this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
1635 points (97.8% liked)

Privacy

32142 readers
924 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I thought "whitelist" got cancelled for being racist? I distinctly remember being forced to rename everything to "IP Allowlist" and having to rename all my branches to "main" from "master". Jenkins is 3rd party software, so it still has slaves... 😂

[–] punkwalrus@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It did, and I was also doing that in some of our software in a previous job. Other terms we had to stop using were black sheep, white washing, and even gorilla.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7dd3d/we-need-to-stop-saying-blacklist-and-whitelist

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How much have you been drinking today, my friend?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

Its a bad marketing campaign because it is easily turned into threads like this. Also, I have no idea if USA Today is good or not (I genuinely have never even thought about it).

But it is worth understanding. News outlets need to get funding from somewhere. Some are state funded and I should not need to explain why that introduces biases. Others take massive sponsorship deals from companies and ensure that John Oliver will always have something to talk about. And others run ads to varying degrees of curation.

The last option is subscriptions and those are few and far between.

Its more or less the same thing we saw with ads in general over the 00s. More and more people learned how to block ads so more and more websites needed to add obnoxious flash based ads and insane uses of javascript and so forth to get any impressions. And fewer and fewer "good" companies wanted to advertise to adblock heavy audiences which led to more and more trojans and so forth. Which leads to more and more ad blockers and...

In the case of news media? We mostly see this manifest as less investigative journalism and more listicles and "clickbait" articles because those at least get the facebook crowd to click.

So it is very much worth looking in to more permissive blocklists and even permitlists. Block tracking cookies because fuck that shit. But permit sites that you "trust" to have reasonable ads and look in to finer grain blocklists that still allow the actual ads to be displayed, even if they aren't the ones based on Amazon figuring out you have a foot fetish.

[–] BolexForSoup@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

I agree that state sponsored media has pitfalls but I never understood this appeal to “unbiased” media. It doesn’t exist because bias can’t be removed from humans.

I always ask 1 question and ask for 1 example here:

  1. When did WWII start? If things are objectively true and we expect historical works/statements to lack bias then this should be pretty simple.

  2. Do you have an example of an objective or unbiased media outlet? A writer? A single article?

This isn’t a dig at you. I just think this is a very broad social issue. Objectivity is a myth. We should recognize biases and account the best we can but “just the facts” reporting just doesn’t exist and never has. People demanding objectivity are often using it as a cudgel in defense of their argument. Take your more vocal folks on the right for instance. They claim “bias” whenever they don’t like something, and “telling it like it is” when it’s “their team.”

[–] Steve@communick.news 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Objectivity is a myth.

It's not so much a myth, as an unobtainable goal that should be strived for. Like perfection. One can never be perfect, but one can always be better. There are such things as facts, and accuracy in describing them.

To say objectivity is a myth, seems to suggest nobody has any responsibility to try to accurately represent any facts. If someone claims blue light has a wavelength of 150nm, is that a perfectly valid opinion? Do lies exist?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] hh93@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Even though I'm probably not reading it enough to be worth it I pay a yearly online-subscription to one of the newspapers that gained my trust with good investigative pieces in the past.

If everyone was just consuming for free then a newspaper needs to either be heavily funded by a really wealthy person that pays them (and in turn makes it less likely that said newspaper will report against people like that) or the newspaper needs to sell ad-space. So if you are consuming for free AND blocking ads on a website then you are only costing that website money - and in case of newspapers that's not a good thing since it ensures that only those that are publicly funded or funded by billionaires will survive "almost unchanged" while the rest will try to get as populist as possible to the the most amount of clicks to increase their ad-revenue

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Sygheil@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Just disable JS if you are going to read texts.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ObtotheR@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I wouldn't visit these sites if you paid me. Much less forced me to watch ads.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Read as giving them ad revenue allows them to write without doing sponsored articles

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] sir_reginald@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

I wonder which content blocker you're using, because with uBlock Origin (with a fairly aggressive config and custom blocklists) I do not get that "disable adblock" pop up.

Not like I'd visit this site at all, I just tried to see if I could create a uBO filter for you to remove the paywall.

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

Free speech doesn't mean a compelled audience.

[–] Pulptastic@midwest.social 7 points 1 year ago

Just because you can say it doesn't mean I have to listen.

[–] NabeGewell@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Reminds me of Microsoft's "1,000,000 PCs can't be wrong" or whatever it was when they started pushing windows 10 to 7 users

If you’re trying to get paid based one someone’s views or clicks, it’s not free.

[–] brihuang95@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago

wow, the balls of the folk who came up with this 🤡

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

Makes sense lol

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 year ago

This might be a mildly infuriating moment

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Free speech for corporations and advertisers. For users is the paywall as adblocker. For this screenshot, Memes is a better place.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›