I don't know much about these cases but is anyone from that country coming forward to media and saying their spouse was killed on the ship? Is there anyone who is claiming it was a mistake from that country?
It’s not an exclusive or, they already have most payment processors tapped. People who refuse to use credit now may choose to use crypto later, so pushing crypto probably increases surveillance coverage.
I don't think this is quite true, it may have ended it faster, but I don't think it would still exist today if the civil war had not happened. Most other countries ended slavery without a violent civil war, especially if you think about the way technology vastly outweighed the usefulness of having slaves.
And then when Charlie Kirk says "Some deaths were worth it...", he is talking about accidents and abuses of guns by shooters. He doesn't mean that violence is the answer to politics, it would be great if nobody died from mass shootings. But he is saying that having the right to bear arms to defend yourself is preferable to the alternative where you have no right to do that.
He doesn't say that. You're editorializing on his behalf.
Here's the full quote. He's fully aware of violence cause by mental illness and domestic terrorism.
>> You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.
>> So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?
it's such an insane american belief that the answer to safety is not: reduce gun amounts, reduce what guns people can buy, improve mental health counseling, improve healthcare, improve quality of life through cheaper housing and well-paying jobs, but instead the copout which doesn't even work--adding armed police outside of every school.
uvalde called, it doesn't work. and the rest of the world looks on in shame at this exceptionally american and exceptionally cruel system.
Just as a heads up, I do not condone violence of any sort nor mean to compare the ending of slavery with today's political violence.
Many Quakers believe now that slavery was irreconcilable, and that they prolonged the suffering of those enslaved by advocating against war and for unity in America at the time of the civil war even though it was obvious to many even then that there was no peaceful, tractable means to end slavery. Even today, many historians do not believe there was an obvious end to slavery in the US in sight. How much did the Quakers advocacy for peace, despite being a voice for opposition to slavery in the north, prolong slavery? Quakers to this day grapple with it.
Wishful scenarios slavery being peacefully resolved does read as speculative fiction similar to the naive hopes of the Quakers in this context. I think it reads as naive to the point of willful ignorance or apologetic to slavers to those of us who descend from slaves, too (not that you are willfully ignorant or apologetic necessarily - just stating how it might be received).
Would you bear with me for a comparable scenario that might lead to similar reactions: Perhaps if Britain and France never declared war on Germany, and then the groups responsible for crimes against humanity would have eventually created a society that promoted the equality of men? - This is to say, I don't think that's fair or certain to suggest slavery would peacefully end given there was no realistic political movement at the time for the end of constitutionally and judicially enabled slavery in the US.
I understand if this is a sensitive time, that comparisons to the civil war may not be the most helpful.
However, if these are not helpful, I would hope we would not attempt to use these moments that we should be united in attempting to claim that slavery in the United States would have simply stopped. Historians today reject this, and historians like Eric Foner, Gavin Wright, James Oakes have all written books that provide evidence that slavery was expanding and evolving, and that a major cornerstone for nearly half of the country's economy was not going to disappear in 10, 20, or 100 years.
IRC was invented before the end of the South African apartheid - the United States was lucky to avoid such a terrible fate.
As an aside, it's not pleasant to see speculative conjecture about the inevitable end of slavery side-by-side with quotations from RFK, and feels counter to the goal of the pinned comment.
Thanks to the mod team for generally keeping this comment section civil.
Nobody pays for news from the NYT. NYT is a game developer that also provides news on the side. Their games are their main draw; my gf subscribes and never reads the news.
The legacy media were advertising companies who also happened to provide news. People aren't willing to subscribe for advertising, but they will for games.
If we're going by anecdata, here's another data point: I subscribe to NYT and don't play any of their games. Yes, I read it for the articles but also, to a large degree, for the subscriber comments as well. Similarly to the reason I frequent Hacker News. And to stay up to date with what has been my home for a long time. And also NYT Cooking, though I only access that once in a blue moon.
It's fascinating to me that people would pay to read obvious political propaganda.
I get that the state-sponsored "news" in many EU countries is heavily politically coloured, but why would something like NYT be if they have paying subscribers? I never did the research, but I'm guessing they must have huge additional streams of income besides payments from readers?
Don’t take it too seriously. NYT reporting contrary to the reader’s politics = propaganda/shilling. NYT reporting in line with the reader’s politics = hard hitting journalism speaking truth to power.
You think nobody accused the NYT of propaganda during the Pentagon Papers years? Or ultimately, any other publication during any other period? What's new?
It's a form of tithing. You give to the propagandists providing the slant you align with, even if they're wealthy billionaires. It's been common for belief communities for centuries. Poor people do it for access to wealthy individuals or as a form of gambling on the promises of the propaganda, and wealthy individuals, when they give, are also doing so for influence (access to poor people en masse). Its propaganda all the way down.
Traditionally it was ads that contributed most of the money a newspaper took in, but the fact that people were paying for the paper re-assured the people buying the ads that the papers were actually being read.
NYT is an exception, or more specifically it's much bigger than most other news shops and has the luxury of having a large loyal customer base, a brand reputation to defend, and a full time business analysis and data science team to upkeep its excellence. Your local papers are barely scraping by and are mostly owned by hedge funds whose primary objective to squeeze the consumer via judicial usage of paywalls and clickbaits. A commitment to truth and deep investigative reporting for them does not keep the lights on. The other papers and magazines are all subsidized by billionaires or other vested interests. The price for those is indoctrination.
Just like the old days, when people would subscribe to the daily newspaper for the crossword, the comics, the TV listings, the want ads, or the ads and coupons with the Sunday paper.
NYT is really just making the old newspaper model work in the new age, albeit with higher reliance on subscription revenue and less an ad revenue.
I’m reasonably sure that most of the national-level news media companies have been owned by millionaires (and now billionaires) for the last century. William Randolph Hearst, E.W. Scripps, the Ochs-Sulzberger family, Raoul H. Fleischmann, Cyrus H. K. Curtis are a few of the prominent wealthy owners of nationally-distributed news outlets and publications in 1925. Back farther to the Civil War you find more “independent” publications but it’s a challenge to determine which of them were privately owned by individuals of considerable wealth vs. those owned by their publishers who may or may not have been wealthy.
That's no different from the other papers and magazines.
Paid subscriptions have never been a significant source of revenue to newspapers. They relied on advertisements, just like the websites that killed them.
That's not entirely true for NYT as OP mentioned. NYT is 170 years old. They have been through many phases and models.
Luckily NYT is a public company and you can look up their revenue split on the SEC website going back to 1994. In 1994 they had 35% revenue from circulation vs 65% from ads. In 2021 it was 24% ads and 68% subscribers and 8% "Other"
Tells you how hard advertising collapsed in the same time period. I was at a small chain of local papers from about '09-'13. I saw it first hand.
Classifieds used to be a cash cow... not EASY money nessesairly, it's made $20 or so at the time, but it was a lot of money. Things like apartments for rent or cars for sale.
Then craigslist came a long and killed that.
Similarly ads went from large purchases, often for very large placements (we'd do things like sell rights to entire sections for flat fees), went to Pay Per Impression models paying hundreths of a cent, with no guarantees or minimums.
The Washington Post is also a public company (before 2013). In their 2009 filing, they state that the newspaper's revenue (in 2008) was 51% ads, with the other 49% not attributed.
At that time operating expenses exceeded revenues by 25 million dollars, though this was not an immediate problem for them because they owned several other more profitable companies.
By contrast, in that same year the New York Times announced that they had managed to stave off insolvency by securing a large personal loan from Carlos Slim, who went on to become their biggest shareholder.
How are we distinguishing between these two newspapers? What's supposed to be "exceptional" about the New York Times?
Why are you looking at 2009? Is it because you think it fits your narrative? What happened in 2008 I wonder that may cause companies to be struggling? NYT is a profitable company with majority of their income coming from paid subscriptions. Does that answer your question about how they are different or do you wanna check their revenue split and financials in 1928 too?
A business secured a loan from a billionaire after the GFC and paid it off in 6 years. The billionaire also acquired a significant position in the business that he has mostly exited with a significant profit generated from the business subscription model. More on this crazy story as it unfolds at 11
It's no different -> Paid subscriptions have never been a significant source of revenue to newspapers -> well, they were struggling in 2009 -> ...
I'm looking at 2009 because the claim above was that newspapers other than the New York Times, but not the New York Times, are subsidized by billionaires, and 2009 is the year that the New York Times had to beg for a subsidy from a billionaire. Was that not clear from my comment?
How is taking a loan a subsidy? do you understand how loans work?
It's no different -> Paid subscriptions have never been a significant source of revenue to newspapers -> well, they were struggling in 2009 -> they took a loan that one time -> ...
If the NYT could sell those shares at the market price, they'd have been able to sell them to public markets. The only reason they'd possibly have to transacting with an individual is if there was something about the deal that exceeded the debt or equity financing available publicly.
> Slim's investments in the company included large purchases of Class A shares in 2011, when he increased his stake in the company to 8.1% of Class A shares,[43] and again in 2015, when he exercised stock options -- acquired as part of a repayment plan on the 2009 loan -- to purchase 15.9 million Class A shares, making him the largest shareholder.
Your point being? I just want a coherent response from you. Your initial question was how is the NYT different as you assumed they make all their money from a billionaire benefactor and that subscriptions are not a significant part of the income of any news paper. Now it's about that one year where their income wasn't doing well. And they took a loan. And the creditor bought stock that they sold later.
We are now treating foreign students with suspicion when they don't have a satisfactory internet footprint. Only a matter of time until that gets turned against the citizenry. Submit to surveillance capitalism or go to jail you deviant.
I know AI means a lot of “content” on the internet will become trash, but how specifically do you think AI will be used to control people, aside from deepfakes?
I think the internet was great initially for countering this 1984ness, but everyone joining and advocates for censorship have undone that in some ways. People get lost in the distraction of the internet. My hope is that eventually some portion of young people will turn away from social media and organize outside of that space.
By having AI befriend and manipulate individuals. Won't be long before we have 'realness' tests that go beyond things like our ID to ensure we're talking to other humans.
