If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KTAR Phoenix)   I hope you've enjoyed your free internet, because it's about to cost you   (ktar.com) divider line 89
    More: Sad, subscription model, morphing  
•       •       •

17785 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jul 2013 at 12:04 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



89 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-29 01:51:46 AM
Ah, yes, the paywall.  Something so complex that it's not like the NY Times one can be circumvented by opening a link in a private window in Firefox.
 
2013-07-29 07:34:14 AM

RodneyToady: Ah, yes, the paywall.  Something so complex that it's not like the NY Times one can be circumvented by opening a link in a private window in Firefox.


Or simply enjoying the info via "modern journalism" that consists of paraphrasing another writer's article and including a link to the paywalled original.
 
2013-07-29 08:17:04 AM
I have no problem paying for content as long as I get value out of it. What I hate is all the damn annoying ads on every page you open or having to watch a 30 second commercial to view a 90 second video clip.
 
2013-07-29 10:31:05 AM
media.tumblr.com
 
2013-07-29 10:38:02 AM
I tend to think this can only accelerate the dumbing down of America.
 
2013-07-29 10:42:48 AM

ReapTheChaos: I have no problem paying for content as long as I get value out of it.


Same here. I'd pay 5x more per month than what I pay now for Netflix if I could stream their entire library. Until then, there are other ways to acquire that type of thing.

/yes, I know this has less to do with Netflix than with the studios, but it's a revenue stream they're missing out on.
 
2013-07-29 11:09:47 AM
Case in point: Last month, the Washington Post implemented what Washington Post media CEO Katharine Bouchage Weymouth called a"metered subscription model,"  which leaves only two of the country's five largest newspapers - the Los Angeles Times and USA Today - free to online readers.

Because when I want to know what the next hot internet trend is I look to newspapers.
 
2013-07-29 11:29:29 AM
As per the Simpsons, "Sorry but there's profit to be had."
 
2013-07-29 11:55:08 AM
This is not a repeat from every year since pay walls were invented.
 
2013-07-29 12:07:23 PM
There go WaPo links on Fark.
 
2013-07-29 12:07:52 PM
Hey, anyone remember the halcyon days when the Internet wasn't choked with popups, flashing sidebar advertisements, autoplay video advertisements, and "featured content?"

Man, I miss those days.
 
2013-07-29 12:08:11 PM
This is not a repeat from every year since money and greed were invented.
 
2013-07-29 12:08:40 PM

odinsposse: Case in point: Last month, the Washington Post implemented what Washington Post media CEO Katharine Bouchage Weymouth called a"metered subscription model,"  which leaves only two of the country's five largest newspapers - the Los Angeles Times and USA Today - free to online readers.

Because when I want to know what the next hot internet trend is I look to newspapers.


Well, I have really bad luck when I search for the latest trends.  I just get tons of cat videos...

imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-07-29 12:08:40 PM
That's just for online newspapers, right? The pr0n will remain unaffected, right?
 
2013-07-29 12:09:15 PM

vygramul: There go WaPo links on Fark.


So at least there's some good news out of all of this.
 
2013-07-29 12:10:12 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: I tend to think this can only accelerate the dumbing down of America.


www.freecodesource.com
 
2013-07-29 12:10:17 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: That's just for online newspapers, right? The pr0n will remain unaffected, right?


Pr0n, like coffee, will always be free.
 
2013-07-29 12:11:50 PM
AP and Reuters are free, and that covers 90% of the shiat in newspapers anyways.  And, as mentioned, USA Today is also freely available, as are all television news outlets(broadcast and cable).  On top of that, Yahoo and Google do a good job as aggregators, while social sites like Fark and Reddit fill in the holes.  So, yea, who cares.
 
2013-07-29 12:12:10 PM
lol yeah, paywalls are the future!  lol

Keep telling yourself that, corporate whores.

It's my fondest hope that when the capitalist rulers of this country realize there's no more money to be made in newspapers, in print or online, that they'll abandon the industry entirely and we can get back to having real journalism that has no concern for profit.
 
2013-07-29 12:13:48 PM
Yes because in no way would anyone ever pay for one time to access that content and then willingly aggregate it and share it amongst everyone else.

Dear god man, no one does that on the internet.
 
2013-07-29 12:14:20 PM
Mourn the end of free news on the internet? Hell, I can pop open Google News and choose what site I want to read a story on, but since the majority of stories are repostings of AP or Reuters, it doesn't matter. Or like RodneyToady said, just open a paywall news link in a private window, or in Chrome an incognito window. I have to do this with any Boston Globe article linked in Fark, since the Globe allows you to read just three free articles a month.
 
2013-07-29 12:14:23 PM
As boss of the internet, I am making a special offer to all readers of Fark who give these articles the attention they deserve.  A a special promotion, your Internet will only cost $19.99.  This is a limited time offer.  You can pay me directly with paypal.  The first 5,000 to take advantage of this offer will also receive a complimentary Reddit account.  Act now, secure your access to the most valuable resource in history for this historical low price.
 
2013-07-29 12:14:49 PM

StaleCoffee: Sin_City_Superhero: That's just for online newspapers, right? The pr0n will remain unaffected, right?

Pr0n, like coffee, will always be free.


why don't they make cigarettes free too
 
2013-07-29 12:15:33 PM

Infernalist: lol yeah, paywalls are the future!  lol

Keep telling yourself that, corporate whores.

It's my fondest hope that when the capitalist rulers of this country realize there's no more money to be made in newspapers, in print or online, that they'll abandon the industry entirely and we can get back to having real journalism that has no concern for profit.


When was that?
 
2013-07-29 12:15:55 PM
If only there was a news aggregate site I could go and get links to free news sites with the news of the day....
 
2013-07-29 12:16:44 PM
Paywalls for news is somewhat stupid if you really think about it.  Because for every news site that requires a paid subscription, there are 200+ that just riddle their pages with ads, thus making the news content "free."  Unless it is a very exclusive set of content, like investment info, or something else of major value, I simply do not see paywalls being a good or sustainable long term strategy.

I am happy to pay if it is something that I find to be worth my time/money.  Hell, I gladly pay for Netflix as well as Pandora (the ad free version).  I use VuDu or Xbox video once a week at least (about $5 a pop for a movie).  I do not mind spending money.

What I do care about is how easy it is for me to acquire the content I desire.  The second torrenting is easier than me trying to give you money...well...you lose

What really grinds my gears is being forced to watch a 15-45 second ad before I can watch a 8 second clip of a panda sneezing.  It makes no damn sense to me.
 
2013-07-29 12:17:34 PM

TheGreatGazoo: Infernalist: lol yeah, paywalls are the future!  lol

Keep telling yourself that, corporate whores.

It's my fondest hope that when the capitalist rulers of this country realize there's no more money to be made in newspapers, in print or online, that they'll abandon the industry entirely and we can get back to having real journalism that has no concern for profit.

When was that?


About the time that the media helped bring about the end of the Vietnam War with the never-ending shots of dead Americans coming home.
 
2013-07-29 12:17:59 PM

Elegy: Hey, anyone remember the halcyon days when the Internet wasn't choked with popups, flashing sidebar advertisements, autoplay video advertisements, and "featured content?"

Man, I miss those days.



I remember pictures taking forever to download. It's a lot easier to beat-off to internet porn these days.
 
2013-07-29 12:18:40 PM
Oh no a paywall! How will I ever survive without reading the crap most of the papers on the list pump out? Although from what I've seen on Something Awful paywalls are a great way to fund your wine and ambien addiction if your name is Richard Kyanka.
 
2013-07-29 12:22:36 PM

Endive Wombat: What really grinds my gears is being forced to watch a 15-45 second ad before I can watch a 8 second clip of a panda sneezing. It makes no damn sense to me.


I agree. It makes no sense to me, either. Pandas suck. Why would anyone want to watch a clip of a panda sneezing?
 
2013-07-29 12:30:14 PM
That's odd, I haven't had free internet since the days of dial up and gopher.
 
2013-07-29 12:31:41 PM

SurfaceTension: ReapTheChaos: I have no problem paying for content as long as I get value out of it.

Same here. I'd pay 5x more per month than what I pay now for Netflix if I could stream their entire library. Until then, there are other ways to acquire that type of thing.

/yes, I know this has less to do with Netflix than with the studios, but it's a revenue stream they're missing out on.


I love how you freeloaders keep moving the goalposts. Stop stealing
 
2013-07-29 12:32:02 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: Endive Wombat: What really grinds my gears is being forced to watch a 15-45 second ad before I can watch a 8 second clip of a panda sneezing. It makes no damn sense to me.

I agree. It makes no sense to me, either. Pandas suck. Why would anyone want to watch a clip of a panda sneezing?


You think that's bad? Try living in Canada.

Step 1: Load funny clip of SNL
Step 2: Watch commercial
Step 3: Get told you are in a 'region' that is not allowed to see the clip, even though you watched the exact clip on Saturday night.
Step 4: RAGE
 
2013-07-29 12:32:37 PM
So what. I'll just get my news from Fark. Duh!
 
2013-07-29 12:33:09 PM
Bless their hearts
 
2013-07-29 12:34:00 PM
I don't understand this subject whenever it comes up, which I've been reading about now since at least 1999, we have NEVER paid for content, not in newspapers or magazines. That $.75 newspaper never amounted to any compensation to the reporters or editors, it paid for the paper it was printed on, that's it. The ads always paid for the content, same with magazines. Now, you don't even have to pay for the paper or distribution, and you get bombarded with ads and short commercial videos. And with 10 times the amount of now useless content, they should be making a ton of money. Of course, Craig's List took away classified revenue, which is what really hurt newspapers.
 
2013-07-29 12:34:39 PM
FTFA: "The crucial first step in Warzel's timeline of morphing Internet attitudes was the success of Apple's iTunes music store. The simple, attractive interface and enticingly priced songs (99 cents) quickly and effectively replaced the consumer's hunger for free entertainment with a thirst for secure and easy-to-get content."

There are torrents of free content one can find with a bit of searching...
 
2013-07-29 12:35:22 PM
Look how scared I am.

There has been talk of this shiat for a decade or more.  It's not ever going to happen.

Yes, please keep making your news sites pay only, because there aren't hundreds of other options.
 
2013-07-29 12:36:02 PM
The WaPo site still sucks.  Not as bad as the Pittsburgh Post Gazette site though.
 
2013-07-29 12:37:17 PM
Why would I pay money to read a blog which is just a rehash of someone else's blog. The link is even included.

Internet journalism is a joke. How these guys get paid is beyond me.

It is like how all the writers are now called editors. I thought it was just a 'title' thing. It seems I was wrong.
 
2013-07-29 12:40:40 PM
This is never going to work the way they think it will.  They will have to create content worth paying for first.  There are a million different places to get news from and even more work arounds to get past paywalls.

I agree the forced video ads suck.  Most of the time I just close them out of feeble protest.  If I really want to watch the video, I just shut the volume off on the ad and switch to another tab until it's done.
 
2013-07-29 12:42:28 PM

Blowmonkey: This is never going to work the way they think it will.  They will have to create content worth paying for first.  There are a million different places to get news from and even more work arounds to get past paywalls.

I agree the forced video ads suck.  Most of the time I just close them out of feeble protest.  If I really want to watch the video, I just shut the volume off on the ad and switch to another tab until it's done.


Adblock et al will let you skip directly to the video of interest, when configured properly.
 
2013-07-29 12:46:16 PM
i.imgur.com

They've been screaming this since the first pop-up ad went up.

"The untamed and lawless expanses of web content are quickly being replaced by paywalls and monthly fees," he continued, "and, surprisingly, we don't really seem to mind all that much. Most of us don't even seem to notice."

Yes, because we've gotten so good at installing ad blockers and finding other information sources that it's second nature now.
 
2013-07-29 12:46:34 PM

SurfaceTension: ReapTheChaos: I have no problem paying for content as long as I get value out of it.

Same here. I'd pay 5x more per month than what I pay now for Netflix if I could stream their entire library. Until then, there are other ways to acquire that type of thing.

/yes, I know this has less to do with Netflix than with the studios, but it's a revenue stream they're missing out on.


This really blows my mind.  I cannot fathom why some of these major studio's do not make all of their old/obscure content just available at like 25 cents - 1 buck an episode.  There are so many old / obscure things I would love to be able to watch but they only exist on some dusty studio shelf.  If they would just digitize everything, Give you the ability to put X dollars in your "wallet" and have some arbitrary low fee to view stuff I could spend years just browsing odd stuff.  (I wonder If i repeat this in enough different ways someone will figure it out).  I bet it they could make billions of dollars doing this.
 
2013-07-29 12:47:53 PM
 I don't think they have thought their cunning plan all the way through..Just because you have X number
of visitors per day, does not mean that those same visitors, or even  a percentage of them
"require" what your offering enough to pay for it. Even if they colluded with other companies to
pull the content they share (Which might violate the U.S. RICO laws), they still will discover that most
people could live without it.
 
2013-07-29 12:54:05 PM

Kazrath: SurfaceTension: ReapTheChaos: I have no problem paying for content as long as I get value out of it.

Same here. I'd pay 5x more per month than what I pay now for Netflix if I could stream their entire library. Until then, there are other ways to acquire that type of thing.

/yes, I know this has less to do with Netflix than with the studios, but it's a revenue stream they're missing out on.

This really blows my mind.  I cannot fathom why some of these major studio's do not make all of their old/obscure content just available at like 25 cents - 1 buck an episode.  There are so many old / obscure things I would love to be able to watch but they only exist on some dusty studio shelf.  If they would just digitize everything, Give you the ability to put X dollars in your "wallet" and have some arbitrary low fee to view stuff I could spend years just browsing odd stuff.  (I wonder If i repeat this in enough different ways someone will figure it out).  I bet it they could make billions of dollars doing this.


Intellectual property law is such a mess these days, they'd have to find out who still holds the rights to the music in the episodes and work out a separate licensing deal with each rightsholder.  Some of those rightsholders might be bands that broke up or people that died, making it even more complicated.  To release it as is would be a risk - and that's just not something a prudent shareholder wants their company doing, harrumph harrumph.
 
2013-07-29 12:54:44 PM

SurfaceTension: ReapTheChaos: I have no problem paying for content as long as I get value out of it.

Same here. I'd pay 5x more per month than what I pay now for Netflix if I could stream their entire library. Until then, there are other ways to acquire that type of thing.

/yes, I know this has less to do with Netflix than with the studios, but it's a revenue stream they're missing out on.


I would pay for the service netflix has now if they would offer local storage of content with a phone home every 30 days (steam style). Well that and a linux client.

There is no reason why I can't download a whole season of something and watch it entirely offline. Or set up my computer to download stuff at night when nobody is one is awake and save the bandwidth for stuff that I want to do immediately during the day. No matter how you slice it streaming will always be worse than locally hosted content.
 
2013-07-29 12:58:36 PM

Blowmonkey: This is never going to work the way they think it will.  They will have to create content worth paying for first.  There are a million different places to get news from and even more work arounds to get past paywalls.

I agree the forced video ads suck.  Most of the time I just close them out of feeble protest.  If I really want to watch the video, I just shut the volume off on the ad and switch to another tab until it's done.


Just wait till they implement a script that can tell if you are watching said tab or not, then pauses the ad video if you are not watching it.
 
2013-07-29 01:00:42 PM

PsyLord: odinsposse: Case in point: Last month, the Washington Post implemented what Washington Post media CEO Katharine Bouchage Weymouth called a"metered subscription model,"  which leaves only two of the country's five largest newspapers - the Los Angeles Times and USA Today - free to online readers.

Because when I want to know what the next hot internet trend is I look to newspapers.

Well, I have really bad luck when I search for the latest trends.  I just get tons of cat videos...

[imgs.xkcd.com image 450x439]


Yes you are! And you're sitting there! Hi, kitty!
 
2013-07-29 01:04:23 PM
In other news, big media outlets about to irrelevant themselves.

/Yeah, that's right, I verbed a motherfarking adjective. Sue me.
 
2013-07-29 01:08:40 PM

karmaceutical: As boss of the internet, I am making a special offer to all readers of Fark who give these articles the attention they deserve.  A a special promotion, your Internet will only cost $19.99.  This is a limited time offer.  You can pay me directly with paypal.  The first 5,000 to take advantage of this offer will also receive a complimentary Reddit account.  Act now, secure your access to the most valuable resource in history for this historical low price.


Oh yeah?  Well, I'm offering free*, unlimited** Internet for only $12.99 a month*** , I'll match your free* Reddit account and throw in free* national**** weather forecasts from Weather.com*****.  It's a race to the bottom baby.  A race to the bottom.

* All services are listed as free but may require small monthly surcharges to cover usage costs.
** Unlimited Internet capped at 5 GB/mo for the first 6 months, then 100 MB there after.
*** This is a promotional price valid for 3 months only with a 42 month contract.  Actual paid price is $49.99 per month for the duration of your contract.  Once your 42 month contract has expired, you will be reimbursed the difference for the difference in cost for the first three months.  Offer not valid in some states nor any countries.
**** Limited to the continental United States only.  Accuracy of forecast not guaranteed.
***** Weather.com is a 3rd party service, and MrHappyRotter inc cannot guarantee that this offer will remain valid for the duration of your contract.  MrHappyRotter inc reserves the right to switch your plan to an alternate weather forecast provider or to terminate weather forecast feature at any time without notice.
 
2013-07-29 01:11:07 PM

Rabbid_Squirrel: Kazrath: SurfaceTension: ReapTheChaos: I have no problem paying for content as long as I get value out of it.

Same here. I'd pay 5x more per month than what I pay now for Netflix if I could stream their entire library. Until then, there are other ways to acquire that type of thing.

/yes, I know this has less to do with Netflix than with the studios, but it's a revenue stream they're missing out on.

This really blows my mind.  I cannot fathom why some of these major studio's do not make all of their old/obscure content just available at like 25 cents - 1 buck an episode.  There are so many old / obscure things I would love to be able to watch but they only exist on some dusty studio shelf.  If they would just digitize everything, Give you the ability to put X dollars in your "wallet" and have some arbitrary low fee to view stuff I could spend years just browsing odd stuff.  (I wonder If i repeat this in enough different ways someone will figure it out).  I bet it they could make billions of dollars doing this.

Intellectual property law is such a mess these days, they'd have to find out who still holds the rights to the music in the episodes and work out a separate licensing deal with each rightsholder.  Some of those rightsholders might be bands that broke up or people that died, making it even more complicated.  To release it as is would be a risk - and that's just not something a prudent shareholder wants their company doing, harrumph harrumph.


While I have no doubt that you are 100% correct with your explanation, it simply blows my mind that studios have years, and years worth of content that they would rather sit on a shelf to collect dust that to find a way to turn a profit on their already produced content.  Add to that that the entertainment industry still to this day sees streaming/digital content as a loss of a physical sale, rather than almost 100% pure profit.  I like to point to Amazon Books - Paperback of a book $7.98, Kindle version $9.99.  Even with prime, someone is footing the bill in shipping the book.

I am really hoping that there will be some massive change in both IP and patent law that ultimately is aimed at sucking more money out of consumers while allowing consumers to acquire the content they crave.

I fully recognize that to a large degree we are still in an infancy stage when it comes to navigating how best to distribute content to consumers.  I do see where studios are weary and cautious when it comes to offering "digital everything," but they have to start somewhere...and like I said above, the second it is more difficult for me to give you money legitimately, torrenting becomes very, very attractive.
 
2013-07-29 01:14:11 PM
There are better ways to circumvent paywalls than lightning quick mouse clicks and web browser tricks.

1. Download AdBlock addon
2. Download AdBlock Element Hiding Helper
3. Right click anywhere on the paywall, click Inspect Element
4. At the bottom right, click Hide With ABP
5. Most Elements are compound, so repeat with any remaining elements until the wall is gone.

/works for any other obnoxious elements, also
 
2013-07-29 01:16:54 PM

odinsposse: Case in point: Last month, the Washington Post implemented what Washington Post media CEO Katharine Bouchage Weymouth called a"metered subscription model,"  which leaves only two of the country's five largest newspapers - the Los Angeles Times and USA Today - free to online readers.

Because when I want to know what the next hot internet trend is I look to newspapers.


This. I actually had to read TFA twice to convince myself that the author was seriously saying what he seems to be saying. This guy is looking at the final failure of the Old Media, and thinks he hears the future of the Internet in it's death rattles.
He's nuts.
 
2013-07-29 01:23:54 PM
Yes, surely in this era where free to play games are becoming even more popular and every network is releasing their own streaming content site, the exact opposite is going to happen very soon!
 
2013-07-29 01:24:46 PM
People still pay for news?
 
2013-07-29 01:27:33 PM
Headline: "Is the era of free Internet content coming to a close?"

Last paragraph, emphasis added: "While we're nowhere near the end of the 'free' Internet," Warzel concluded, "the web's untamed corners undoubtedly feel smaller."

Move along, nothing to see here.
 
2013-07-29 01:31:03 PM

FuzedBox: There are better ways to circumvent paywalls than lightning quick mouse clicks and web browser tricks.

1. Download AdBlock addon
2. Download AdBlock Element Hiding Helper
3. Right click anywhere on the paywall, click Inspect Element
4. At the bottom right, click Hide With ABP
5. Most Elements are compound, so repeat with any remaining elements until the wall is gone.

/works for any other obnoxious elements, also


1. Download NoScript
2. There is no 2
 
2013-07-29 01:36:01 PM

boyvoyeur: So what. I'll just get my news from Fark. Duh!


Soon, TotalFark will be the only Fark.

/they gotta feed the squirrel somehow
 
2013-07-29 01:37:36 PM
Your name is your "intellectual property", bestowed upon you by your parents. Treat it as such. Hit any and every business that uses your IP with a demand for royalties for using your IP in commerce.
 
2013-07-29 01:43:12 PM

TheGreatGazoo: Infernalist: lol yeah, paywalls are the future!  lol

Keep telling yourself that, corporate whores.

It's my fondest hope that when the capitalist rulers of this country realize there's no more money to be made in newspapers, in print or online, that they'll abandon the industry entirely and we can get back to having real journalism that has no concern for profit.

When was that?


Back when people lived in villages where everyone knew everyone and the prefered method of news distribution was a bunch of old ladies drinking tea while gossiping.
 
2013-07-29 01:44:56 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: I tend to think this can only accelerate the dumbing down of America.


Lower than Detroit math scores.
 
2013-07-29 01:52:06 PM
Get ready

img.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-29 01:54:24 PM
Bah!  Back in the good old days we didn't have these new-fangled ipods and Napsters.  That was the *real* Internet, with UUENCODE on USENET and waiting for days until your text only wooden IBM-AT computer "booted" with a 5-1/2" floppy disk, then sent a telegraph message requesting your ASCII porn, if you remembered to peddle your bamboo bicycle fast enough, and Ginger had typed out her selfie, for the Professor to key code.
 
2013-07-29 01:55:58 PM

kidsizedcoffin: That's odd, I haven't had free internet since the days of dial up and gopher.


Didn't you know? The internet is content, not transmission method.
 
2013-07-29 01:56:53 PM
What's next? News portals charging $5 per month just to look at all of their material?
 
2013-07-29 02:10:43 PM

Saners: Yes, surely in this era where free to play games are becoming even more popular and every network is releasing their own streaming content site, the exact opposite is going to happen very soon!


And quit calling me Shirley!
 
Euk
2013-07-29 02:18:16 PM
The only thing that would have made this article better would be if the author also tried to sell us some gold because the US economy was about to implode and the only way to save ourselves is to have bags of gold and guns to defend our brown people proof shelters.
 
2013-07-29 02:35:39 PM

Euk: The only thing that would have made this article better would be if the author also tried to sell us some gold because the US economy was about to implode and the only way to save ourselves is to have bags of gold and guns to defend our brown people proof shelters.


www.poynter.org
 
2013-07-29 02:35:39 PM
Click-bate article. That is all. Guess journalism majors gotta stay busy somehow.
 
2013-07-29 03:20:37 PM
While not everyone believes that the future of information on the Internet is behind paywalls, writers such as Buzzfeed's Charlie Warzel think the time has come to eulogize the free-roam Internet of yesteryear.

Warzel: 12 reasons it's time to eulogize the free-roam Internet of yesteryear.
 
2013-07-29 03:25:04 PM

ReapTheChaos: I have no problem paying for content as long as I get value out of it. What I hate is all the damn annoying ads on every page you open or having to watch a 30 second commercial to view a 90 second video clip.


Easy solution:  Look for a different link.  It works for me 90% of the time.  The times it doesn't, I decide I didn't need to see that video anyway.
 
2013-07-29 03:31:33 PM

Elegy: Hey, anyone remember the halcyon days when the Internet wasn't choked with popups, flashing sidebar advertisements, autoplay video advertisements, and "featured content?"

Man, I miss those days.


how to make the internet not suck (as much)
 
2013-07-29 03:38:22 PM

Endive Wombat: Blowmonkey: This is never going to work the way they think it will.  They will have to create content worth paying for first.  There are a million different places to get news from and even more work arounds to get past paywalls.

I agree the forced video ads suck.  Most of the time I just close them out of feeble protest.  If I really want to watch the video, I just shut the volume off on the ad and switch to another tab until it's done.

Just wait till they implement a script that can tell if you are watching said tab or not, then pauses the ad video if you are not watching it.


They have things that do that.  It's nothing new.  Until they start requiring software that tracks where your eyes are looking (which is possible), it won't solve the problem of a 2nd monitor or even just staring at the TV or actual print media or even your navel while the ad is playing.
 
2013-07-29 03:43:38 PM

HaywoodJablonski: SurfaceTension: ReapTheChaos: I have no problem paying for content as long as I get value out of it.

Same here. I'd pay 5x more per month than what I pay now for Netflix if I could stream their entire library. Until then, there are other ways to acquire that type of thing.

/yes, I know this has less to do with Netflix than with the studios, but it's a revenue stream they're missing out on.

I love how you freeloaders keep moving the goalposts. Stop stealing


Not really.  I hate how I might not finish a film  on netflix, and when I return to watch it a week later, it has disappeared.... or how my Spotify playlists keep getting mungled as tracks disappear as an artist pulls the track (but not the entire library).   I just want on-demand convenience--- and I do pay for it.  I hate geoblocking as well--- as an American living abroad.  That is what VPNs are for.
 
2013-07-29 03:52:01 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: I tend to think this can only accelerate the dumbing down of America.


I would agree, but "news" long ago stopped being informative.  So it's really no loss.
 
2013-07-29 04:03:32 PM

WhatAPhunGuy: Click-bate article. That is all. Guess journalism majors gotta stay busy somehow.


First, it's "click-bait."

Second, it's using a Buzzfeed article (RTFA) as a source, so we know now why it was greenlit.

Fark has become a shameless cash-for-links source.
 
2013-07-29 04:20:47 PM

Disgruntled Goat: WhatAPhunGuy: Click-bate article. That is all. Guess journalism majors gotta stay busy somehow.

First, it's "click-bait."

Second, it's using a Buzzfeed article (RTFA) as a source, so we know now why it was greenlit.

Fark has become a shameless cash-for-links source.


I think this may be true. I'm not having as much fun wasting time at work as I used to.
 
2013-07-29 04:37:59 PM

bopis: Disgruntled Goat: WhatAPhunGuy: Click-bate article. That is all. Guess journalism majors gotta stay busy somehow.

First, it's "click-bait."

Second, it's using a Buzzfeed article (RTFA) as a source, so we know now why it was greenlit.

Fark has become a shameless cash-for-links source.

I think this may be true. I'm not having as much fun wasting time at work as I used to.


I don't mind all that much that Fark makes money off of this stuff. The only time it seems to whine at me about adblock is when I'm not logged-in as TF. I got no problem with that, either.

I'm just concerned at how much of a platform they appear to give to outright racists. I don't mean "racists" as code for "Republicans" or "conservatives" - I mean the real-deal, indistinguishable from Stormfront guys. That's the single biggest thing that might drive me from Fark.
 
2013-07-29 05:08:20 PM

bopis: Disgruntled Goat: WhatAPhunGuy: Click-bate article. That is all. Guess journalism majors gotta stay busy somehow.

First, it's "click-bait."

Second, it's using a Buzzfeed article (RTFA) as a source, so we know now why it was greenlit.

Fark has become a shameless cash-for-links source.

I think this may be true. I'm not having as much fun wasting time at work as I used to.


Keep adblock,noscript on and never pay for tf.
 
2013-07-29 05:47:22 PM
a1.s6img.com

like a banana
 
2013-07-29 07:04:29 PM
That's okay... we'll just make more Wikipedias to drive the greedy out of business. Wikinews, for example, is just waiting for its chance to be a go-to news source, and the more newspapers that try to nickel'n'dime things, the more they seal their own fate.

/yes, it's as simple as that.
 
2013-07-29 07:10:10 PM
I remember when this was called "The Death of the Internet"
 
2013-07-29 07:36:01 PM
Newspapers still think they are relevant?  LOL

Maybe if you still hired journalists instead of World Weekly News rejects.
 
2013-07-29 07:37:08 PM

ReapTheChaos: I have no problem paying for content as long as I get value out of it. What I hate is all the damn annoying ads on every page you open or having to watch a 30 second commercial to view a 90 second video clip.


Especially when the ad precedes a movie trailer, which is really just an advertisement.
 
2013-07-30 04:33:31 AM
Kazrath: ...

This really blows my mind.  I cannot fathom why some of these major studio's do not make all of their old/obscure content just available at like 25 cents - 1 buck an episode.  There are so many old / obscure things I would love to be able to watch but they only exist on some dusty studio shelf.  If they would just digitize everything, Give you the ability to put X dollars in your "wallet" and have some arbitrary low fee to view stuff I could spend years just browsing odd stuff.  (I wonder If i repeat this in enough different ways someone will figure it out).  I bet it they could make billions of dollars doing this.


Because studios think EVERYTHING they have ever produced in the history of mankind is "premium" content. They want to cash in for yesterday's content at today's pricing. Of course yesterday's content was made under a different structure and costs millions less to produce, but never mind that.

Netflix was making a killing when they were getting their content for cheap (read as more realistic pricing) because the studios hadn't caught on yet as to how they could exploit everyone. When Netflix deals started to come up for renewal, the studios renegotiated those contracts so Netflix had to  pay significantly more to stream the same content, or relinquish the rights due to exorbitant price gouging for the right to stream "content" (Starz comes to mind).

I'm not opposed to paying for content, within reason. Not gonna pay $5.99 for "Ishtar" or "Supergirl" under any circumstance. I am opposed to paying for content that requires watching adverts. That is why I dumped Hulu Plus.  I thought cable TV was sold under the premise cable didn't have to show commercials, but there is no difference between cable and terrestrial TV. Satellite radio also doesn't need to air commercials, and they are becoming just as bad as television. Unfortunately, in their quest to maximize their revenue streams, we allow them to get away with airing commercials, so they think nothing about adding more crap.
 
2013-07-30 10:52:39 AM

Napheus: Kazrath: ...

This really blows my mind.  I cannot fathom why some of these major studio's do not make all of their old/obscure content just available at like 25 cents - 1 buck an episode.  There are so many old / obscure things I would love to be able to watch but they only exist on some dusty studio shelf.  If they would just digitize everything, Give you the ability to put X dollars in your "wallet" and have some arbitrary low fee to view stuff I could spend years just browsing odd stuff.  (I wonder If i repeat this in enough different ways someone will figure it out).  I bet it they could make billions of dollars doing this.

Because studios think EVERYTHING they have ever produced in the history of mankind is "premium" content. They want to cash in for yesterday's content at today's pricing. Of course yesterday's content was made under a different structure and costs millions less to produce, but never mind that.

Netflix was making a killing when they were getting their content for cheap (read as more realistic pricing) because the studios hadn't caught on yet as to how they could exploit everyone. When Netflix deals started to come up for renewal, the studios renegotiated those contracts so Netflix had to  pay significantly more to stream the same content, or relinquish the rights due to exorbitant price gouging for the right to stream "content" (Starz comes to mind).

I'm not opposed to paying for content, within reason. Not gonna pay $5.99 for "Ishtar" or "Supergirl" under any circumstance. I am opposed to paying for content that requires watching adverts. That is why I dumped Hulu Plus.  I thought cable TV was sold under the premise cable didn't have to show commercials, but there is no difference between cable and terrestrial TV. Satellite radio also doesn't need to air commercials, and they are becoming just as bad as television. Unfortunately, in their quest to maximize their revenue streams, we allow them to get away with airing commercials, so they th ...


It's always interesting to see what's simply not available for streaming or purchase, either songs or movies.
 
2013-07-30 01:10:04 PM

Napheus: I'm not opposed to paying for content, within reason. Not gonna pay $5.99 for "Ishtar" or "Supergirl" under any circumstance. I am opposed to paying for content that requires watching adverts. That is why I dumped Hulu Plus.  I thought cable TV was sold under the premise cable didn't have to show commercials, but there is no difference between cable and terrestrial TV. Satellite radio also doesn't need to air commercials, and they are becoming just as bad as television. Unfortunately, in their quest to maximize their revenue streams, we allow them to get away with airing commercials, so they think nothing about adding more crap.


I refuse to pay or even watch for free anything with ads in it.  Seriously, NO ADS.  I refuse to listen to the radio except the ad free stations (they exist), I refuse to watch any sort of broadcast TV (satelite, cable, etc).  I will not watch commercial DVDs that don't allow skipping, although that particular issue was easy to solve by using VLC player.  I rarely go to movie theaters.  (my system is better than theirs anyway)

fark modern advertising bullshiat.  They are literally BRAIN WASHING the entire country, and frankly, I think it's awfully pathetic that the majority (even here on fark) are not only falling for it, they are actually asking for more.
 
2013-07-30 10:27:10 PM
Free?!?!? This s*** costs me at least $100 a month!!
 
Displayed 89 of 89 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report