this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2026
473 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

81797 readers
4373 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

original, saw this somewhere else too. ddos stuff. this one blames ru for archive.today mess. sounds about right. didn' intend it to look like an announcement here. it kind of did. post based on ars story, apparently. who knows

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Dayroom7485@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

Good reminder to pay for journalism.

The Guardian, Le Monde, El País, Tageszeitung and many others need subscribers to stay independent of the oligarchs.

[–] meep_launcher@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 hours ago

Also remember the journalists that need support the most are local papers and news stations. The big ones have plenty of donors, and while it's worth the support, they are less likely to completely collapse than the news that is run in your city.

Go look for that independent source. They will report more news that actually affects you as well.

[–] kepix@lemmy.world 7 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

guardian is surviving by slowly becoming a tabloid. not sure if i would have paid for it anyway, and im not sure if this was preventable by paying for it in the first place.

[–] vantablack@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 9 hours ago

yeah and they're also transphobic af as a policy. don't give them a damn cent

https://www.buzzfeed.com/patrickstrudwick/guardian-staff-trans-rights-letter

can also find more stuff by just looking up "the guardian transphobia"

[–] hector@lemmy.today 1 points 11 hours ago

I appreciate the guardian a lot more than I did before now that someone gave me a nytimes subscription, seeing how bad they are now. For the guardian's faults, they do break some stories still, and somewhat comprehensively cover the news, perhaps better than the times, that is too busy trying to cover for Israel to even report honestly on epstein and apparently surrendered to the administration besides.

[–] veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Paying for journalism simply promotes that those who don't pay it don't get it ie.: more paywalls, not less.

[–] Schmuppes@lemmy.today 2 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (4 children)

So what you're saying is if we refuse to pay for journalism long enough, the journalists will eventually give up and just work for free? Not have to travel for their investigations, eat nothing and need no private home?

[–] Dayroom7485@lemmy.world 5 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Democracy isn’t possible without an independent press.

Epstein was persecuted because the frigging Miami Herold reported about his abuses in 2018. He would have continued raping and trafficking kids for who knows how long without that. In a world where the media is owned by Epstein, that won’t happen.

[–] sibachian@lemmy.ml 1 points 13 hours ago

what democracy? every person in the leadership of america and most of the world were either friends with epstein or on his payroll.

[–] hector@lemmy.today 1 points 11 hours ago

It's not our fault the media decided to switch to a subscription model while not providing a product worthy of paying a subscription, even before they downgrade it every year.

It's a problem, but one of their own making.

[–] rumba@lemmy.zip 3 points 13 hours ago

They're already mostly owned and working for the ultra-rich interests. There have been plenty of outlets over the years that had paying users, they're mostly owned at this point. Those that aren't are getting quite click-baity.

Capitalism is hard on News. Facism is worse.

[–] veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I haven't said that journalists have to work for free. Just that we don't have to be the ones who are trickled out to feed them. I doesn't have to be "poors vs workers" unlike what the media is telling you, ya know? A better system is possible.

[–] Dayroom7485@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Huh, I don’t get that argument. To me, it seems that citizens paying journalists is desirable. I’m genuinely curious, who else should pay them in your view?

[–] veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 hour ago

It could be the citizens but done indirectly, for example via taxes. Even better, not all citizens: just tax the rich and put the money into a journalism pool, so the rich can't choose to benefit any particular newspaper or editorial line.

[–] Flatfire@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago

Paying for journalism is ideal, but unfortunately makes it difficult to cite/link to a source the way Wikipedia needs as a way to ensure the information remains open and accessible.

Admittedly, I'm not familiar with these outlets enough to know if those paywalls are significant, but the problem with direct article links is that those links can change. Archival services (I suppose not archive[.]is) are important for ensuring those articles remain accessible in the format they were presented in.

I've come across a number of older Wikipedia articles about more minor or obscure events where links lead to local new outlet websites that no longer exist or were consumed by larger media outlets and as a result no longer provide an appropriate citation.