I mean, yes, but they're minimal. They don't charge enough for a subscription to fully cover their revenues. Plus serving ads has always been something news outlets have done for revenue.
But hey, if they can just fuck off, I guess we can maintain either ads all over the page or let Sinclair/Newscorp run everything.
The issue isn't data transmission and hosting, it's paying someone a living wage to do this work professionally, along with their editors, graphic artists, analysts, and everyone else along the way that writes the news. It's a bit absurd that people complain about ads and low quality reporting/analysis while simultaneously demanding all journalists work for free. Hell, if you get a library card you'll probably be able to legitimately access the article right now for free in a way that still pays the journalist.
*Porkins
Israel has labeled BDS, the actual peaceful option, terrorism.
There is a legal, regulated, mostly safe method to buy cigarettes. It is inaccessible if you are under a certain age, but only the seller/provider is punished for violating regulations. It's okay to have restrictions on what children can consume.
While current laws on illegal drugs do not work, arguing against any regulation whatsoever is similarly silly, the laws obviously work. Smoking rates have dramatically declined since those laws and public education campaigns began.
If you're a power user there's a minor learning curve to prevent shit from breaking and some mild inconveniences like being unable to use NFC. Location can also just not work at times. Overall, I'm glad I made the switch.
He's got an amateur's level of knowledge while presenting as an expert. The moment in the video about China's plans to invade Taiwan where he said he used Google Translate as opposed to asking literally anyone in DC who knows Mandarin to help him with translations was when I realized he doesn't really know what he's talking about for many of the subjects he covers. I think there are policy and IR issues where he actually does have some knowledge, but I don't think any of it goes to the level of expertise required to educate on the subject, which is what he purports to do.
There's a very real argument that it does mess with the consumer's head. The person being hurt is the consumer of the media and while some unhealthy behaviors can be okay in reason, there's also risks in terms of how it makes the consumer view the world and people in it. Violent video games don't make people more violent, but imagery in porn does affect how consumers of porn view people and relationships.
Agreed. I'm friends with a few journalists and even the ones who had a steady job at major outlets were working it like a hustle. There really isn't a good way to do it that doesn't involve some level of either corporate or wide-public investment and both of those have an easy chance to get corrupted.