It’s just the worst one.

Agreed.

For instance, G Suite is now so thoroughly integrated into school workflows that, even if they collect nothing from students while under 13 (ha!), they are setting kids up to harvest their data in the future by forcing them to learn how to perform basic tasks only on their apps. It’s like advertising fruity cigarettes or vapes, but for data.

It’s not just that all of these companies harvest everyone’s data, but so many of them are specifically targeting kids from as young of an age as they can.

My issue was with that type of sarcasm, which is why I responded with a similarly dismissive sarcastic remark.

Dismissing people’s complaints by saying “you can go use something else/move someplace else” is unhelpful and used to negate their complaints without ever having to address their source.

I doubt many people see an anonymous counter as a huge problem itself, I don’t. The point is that this is a first step in a direction we don’t want to see the software go. If you don’t push back against these things from the moment they show up, they will continue to slowly inch in that direction until you end up in a nightmare like Chrome or Edge.

Seems like a good idea except for how often these states already force their own spyware and backdoors onto projects. Ideally, the state would fund it, but given their history, I’d prefer costs were covered by user donations as the interests of the users are the only interests I trust. We are the only group that is truly independent of competing interests.

Crowd funding and donations obviously have their own drawbacks. Maybe we can find a work around to avoid the privacy violations of states in the future, but I don’t have a simple answer for how to accomplish this. The way the FOSS community operates is currently the best alternative I’ve seen, but I’m sure it’s not always lucrative for developers. People need to be compensated for their labor and our current systems tend to put development interests at odds with user interests.

While we’re at it, we should add Microsoft to the antitrust case…again.

Typical. You post a reasonable response and get a bunch of ad-pilled shit takes:

“But will you eat shit if I put a little chocolate on it?”

“If you don’t eat shit, you don’t deserve to interact with the internet eat.”

“Maybe if you pay them a little money, they’ll stop trying to serve you shit?”

Advertisers contribute nothing of value to our society and contribute little of value to even the companies they serve. Let them burn. Every action they take to “serve” me ads will be met with an equal counteraction.

We deserve to live a life without being constantly bombarded with messages telling us to buy, buy, buy! This significantly decreases our quality of life and is endemic within our entire society. What the hell are all of you who defend advertisers thinking?

Give them an inch and they will take a mile. It definitely won’t be the first time.

“Why don’t you just move to another country if you don’t like it here?”

“I say this as a true patriot.”

There’s your issue.

Got it figured out, thanks!

A shit, my bad. I didn’t scroll far enough, thank you!

Still getting a mostly blank page. Similar to what I tried earlier with archive.ph and archive.today.

Is it just me getting no text content?

Archive.ph and removepaywalls.com aren’t working. Does anyone have a way around the WaPo paywall?

I have a boss who will remote to a meeting that takes place right outside his office, then come in-person to the next meeting that immediately follows in the same room. People like the flexibility.

The article is listed on ResearchGate.

For anyone looking for an alternative to Sci-Hub (the GOAT), you can make a free account on RG and send a request to the authors for a copy of their paper (about two clicks to perform).

Most researchers will send you a copy within a day, maybe two. If you copy the title or the DOI link into a search with “ResearchGate” it usually shows up in most search engines.

I think we have more pressing issues in certain airplanes at the moment, but that’s a good point.

Fundamentally naive take.

Do you want a list of better sources in English, because I feel like you are asking for one. I’m too tired to be the one to give them now, but maybe later or someone else will provide some for me?

The NYT directly contributed to the US invasion of Iraq based on VERIFIABLY FALSE information. Despite this egregious lack of journalistic integrity also known as “doing your fucking job”, they are still held up as a relatively unbiased and reliable source for reporting on war and geopolitical issues that relate to wars that the US elite has interests in.

No. This is your own bias and you have not looked at them critically. You want to trust them and I get it, I even AGREE with you that they do have some use as a news source on other topics, but you’re also playing into the very game they are playing with our heads.

The NYT has had troubling biases that have had a material effect on our world since at least the 1970s.

Just a few to follow if you want alternatives. Note that ALL sources have a bias. It is unavoidable. Even scientists writing in scientific journals. It’s not about their bias so much as being able to recognize their bias and see how it affects their reporting. This is how openly biased media can be a breath of fresh air in comparison to the “unbiased” media.

• Geopolitical Economy Report
• Novara Media
• FAIR.org (a media watchdog)
• Glenn Greenwald (I don’t even particularly like him and he’s had a bit of a bias in favor of Israel, but he still does good work).

Even if they do, will people treat it differently? It’s hard to differentiate those things in your head even when conscious of the difference. The insidious nature of your own bias towards trusting or not trusting what you read from them is why opens are effective at shifting narratives and opinions.

If it didn’t work, they wouldn’t do it.

NYT has always been particularly egregious. How can an editorial board whose members are not publicly accountable (or even reported), and who are obviously made up of a homogeneous, obviously wealthy group of people who regularly write on areas they have conflicts of interest in (particularly real estate in NY) be considered reliable and trustworthy? Their continuing good reputation is one of the biggest media farces that exists.

Read what a media watchdog has to say about them and the problems their articles have consistently had for decades.

Fair warning, I am in need of sleep and what comes after is a rant partially resulting from that. I won’t know if I was coherent until after I’ve rested, so here’s hoping!

You’re right. The state of mainstream media IS abysmal, but these outlets also have a long history of towing the state line as well as that of their private owners (WaPo and Bezos have been particularly egregious in recent years). They’ve always been shit. The reason people find this scary is that they haven’t ever taken the time to take a critical look at the state of the media and make a historically materialistic assessment of how media bias has affected our world and geopolitics.

Media bias and the degradation of public trust in the media is a common problem that’s been around a long time and it just so turns out that the smaller, independently and crowd-funded media outlets are better off than they ever were before the internet. This isn’t the first time this has happened.

People distrusting mainstream sources pushes them to get their information elsewhere. This will have good and bad results, but the media sources that do good reporting have the benefit of actually having done good work that can be confirmed. As people see how poor a job the mainstream media does in their reporting, they may also learn to apply that criticism elsewhere and naturally gravitate to those who are more trustworthy, which is a good thing. The important part to note here is that we do not perform this critical analysis on our own. Discussions like these help us inform each other so we don’t all have to individually become expert fact-checkers. This is my unsubstantiated bias and not meant to downplay the damage done by shitty media sources, but overall I think this general distrust has a beneficial result. People who are passionate about the truth come out of the woodworks and help lead others away from deception.

Blind criticism of media sources from some people is unavoidable in all circumstances, so I’m just writing it off as those people being lost causes. If they weren’t critical as teenagers, what did you expect from them as adults? For others, the shiny paint on the exterior has cracked and more and more they see the piece of shit peaking out from underneath. People recognizing that they cannot blindly trust the media is a good sign…

…a good sign that those who wish to make things better are organized and prepared for the eventualities born of a crumbling state. If there’s anything to be scared of, it should be how the state of those who fight for us compares to the state of organization and strength of those who wish to further exploit and blind us.

The imperial core is crumbling. It will get much worse before it can get better and I’d say it’s unlikely that the forces of positive change for these countries will come from within. Even so, I personally hope and try to help work to make it more likely that good changes do come from within. The future is troubling, but also filled with hope.

(Note: I don’t disagree with your point that you can get some use out of a filthy rag like the NYT so long as you know how clean the results you are expected to get from it are beforehand. From criticism that takes this into account, true media literacy is born.)

How DARE they vote for the candidate they wanted! They should be maligned!

Living rent-free in your mind. Kudos on your dedication to your community, but your time may be better spent on a different hobby. Maybe try reading “tankie” theory?