Ad revenue drying up, what next for free websites?

[landscapephoto]

Alan, like you the lunatic in video and others that like to blame PC for something that is nothing to do with the reality. need to stop blaming PC for everything you do not like.

What is really interesting in that link is the poll: 81% of the people clicked that they don't care about the coffee cups design. And that, of course, is only the tiny fraction of the "don't care" people who actually bothered to click on the poll.

So, in surface, the article looks like there are many people who are outraged for a completely ridiculous reason. There is a flow of comments to confirm the outrage. But, in truth, most of the people who read the articles, found it downright silly, and rightly so.

Probably, this illustrates that the Internet has become vastly irrelevant, just as the paper press and TV in the years before. And, probably, that erosion of relevance has something to do with ad revenue drying up.

I think that is the real answer: the complete subversion of actual content in the medias to an agenda dependent of greed and power, to a clique of managers who intrinsically believe that all their readers are complete morons who will click and buy whatever brings revenue if "content" will yank their chains hard enough has finally completely destroyed mass media.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

It may add something to the discussion if you could cite this.  That way others could read about it for themselves.

Sure.

I made numerous claims and there are numerous sources to support it, so here are a couple of those (emphasis mine):

Earlier this year, the University of California system labeled statements like "America is a melting pot” and "America is the land of opportunity” as microaggressions. The school system argues that microaggressions promote a hostile learning environment for marginalized students.

The full article is here: http://www.attn.com/stories/3868/free-speech-college-campuses

Fifty years after the birth of the free speech movement at the University of California, Berkeley, officials across the UC system are encouraging faculty and students to purge mundane, potentially offensive words and phrases from their vocabularies.

Administrators want members of campus to avoid the use of racist and sexist statements, though their notions about what kinds of statements qualify are completely bonkers. “America is a melting pot,” “Why are you so quiet?” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job,” are all phrases that should raise red flags, according to the UC speech police.

The full article is here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/06/22/the-university-of-california-s-insane-speech-police.html

About "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces":

One last word about the art of taking offence. Nowhere has this art been more assiduously cultivated than on American campuses, where an entirely new culture of trepidation has set out to capture the adolescent psyche. When discussing any of the matters in which the secular dogmas have staked a claim - race, sex, orientation, sexual politics - the professor may now be required to issue "trigger warnings", lest he stray into areas that might trigger the memory of some traumatic event in the life of the student. Visiting speakers with heretical views about feminism or homosexuality are also preceded by trigger warnings. Some campuses even provide safe rooms where the trembling students can retire for consolation should they have been exposed to the contamination of an unorthodox point of view.

The full article is here: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34744432

Another article on the subject of free speech and universities, with good references to SCOTUS cases, is here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/the-anti-free-speech-movement-at-ucla/410638/

Is there any other statement I made that still needs verification?

[Justinr]

What is really interesting in that link is the poll: 81% of the people clicked that they don't care about the coffee cups design. And that, of course, is only the tiny fraction of the "don't care" people who actually bothered to click on the poll.

So, in surface, the article looks like there are many people who are outraged for a completely ridiculous reason. There is a flow of comments to confirm the outrage. But, in truth, most of the people who read the articles, found it downright silly, and rightly so.

Probably, this illustrates that the Internet has become vastly irrelevant, just as the paper press and TV in the years before. And, probably, that erosion of relevance has something to do with ad revenue drying up.

I think that is the real answer: the complete subversion of actual content in the medias to an agenda dependent of greed and power, to a clique of managers who intrinsically believe that all their readers are complete morons who will click and buy whatever brings revenue if "content" will yank their chains hard enough has finally completely destroyed mass media.

I think that's a reflection of the growth of the internet and IT generally. Many of those those who built it think they are the only clever people around, everyone else is stoopid because they don't do techie stuff! Those who run it are subject to the same myopia and wonder why we are not fooled into buying their stuff.

[Otto Phocus]

Thanks for posting the citations.  It helps when everyone can read the same articles as part of the discussion

[Telecaster]

I don't know (in person) anyone who is both by nature respectful of other humans and untroubled by intolerance in its various forms. There is for sure a strongly intolerant aspect to the "protect me from microaggression!" university kerfuffles. IMO this is infantilizing and ultimately self-defeating, as extremism always tends to be. I also find the degree to which people are outraged—and outraged by the outrage—to be a good indicator of tribal/political alliance. The greater the outrage the stronger the alliance. This holds up equally for left and right across multiple outrage outbreaks. People who're disappointed by and express regret over this stuff I agree and empathize with. The outragers: ppfftt, I know the stink of politics and ideology when I smell it.

-Dave-

[jjj]

Thanks for posting the citations.  It helps when everyone can read the same articles as part of the discussion

It should be noted I could link to numerous sources about how people are offended by Christmas and why it is going to be banned.
The fact that the source of this this misinformation is actually satirising an anti-Muslim hate group should be noted.

Some idiots somewhere will most probably be objecting to banal phrases in case of offence, but Slobodan using outliers to show that being politically correct, i.e. treating people with respect is somehow wrong is the typical argument used by the bigot/racist. I could justify just as equally that Christianity should be got rid of by linking to news reports about what the Klu Klux Klan get up to. Extremists of any persuasions, left/right, black/white, Jewish/Palestinian should be ignored as being representative of an entire group.
Bigots also like to try and play the persecuted card....

Yes, you said that, repeatedly, hurting my feelings. That would be bullying, no?

Describing your bullying behaviour as bullying is simply descriptive.
For those people do not want to be called a bully, a racist a homophobe or whatever here's a simple tip, don't behave like one.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Some idiots somewhere will most probably be objecting to banal phrases in case of offence, but Slobodan using outliers ... Extremists...

Idiots...outliers...extremists...

Jeremy, Jeremy... these are official university policies.

[jjj]

Idiots...outliers...extremists...

Jeremy, Jeremy... these are official university policies.

So? They not mutually exclusive. Being smart does not mean you are not also incredibly stupid in other areas. Besides once you open Universities to all, you don't even need to be smart to go there.
Besides, the staff who came up with the dumb things are admin folk anyway, so not even the smart folk.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

So? They not mutually exclusive. Being smart does not mean you are not also incredibly stupid in other areas. Besides once you open Universities to all, you don't even need to be smart to go there.
Besides, the staff who came up with the dumb things are admin folk anyway, so not even the smart folk.

So... if I go along with your theory of stupidity (where, it seems, you do have intimate knowledge of the subject matter), it means that stupid people are taking over... universities, national discourse, companies, judiciary, government, etc. Thank you, exactly the point I've been making this whole time, given the tide of PC "victories" recently.

[jjj]

So... if I go along with your theory of stupidity (where, it seems, you do have intimate knowledge of the subject matter), it means that stupid people are taking over... universities, national discourse, companies, judiciary, government, etc. Thank you, exactly the point I've been making this whole time, given the tide of PC "victories" recently.

Not what I said at all, not even close. You are using the typical bigots 'rationalisation' of deriving generalisations from specifics, as well as completely misreading and misinterpreting what I wrote. You should go and write for one of our rabid tabloid newspapers, they love that sort of 'thinking'.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Well, Jeremy, since you absolutely have to have the last word, I'll let you. I'll also let readers of this forum decide for themselves the difference between facts, reliable and reputable sources, and opinions in this debate.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Not what I said at all, not even close. You are using the typical bigots 'rationalisation' of deriving generalisations from specifics, as well as completely misreading and misinterpreting what I wrote. You should go and write for one of our rabid tabloid newspapers, they love that sort of 'thinking'.

Damn right. Anyone who disagrees with you, Jeremy, is a bigot, incapable of independent, rational thought. How dare Slobodan doubt that obvious truth.

Jeremy

[Otto Phocus]

I don't understand why there are some people here that seem to only be able to discuss something on a personal basis with the insults, condescending attitudes, and name calling?

I guess that's the Internets Tubes for you.

[hjulenissen]

Which simply confirms that you are not exactly a very nice person and also explains your at times bullying behaviour on LuLa.

Does this mean that decent manners will be the goal of future posts from you? If so, I applaud it.

-h

[jjj]

Damn right. Anyone who disagrees with you, Jeremy, is a bigot, incapable of independent, rational thought. How dare Slobodan doubt that obvious truth.

Jeremy

So you are now drawing generalisations from specifics now too. Only person here I think is a bigot is Slobodan and that is directly because of his not very nice behaviour.
Slobodan has a history of veiled and outright nastiness on this forum, he has been misogynistic, a rape apologist and discreetly homophobic. Never seen anyone post such nasty and bullying things on here as him. He explicitly says above that he sees no problem with saying hateful things (requoted that post below). I find it baffling that he keeps getting away with it when others have been binned for far less.
Such accepted unpleasantness is why I gave up posting on here for a while.

So do you think saying hateful things is somehow OK, but doing hateful things is not?

Yes.

What Slobodan does not get is that saying hateful things is in fact doing hateful things.

[Christopher Sanderson]

We are so done here.

I have had to issue two temporary bans from posting and have locked and unlocked this thread. It will now stay locked

Character assassination will not be tolerated.

Members who repeatedly engage in attacks will receive progressively longer bans.