this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
2697 points (98.2% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

35378 readers
1105 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
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 92 points 1 year ago (14 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 52 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.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

Well there are 3 alternatives.

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

All journalism becomes volunteer work, running off of optional donations, 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.

[–] [email protected] 24 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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 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.

[–] [email protected] 8 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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

You can always have it be publicly funded but managed by a non profit designated by the government, and make it organized in such a way that if a politician or government institution had a problem with some reporting, there's nothing they can do.

The same concerns about editorial independence and human fallacy apply in the private sector top. There has always been pressure between the editorial, marketing, and journalist parts of newspapers.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think you're missing a potential 4th one, though I'm not 100% convinced as to its feasibility, but a Universal Basic Income and greater societal wealth redistribution raises the bottom so much that everyone can easily afford 30 news subscriptions.

Though personally I think more arms length public funding is the better option since the incentives of capitalism often don't align with the incentives of high quality journalism.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I love the idea of UBI. But I can’t help but worry I’m wrong.

My love for UBI assumes that idle hands will make themselves useful in productive, please or at least non-destructive ways.

I’m not clear I can justify that

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I certainly can't speak for anyone else, but personally I would be useful in productive ways. I went through a period of every nerds' dream of staying home and playing video games all the time and it drove me nuts. Yeah, it was nice for a little while, but not having the money to go anywhere or do anything made me look forward to working again. If I'd have had money, I would not have been home very much.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I did that too; it was during Covid :)

I think/acted similar to you… which is why I think we might all be common minding.

That said, people that aren’t motivated to do good things are most likely motivated to do nothing… so it might not be a big deal if they don’t show up for a job.

TLDR: fewer workers at Burger King probably would t make service worse

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Eh, the actual problem is that most people are shite.

People. What a bunch of bastards.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Very few people honestly want to do nothing. Even the image of the unemployed pot smoker who watched cartoons all day, maybe that person would find fulfillment in art? Or maybe they're passionate about something important in their community.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

My love for UBI assumes that idle hands will make themselves useful in productive, please or at least non-destructive ways.

There's still an incentive to work and make more money to better your living situation and contribute productively back to society, but you wouldn't be as beholden to it.

Another way to think about it was that in the 50s a single worker could make enough to support a family, whereas these days both parents have to work full time. Providing UBI would be a more equitable way of reducing the reliance on work and increase individual families' health and well being by providing the baseline financial assistance that would allow one parent to take time off work (or both parents to reduce time at work) to better support their family, community, and social structure.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

All journalism becomes volunteer work, running off of optional donations, which seems unlikely :D

It's not quite that simple with PBS or NPR, but that's the basic idea. Open public funding with no political or corporate control sounds like the safest bet. It's as viable as people deciding to support it.

Not sure why you'd think "publicly funded" would seem like the "optimal" option. Same thing structurally as "state-run media", just friendlier phrasing. If we had direct democracy or something, that might be fine, but the fact that it has to run through politicians and bureaucrats with their own interests/agendas, that completely changes the picture. If you have that federally funded in the U.S., that basically just tucks under the executive branch like almost everything else, meaning it's just managed by the President, with basically only a paper tiger of regulations preventing interference in place.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In Germany, the independence of publicly funded media is guaranteed by the payment of a special fee that is collected independently of the normal taxes, and is distributed directly among the public media institutions. No parliament has to approve any funding, the only attack vector would be to change the legislation behind this financing but that would require a parliamentary majority and would therefore have to be the will of the people.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But what keeps a local newspaper from creating an online service over which the papers can be bought, maybe even for a lower price because manufacturing costs are no longer extant?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

They are all trying. I'm honestly not sure yet whether it will work. I hope so.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because classified ads used to pay for the paper.

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

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You would sometimes pick up a newspaper specifically for the ads. You might be looking for a job or a car and that was a good starting place.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

This seems like a common theme. There are just so many things to subscribe to: Netflix, Spotify, New York Times, Amazon, Audible, individual app store applications, Paramount+, Hulu, Peacock, NPR+, Disney+, etc. Just keeping track of it all is complicated. And all content producers want to maintain the subscription framework, too, passing the costs on to us. This is a little off topic, but it still bugs me that Netflix became a content producer. I think it would have been a cleaner/cheaper arrangement if they'd remained a subscription service only.

[–] [email protected] 43 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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

With so many shows getting canceled, or even un-confirmed and then obliterated from existence all for tax write offs, I'm kinda soured on Streaming these days.

Hopefully the WGA and SAG strikes are successful and result in streaming improving again, back to how it felt during the mid 2010s.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (6 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Where did u experience this lol, Ive never heard of that

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

There're some wack lowly made phones sold in countries without good standards that do this.

A friend's phone shows ad in every app, from google stock apps to whatapp and even fucking phone/call app. Around 30 pixels of ad blocked at the bottom of the screen whenever mobile data is on.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Xiaomi, that was the worst update ever

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

What phone or service is this? Not in the states right?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Idk, 15 years ago I was watching cable and 1/3 of my time was spent subjected to ads on a paid service. I think I prefer them now lol

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

That’s why I use an inverted ad-block list. I see ads unless they get intrusive or unreasonable, and then I enable blocking on the site.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can get NY times for just $4 a month. I personally think it's worth it.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

When I had more income I paid for the NYT, but tbh they've made enough questionable editorial decisions lately that I've decided it wasn't worth it. The Guardian isn't paywalled at least.

load more comments (9 replies)