To Save the News, We Must Ban Surveillance Advertising
To Save the News, We Must Ban Surveillance Advertising
This is part three of an ongoing, five-part series. Part one, the introduction, is here. Part two, about breaking up ad-tech companies, is here.The ad-tech industry is incredibly profitable, raking in hundreds of billions of dollars every year by spying on us. These companies have tendrils that...
on r/privacy
You're viewing a single thread.
I have started trying to pay more for news access the last couple years. I don't regret that decision. Its less than I pay for streaming television.
I remember getting a lot of push back not too long ago, when I tried telling a group of people that 'good news' is something you have to pay for, because it's difficult to do.
The MSM, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, all that crap is simply the most overt propaganda, tailor made for a mass audience, and free, precisely because it isn't valuable. A subscription to something like The Economist, beats anything the average person wants to compare it to. Or those one-man progressive outlets on YouTube, who went to community college and left with a degree, run their gig out of a one bedroom studio, and think they've got the entire world figured out.
The economist should arguably free given the ideological heavy lifting it performs.
I found this interesting: https://citationsneeded.medium.com/episode-98-the-refined-sociopathy-of-the-economist-4966767e1688
Yeah, I’m aware of its history and biases.
Nothing should be really uncritically and without a skeptical eye. But to suggest it isn’t informative despite its ideological leanings, when you can directly compare it to examples that are ideological trash, is stretching things. There’s no such thing as an unbiased point of view, but there are less prejudiced points of view.
This has the added benefit of holding the news organizations accountable to you, as you’re their main source of funding. If they start to go down a bad path, you can pack up and take your dollars somewhere else.