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Journalism should be accessible to everyone. Not many people can afford 30 different subscriptions for every individual news outlet because they're all pay to read. Remember newspapers? Anyone could buy one on the cheap, now these fuckers have moved to a subscription service that's even more expensive than the average newspaper used to be.

[–] NENathaniel@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 year ago (12 children)

Well there are 3 alternatives.

Ads, which everyone on here would endorse blocking, so that’s out.

All journalism becomes volunteer work, which seems unlikely :D

Or all journalism becomes publicly funded via-taxes. This is probably the optimal option but I think most people would agree that ALL journalism being government funded has a ton of risks.

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

If I have to pay for it:

  • it cannot be sensationalized. It cannot even veer mildly from the found facts.
  • it cannot be filled with agenda bias
  • it cannot hold any false, non peer reviewed information
  • they have to pay their sources. And They have to pay their sources well. Especially the ones who are expected to uphold to peer reviews (science journalists, I’m looking at you)

If there is a free one with ads:

  • ads cannot fabricate their facts either.

Wanna regulate? Well. Then. Let’s regulate.

[–] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Here in Finland we have YLE, and it has news, movies/shows, documentaries, radio/podcasts etc. It is funded with tax money, and I consider the two biggest pros to be that news and more are easily accessible for free to anyone and that since YLE isn't trying to profit from journalism, there are no clickbait headlines. Though, the worst flaw is that goverment-funded journalism is prone to propaganda, and once you control the media, you control the whole country, so people need to be very careful.

[–] NENathaniel@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yea that’s precisely it. Publicly-funded media definitely can be the best option, but there’s always risks it can fall into pure propaganda some day

load more comments (1 replies)

You can avoid the risk of tax-funded journalism by making it so that even though they're government subsidized they're still independent. There are multiple potential ways to evaluate which journalistic entities qualify for government funding, all with pros and cons, but it could work.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] BigNote@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is because the Internet killed journalism's revenue model. In the past a big metro daily had three main revenue streams; subscriptions, newsstand sales and classifieds/advertising. Newsstand sales is the only leg that didn't get gutted by the internet, so in order to keep it viable, they have to charge more than they used to, but even then, it's just not really cost efficient and many major metro dailies no longer print a hard copy version.

One problem with journalism is that since everyone consumes it in one way or another, everyone imagines that they have an informed opinion about it, but unless you went to j-school and/or have worked in the field, you probably don't.

[–] demlet@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I work for a plant that prints local papers. They are an invaluable source of local news, and you are correct, the internet is slowly killing them. It's a real loss for civic engagement. People really need to pay attention to what's happening locally. National stories are sexier, but we actually have much more control over what happens in our own neighborhoods and towns.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Because classified ads used to pay for the paper.

Heck, 'The Advertiser' used to be a popular name for newspapers.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

Newspapers used to be full of ads and were also subscription based. You could buy a one off from a paper for relatively cheap, but their primary income was ads and subscribers.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] eestileib@sh.itjust.works 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I do pay for my local paper, cable, spotify, disney+, Netflix...

Only so much blood in this here stone.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] SIGSEGV@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

No, not everybody hates ads. Everybody hates today's ads, because they're literally as intrusive and annoying as the designers can make them. I didn't have a problem with ads 15 years ago, but because I have to pay for my bandwidth, and because ads like to literally block what I'm reading with a giant, 100MB, unskippable video, I use an ad blocker.

Advertising shot itself in the foot, and it isn't our fault for being pushed so far that we're fed up with it.

[–] Noodle07@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Unskipable ads when I'm browsing my files on my phone, how fucking obnoxious can you possibly make them?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] scurry@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

I agree with most of that, but I feel like we weren’t using the same Internet 15 years ago. There were still ample popups and popunders, many of which you couldn’t easily close (more than a few did the funny ‘you are an idiot’ trick of just open windows faster than you can close them to me). They were loud, both visually but also they would actually play sound in non-video pages (sometimes multiple at once). Most of them were either disgust or porn based (or the really funny meme of both at the same time). And there were so. Many. Viruses. I feel like advertisers have never been particularly respectful of the end user, and the main difference is that now they’re actively spying, where they maybe weren’t 20 years ago.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FluffyToaster621@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Some sites (Fandom Wikis) are unbearable with ads. Sure, you could pay to remove them, but only because it’s so infuriating to navigate the content when it has multiple ads—some that follow you—INSIDE the content of the articles.

Autoplaying videos, side banners, and scrolling ads are the worst and actively make me want to avoid the sites unless adblock is on.

[–] Trekman10@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

Firefox has an autoplay block setting, and I've never had it fail me.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Vespair@lemm.ee 23 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's not talked about enough how "traditional news" is culpable for the rise of "fake news" by locking vital information and reporting behind exactly these kinds of pay walls, thus causing people to seek alternative free means instead. This is how fake news sites thrive; pushed into the forefront by traditional media who refuse to adapt their business models to the modern landscape.

[–] Cataphract@lemmy.ko4abp.com 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How do you feel about government subsidies being used to bolster a free press? From past examples like oil, they don't become a shell company of the governments whims and I feel journalism is just as important to an educated populace in comparison to oil for our commerce.

[–] Zengen@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This actually isnt a terrible strategy. Right now the news sites require profit for survival. Leading them to do well frankly... Whatever it takes to make that happen. Which leads us to the road we are on now. If their survival was subsidized and they were simply paid to provide the service of good journalism. This would be beneficial as journalism at its core is a PUBLIC service. That is currently being sold as a commercial commodity.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OrnateLuna@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can't have actually free and truthful news as long as people need money to survive

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] solidsnake2085@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

A former newspaper.

[–] focalors@lemm.ee 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Trekman10@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

How long before this goes the way of 12ft.io

[–] Dogeek@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)
[–] Trekman10@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

Disabled on lots of sites now

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Spicylem@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago

Looks like a login wall. While I get the “joke” or irony, Journalism has never been free. Servers, journalists, investigations, and apps still cost money. So did printing and delivery. There are countless sources of information online so you do not have to join The Times but for some the journalistic value is worth the price.

Wikipedia offers knowledge to the world for free and are maintained through donation (including myself) and philanthropy. It has its issues but provides free information.

I think we can a enjoy a variety of options. Paid journalism, ad based news, and “free” community supported. There likely are other models we can adopt.

Other free sources I use. Roca News app Gabe Fleisher’s Wake up to Politics Knowledge at Wharton

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 20 points 1 year ago

That was the dream.... Now it's....

Holy shit, someone get this man a charging cable.

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago

It's not a paywall, just a login wall. The account is free. Still funny however.

[–] qjkxbmwvz@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 1 year ago

Just curious


how would you like this to work? If you want high quality journalism, you need to pay journalists.

You can pay them through ads, but 1) this is annoying, and 2) people just install ad blockers.

You can have state-sponsored media, which can work reasonably well...or can end up a propaganda machine.

Or...you can pay.

Journalism is not a crazy lucrative career for most. Financially, most of the folks writing for NYT would be better off in PR


and I don't think that's a good thing for society.

[–] CrypticFawn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 year ago

We need a Netflix for online journalism/news. I'm happy to pay for my news... But I'm tired of subscriptions for everything. And basically all the major news organizations want their own damn subscriptions.

[–] NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You should look for an archive (dot) today that can get you around those paywalls.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Adalast@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

I choose to believe the author did this intentionally.

[–] ricdeh@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

You should charge your battery, sir!

[–] UnbeatenDeployGoofy@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Universal access, as in everyone need to pay 8 dollars a month for the privilege.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] virtualbriefcase@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

Pro tip: Adblock + JavaScript disabled (Ublock Origin can do both) will block most paywalls

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 7 points 1 year ago

"democracy dies in darkness..."

Is my favorite ironic walled garden gate keeping paywall byline... I think the Washington post uses it.

It wouldn't be so dark if the paywall wasn't blocking the light...

[–] jayandp@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago

I wish I could just pay per article sometimes. Let the subscription be optional for people who read a lot from that source.

load more comments
view more: next ›