Dear Internet

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

runic knight:

All I see people complaining about customers letting advertisers know boils down to keeping that dissatisfaction from being known about and just quietly shutting up or leaving places they may have been regulars in for years.

I don't believe anyone at all is saying that. No one is saying that you have to never voice an opinion about whether or not you like something. The example of the chef was not about whether or not people enjoyed eating the burgers; it was about people who took the burgers without paying, which is what archives are doing. If you don't like an outlet, you can stop reading it, you can protest about how it's not what you want and ask them to change while still reading, etc. But when you get to the point of going there through archives to deliberately deny them money to keep writing (either because you disagree directly with the piece, or because you don't like that somewhere down the line that ad revenue might end up in the pockets of someone you disagree with), that's crossing the moral horizon.

The people paying the bills will listen. However, what they shouldn't hear is, "You offered us $1 per thousand views on the site. Good news for you: We got 27 million views, but only 43,000 are legitimate views on the site, the rest are from archives where we don't collect any of the revenue. We'll take the pocket change, your company can go home satisfied it made a killing." The love of creation does not pay the bills. The chef working from home might like the art of cooking, but he also needs money to live. And it's damn foolish to argue that "in this case we both know that wont make them any money because what they provide is not actually worth paying for to anyone else", when the entire crux of Marks' article is that people think something is worth value in the marketplace of ideas sense that they are spending time and attention on it, but deliberately trying to subvert the basic economic underpinnings out of self-righteousness.

Ad-based revenue is as clear a method of economic support for authors as direct donation, and using archives to deny ad revenue is exactly the same as using fake bank info to get a free subscription to The Economist. If you think it's worth your time to read it, then by capitalist necessity it is worth not trying to defraud the author/publisher.

Thunderous Cacophony:
If you think it's worth your time to read it, then by capitalist necessity it is worth not trying to defraud the author/publisher.

Ah, but isn't the problem that people think the content isn't worth people's time to read it for its own merits, they are only doing so to explain why it is wrong?

Thaluikhain:

Thunderous Cacophony:
If you think it's worth your time to read it, then by capitalist necessity it is worth not trying to defraud the author/publisher.

Ah, but isn't the problem that people think the content isn't worth people's time to read it for its own merits, they are only doing so to explain why it is wrong?

As Marks said in the original article,

Robert Marks:
So, it's time to stop denying websites page views because one of their writers committed the sin of disagreeing with you. It's time to use websites like archive.is or archive.org for their intended purpose of preserving content that is no longer available, instead of punishing writers on the other side of the political spectrum and those with the temerity to publish them.

Putting hate speech aside, the system of democratic debate only works if you meet ideas openly and honestly. One could replace the phrasing 'worth your time to read it' with 'worth your time to engage with it' and the point is still the same. You don't have to share the article and encourage everyone else to give page views to the original author, but to share the article while deliberately denying them revenue because you have decided that they are wrong and therefore the social contract doesn't apply to them, but that the work is still important enough that people need to read it personally and engage with you about it's merits and flaws, is cutting the legs out from any debate.

Thunderous Cacophony:
Putting hate speech aside, the system of democratic debate only works if you meet ideas openly and honestly.

Ah, well, the only times I've seen this sort of thing is where there isn't intended to be a debate, when the other side isn't speaking openly and honestly, or is otherwise dangerous. Anti-vaxxers, for example, I don't see why attacking that sort of thing, which gets people killed, should profit them.

Admittedly, people are likely to claim this is the case of people they disagree with.

Yeah, no, cry me a river.

A lot of gaming news outlets are completely worthless anyway.

If Kotaku went under tomorrow, I wouldn't care. They deserve it.

Another big reason people use archiving is because sites like Forbes use obnoxious anti-adblocker plugins.

Remember when the Escapist used to ban people for saying the word "adblocker"? Did that save the site? Hell no.

The real problem isn't some guys on a /v/ thread sharing an archived article to make fun of it. The real problem is much bigger.

'Now, there are cases where a boycott is warranted. If a website's editorial stance is pure, unadulterated racism or misogyny, or it is calling for violence against minorities, then it falls under hate speech, and it is quite reasonable to boycott them.'

So when someone disagrees with your worldview then boycotting them is fine. The US Constitution protects freedom of speech not freedom of advertising revenue. If websites want to prevent this happening then block the archiving sites. They are exercising their Intellectual Property rights. If people then choose to express themselves in a way that denies their ideological opponents revenue then that is perfectly reasonable. If a boycott is legitimate for one expression of opinion is it legitimate for any form of expression.

The article mentions major publications which the author pays for even though he disagrees with some of the authors. Marvelous, you are exercising freedom of choice. That does not mean anyone else should do so. If you take this argument to its logical conclusion then there can be no situation where a boycott is warranted because there will always be some element of a publication that you agree with. Therefore the argument is absurd. Virtually all sites have a basic editorial policy, some are quite general and will publish only moderate opinions. This is unlikely to get anyone boycotting them. Others, especially online, take a strong editorial line - the vast majority of its contributors follow this line - some may be permitted to derogate from this position but they are in a minority. Why should opponents support it, merely for a token representative?

Sites which hold strong views should expect not to gain revenue from their opponents. If their actions can economically threaten such sites then they need to alter their revenue models or change their editorial policies. Simply crying foul whenever their opponents are mean to them is ridiculous and rather pathetic.

Thunderous Cacophony:

Putting hate speech aside, the system of democratic debate only works if you meet ideas openly and honestly. One could replace the phrasing 'worth your time to read it' with 'worth your time to engage with it' and the point is still the same. You don't have to share the article and encourage everyone else to give page views to the original author, but to share the article while deliberately denying them revenue because you have decided that they are wrong and therefore the social contract doesn't apply to them, but that the work is still important enough that people need to read it personally and engage with you about it's merits and flaws, is cutting the legs out from any debate.

I believe the overarching debate ("the Master Debate" if you will) was rather thoroughly amputated by the authors at the very outset, so there's really no "meeting ideas openly and honestly" with some of the outlets named in the article. Unfortunately, some influential entities may still perceive their work to be of some importance, so people need to be aware of its distortions in order to have a chance of countering it. Slim as that might be from the fallen state of unpersonhood, as declared by the esteemed gentlefolk of The Press.

DrownedAmmet:
Reading an article and then repeating it verbatim is 1) an impressive mental exercise, and 2) not the same as posting the entire article in a way that denies them payment. If you 'bought' that article in the first place, youve earned the right to discuss it. It goes way past "kind of dick ish" territory and lands verrry close to "theft' territory
It boggles my mind how people can defend this, it's really simple. It's like when you buy a newspaper from one of those paper boxes, they are trusting the consumer not to be an entitled sleaze bag and take the whole stack. Let's not defend these entitled sleaze bags

But it isn't taking an entire stack. It would be more akin to taking one newspaper, and then photocopying & printing to hand out to others for free. They aren't stopping anyone who *does* want to support from doing so, they are simply suggesting that people shouldn't support. It does not deny them anymore payment than if you were to explain it to a friend. It's trying to inform people of 'XYZ' while not supporting the people doing it. If this in turn causes them to no longer be able to continue doing 'XYZ,' then perhaps the boycotters actually have a point & aren't completely wrong.

They aren't stealing articles to make profit or try & become popular off of other peoples work, they are simply saying "We believe these websites/writers have issues, we don't want them to be supported, & here is a way to read their articles (so you know why we don't like them) while not having to support them." Don't get me wrong, the people doing it are too vindictive for my taste, they are assholes. But I'm defending boycotting, and their right to do it. I could ask you why you want to defend these websites that promote click-bait, lying, and overall garbage? If anyone is wrongly-entitled it's the writers & websites that willfully host this stuff, thinking they *deserve* a living for writing little more than low effort clickbait. Archiving is used to share an article without supporting, very similarly to re-writing it on a forum/chat, or telling the gist of it verbally. It's simple really.

Thunderous Cacophony:

runic knight:

All I see people complaining about customers letting advertisers know boils down to keeping that dissatisfaction from being known about and just quietly shutting up or leaving places they may have been regulars in for years.

I don't believe anyone at all is saying that. No one is saying that you have to never voice an opinion about whether or not you like something. The example of the chef was not about whether or not people enjoyed eating the burgers; it was about people who took the burgers without paying, which is what archives are doing. If you don't like an outlet, you can stop reading it, you can protest about how it's not what you want and ask them to change while still reading, etc. But when you get to the point of going there through archives to deliberately deny them money to keep writing (either because you disagree directly with the piece, or because you don't like that somewhere down the line that ad revenue might end up in the pockets of someone you disagree with), that's crossing the moral horizon.

The people paying the bills will listen. However, what they shouldn't hear is, "You offered us $1 per thousand views on the site. Good news for you: We got 27 million views, but only 43,000 are legitimate views on the site, the rest are from archives where we don't collect any of the revenue. We'll take the pocket change, your company can go home satisfied it made a killing." The love of creation does not pay the bills. The chef working from home might like the art of cooking, but he also needs money to live. And it's damn foolish to argue that "in this case we both know that wont make them any money because what they provide is not actually worth paying for to anyone else", when the entire crux of Marks' article is that people think something is worth value in the marketplace of ideas sense that they are spending time and attention on it, but deliberately trying to subvert the basic economic underpinnings out of self-righteousness.

Ad-based revenue is as clear a method of economic support for authors as direct donation, and using archives to deny ad revenue is exactly the same as using fake bank info to get a free subscription to The Economist. If you think it's worth your time to read it, then by capitalist necessity it is worth not trying to defraud the author/publisher.

There is a problem here though. The chef isn't selling burgers. They are selling their audience. The burgers are the way the chef gets their audience, but that audience is what he sells to advertisers to get money. He offers the burgers for free in hopes of bringing in more audience to sell off. People are trying the burgers, not liking them, and not wanting the chef to continue to make money off of them, the audience.

And that is not even getting into the other aspects the archives have ended up doing. Beyond just denying the chef the ability to sell their presence for profit, Archives have also been used to force journalists to keep more honest, to prevent cover-ups and attempts to hide screw-ups, and to even provide information in places where the original article may be blocked for one reason or another. Furthermore, especially during gamergate, many articles were directly attacking people with outright lies and demonization, and the only way to address that would be to know what they said and have a means to reference it as it was. Being expected to pay someone to be insulted just to be able to address the wording, well, that was never going to happen.

Furthermore, clicking adds has always been seen as a sign of support of the writer and publication. It is like buying stuff from the adds for the "free" tv based on the same principle. The inverse would also be true, the refusal to buy products advertised or to even watch the ads. In this analogy I would liken these complaints to people changing the channel when commercials come on. The capitalist necessity it is worth not trying to defraud the tv producers, yet that is still going to happen because it is a freely given service. In the end it has to be compelling enough to survive in spite of freely giving your product away, complaining about people not watching the ads will only result in people laughing at you for trying to make a system where you give it for free and still expect people unhappy with it to pay you after. Not going to work, the freely given material will be consumed in the easiest way to the consumer, and those that can't adapt will be swallowed and spat out by the marketplace. Other systems of funding such as outright subscription do exist as well to help address this, and like paying for a cable package, they could also have ads people flip away from if not invested in the show.

You have a point that people may think there is some value, but when in a marketplace competing with youtube and privately-built informers and entertainers, the value is still far less than a few moments of attention. The tools of those other, the private sources of funding are also still there. Crowdfunding, patreon, the journalists can seek to use those means if they wish to see the value of their content as actual content and not just as a representative of the publications. The freedom from an editor would make that very appealing if they had faith in their opinions being worth being funded too. But, as I said before, we both know that they can't compete. That they rely on their publication's extended reach to prop themselves up because they know, and we know, that if they had to compete fairly, they would not be able to survive without the publication's support.

I am aware the chef may have to make a living, but since everyone else does I feel no special consideration for him is deserved because he can't do it while just making what he wants through a publication he works for. He can get a job unrelated to his passion and use that to fund it, many people have to after all. Publications, like tv channels, have to be aware of people flipping the channel away. Someone on a show getting mad or self-righteous about folks doing that only makes it more likely to happen. And if the channel doesn't do something to make people want to tick around, even through the commercials, it will die.

This line shows this has nothing to do with principles.

Now, there are cases where a boycott is warranted. If a website's editorial stance is pure, unadulterated racism or misogyny, or it is calling for violence against minorities, then it falls under hate speech, and it is quite reasonable to boycott them.

So the authors assessment of character/motivation/words means he is justified to deny revenue but no one else is?

If your principles are principles only when convenient they are merely hobbies.

Robert B. Marks:
Dear Internet

Dear Internet,

We really need to talk.

Read Full Article

It is generally accepted that you have a right to speak, write etc - but absolutely nowhere in this arrangement am I obligated to listen.

Have a cup of concrete and harden up.

Robert, your stance is inconsistent.
Every boycott is 'unfair' towards whoever put work into goods or services that otherwise would get normal demand and support the supply. It's the whole point of it.

I know it sucks to be on receiving end but this is how internet works. Individuals have no say other than not 'showing up' on the radar of companies that pay for entire show - advertisers. I mean much more outrageous are corporate google or facebook practices in this regard. Where they prohibit and filter internet resources under the pretence of helping out advertisers to get proper product. Even thou logically from both audience and advertisers point of view this is nonsense. Audience realises that advertisers follow most popular content and that is determined by... audience. Majority. If someone doesn't want to see ad next to disturbing or outright deplorable content, all they need to do is... not visit it (why would they if they find said content disturbing or deplorable), or boycott it. Thus we return to my initial point and lack of backbone in your stance.

Internet is fine and does not need censorship or content policing. Advertisers are fine, they are the big boys with money following audience, the ONLY thing they interested in = people and their 'tastes'. Members of audience socially organising and showing support or lack of thereof for content creators is fine. They make advertisers life easier. They will not cripple content creators provided these have their own audience supporting them (attracting advertisers).

Edit.

and holy cow Robert I had much more respect for you and wouldn't expect something like that to come from under your pen:

If a website's editorial stance is pure, unadulterated racism or misogyny, or it is calling for violence against minorities, then it falls under hate speech, and it is quite reasonable to boycott them.

racism - check and agreed, regardless of race, discrimination or favourism based on it is deplorable
misogyny - what? what about misandry then? I sure hope you ment sexism... in actual meaning, regardless of gender
calling for violence against minorities - Robert... violence is bad, calling for it against any group, even if it is majority, even if these are stupid people, it's bad.

TheFinish:
Right, you raise good points. The main issue however, stems from the platform the author is using. I mean, if he wanted to ensure more security for his work, he could simply write his articles in a subscription based outlet (just as an example). Or, at the very least, a website that has disabled automatic archiving by web trawlers. If the author doesn't, then they must be prepared for the possibility of it being archived and viewed without the corresponding revenue. It's just how the internet works (right now).

And, given that you can't do as with real life products and just buy used, there doesn't seem to be another way for a user to access content without supporting the author. You could argue that this isn't something that should be available to the consumer, and that's fine, but as it is now, archiving is legal and something web-based writers will have to deal with.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the frustration that the act of examining an article has the effect- however gently- of rewarding advertisers who post alongside that article and makes it more likely that search engines will fix on that article. As I said in my earlier ramble, even though I don't myself access indexes, there are places I've stopped visiting altogether because I didn't want to inadvertently benefit those holding their views and engaging in their tactics.

(Yes, it's a drop in the bucket. So is voting.)

But I'm also aware that a professional writer has to write where they're paid- whatever that site's stance on subscriptions, or whether they choose (or are savvy enough) to disable archiving.

And on yet another hand, because this shirt seems to have a surplus of sleeves, I'm painfully aware that ignoring a point of view- however toxic, or foolish, or self-destructive it seems on the face of it- does not make that point of view, or those who hold it, go away. There are very good reasons for people to want to read articles that hold views that contradict their own- even if it leads to either the above frustration or relying on indexes.

I wish I had a simple solution, but I don't. From the noises that are being made by the EFF, it sounds like the EME standard (computer-controlling DRM built into web browsers) might potentially make this less of a question in the future, but not in a good way.

> tfw when you probably support YouTube's mass demonetization of opinions you disagree with, but get upset when other people deny you revenue.

Oh my irony organ done broke.

Never mind that archive sites allow you to capture the articles because journalists and outlets have a rather shitty history of ninja-editing their articles when they catch heat for bullshit and very rarely publicly issue a retraction as a separate article that everyone can see.

So, it's time to stop denying websites page views because one of their writers committed the sin of disagreeing with you.

I disagree with this. If enough people disagree with your published content to the extent that they would all rather view your content on an archive site, it's likely indicative of a systemic PR issue with the company itself, making a lot of people not want to pay you based on either the quality of content or the views prsented therein.

It could be as simple as you marketing yourself to one audience but making content for another altogether.

As nice as it would be for everyone to be paid for putting their opinions on the internet, not every opinion is worth paying for, either because the content is poor (Or poorly marketed) or because their creators suffer by associating themselves with a publishing company who's content is poor (Or poorly marketed).

If The Escapist as a company can't generate the good will to get enough ad-revenue to stay afloat, then it's time for their writers to pursue other venues. Because you can't force people to watch ads and in doing so support a company who works against their own views, regardless of how much it much ultimately enriches the debate.

You understand this well enough I presume, seeing how you have a Patreon account.

I understand the argument you're making, but honestly speaking I actually think it is a good thing for people to have a way to not give money to ideas that are in one way or another going to be shoved down their throat in one way or another. As much as I detest what has become of net outrage, I would say that as much as I understand the thought process that "every ad you block, is a penny that the creator doesn't receive" I would argue that we live in an age where free content is purposefully sensational and provocative in order to manipulate readers into reading content. I find this practice in itself a bit dishonest but then to have it preached to me that the creators of this content deserve to have every click rewarded sends the message to me that it doesn't matter how that content creator treated you, just that you contributed to their income. America is the land of free speech but it is also at least a common enough value that you should be able to get your money back if you're dissatisfied with the product. This way of thinking exists precisely because of the discrepancy between the sales method used to get you in the door, may paint you a very rose colored picture of what is in reality a quite disappointing experience.

So if you're going to manipulate me into clicking on content and then proceed to insult me in the content, and on top of that get angry at me for not wanting to see you rewarded for that? I don't particularly blame these people for not wanting to use these kind of services to avoid giving views to pages they don't like.

However, adblockers are one thing, but I doubt that it is worth in the end to argue over what must be an infinitesimal number of people who browse the web exclusively through archive sites to avoid paying for content. You'll probably just insult and lose more users who don't need your content, and just aren't gonna read it anymore.

Sorry but if you're not going to admit what is wrong with the system on your end you're not going to make much progress with this argument.

Journalism died with the Internet because Journalism thought abusing the tools of the Internet was a good thing and not a bad thing.

My family has a story about the Community Paper they ran back when community papers were a thing. It comedically illustrates the issue of the pre and post fall of Journalism. I've linked to a copy of my Grandmothers memorial so you can listen to it your self.

The short of it is one day after my Great Uncle Walt had taken over the responsibilities of printing The Manito Community Express he had a sale that needed to have fliers and be put into the paper. It was the "Men's Shirt Sale". Walt had already set up the Paper and needed to print and deliver the flier first. In setting up the flier, he borrowed an 'r' from the paper because he didn't want to make another R. If you don't understand what I mean by that you'll want to listen to the full story since borrowing characters is an alien concept today. Walt failed to return the R that he had borrowed, and you can guess which R from the "Men's shirt sale" he happened to barrow. It ended up being a Happy Accident because women from all over the county turned up for that sale.

The Moral of this story for Journalists is that before the fall you had to own your mistakes. Once the paper left, there was no way Walt couldn't fix his mistake. With no cell phones, there would be no way to stop the delivery. The paper would be delivered, and his embarrassing error would be seen by many people.

Today, if you make a mistake, and your editor fails to catch it, and the publisher runs with it what's going to happen? You're going to fix it. Understandably, no one wants a "Men's shirt sale" at the top of their ads page. At first, it seems innocent enough. However, this is the start of the Publish First Patch later philosophy in journalism that has made PC gaming hell since the first game with a day one patch. Look no further than Skyrim for the PS3 to see just how bad the abuses of this have become in the gaming world.

This couldn't be that bad for journalism, could it? When North Korea arrested Otto, many outlets were publishing overtly racist articles blaming his race. Earlier this year when he died from his torture at the hand of the North Korean government, many of these outlets attempted to stealth edit this overt hate. They didn't want to be seen as the callous people they are.

I'm not surprised that some outlets have tried to block archive sites shortly after being exposed. They want to have blind trust but fail to realize the trust from the past was based on ownership of what you publish. If the past sins can be so quickly erased, then there can be no confidence.

When gaming articles write inflammatory stories that anger the audience, they edit out the offenses. Sometimes the audience is the readers, and sometimes the audience is the Game Publishers. In either case, it degrades Journalism to a Zombie of its self.

I have no trust that an inflammatory story I want to share with someone isn't going to change on me. I have no trust a review score I want to share isn't going to magically change. I have no Faith.

You have to figure out how to fix the issue of trust, and I can only trust what is in indelible ink. When the past is written in silly putty you can't trust it even if it's not a lie.

You might be a saint of a journalist, but you're using a broken untrustworthy tool. It's not just Games Journalism, but all Journalism that is broken. It broke silently and slowly, but it is still broken.

If One has to own One's own mistake then One will be more mindful. One won't necessarily write an overtly racists rant, but rather stay closer to bland provable facts.

Fixing this is a lot harder than just getting people not to share archive links. Personally, I'd have a lot more faith if every article had an archive link created and available at the top of every story, and one created with every single edit.

Robert B. Marks:
Dear Internet

Dear Internet,

We really need to talk.

Read Full Article

For all the comparisons that this thread has, many people are getting off the mark when comparing internet journalism. It should be obvious that this isn't exactly some restaurant type of business. This is much closer to things like Twitch & YouTube; closer to street performing. You have to gain attention & keep attention to make a living. You aren't selling a product, you are selling something more vague. For street performing it would be dancing, singing, or some other talent. In internet gaming journalism, it's your thoughts & writings. A street performer shouldn't feel entitled to a living if they put in minimum effort, or even worse, start cursing at their audience and flipping them the bird. The same goes for internet gaming journalism as well.

Many people saw gaming outlets & their writers acting like falsely-entitled brats, actively demonizing the audience they were meant to interact with. It went further than just disagreement, it was manipulation, lies, & overall hate filled trash that was being written in many articles. Nevertheless it's still within peoples rights to act as "petty" as they want in response, whether it's simple disagreement or not. When boycotting is nothing more than withholding support while encouraging others to follow suit, then it is completely within their rights to boycott, no matter how unfair or petty it might seem to you. In my opinion, if you *are* free of any type of guilt, then it shouldn't be hard to overcome & show your innocence (Using facts, reason, & without using baseless insults of course). Admit when you are in the wrong & the majority of people will be willing to let bygones be bygones.

Some people seem to see archiving as stealing. Maybe recording a street performer with your phone is also stealing. But if this recording is only used to show how belligerent this street performer is, then it should be obvious that this recording is merely an archive of what's happened, and not an attempt to profit off of their act. People started this archiving business because other people didn't believe what they were saying when it came to these websites & writers being unreasonable. Articles disappearing or being sneakily changed after backlash to belligerent writing was a thing that was happening. Word of mouth & screen-caps weren't enough proof for a lot of people when this stuff happened. So they came up with a way that would definitively prove what was going on.

Lastly, if you see this boycott as unfair simply because of it being on websites that you personally like, then you need to rethink your values. The group starting boycotts had plenty of aspects that deserved critique as well. But if your conclusion is that this's only bad because it's happening to you, (while you'd be fine with it happening to other outlets that are more or less racist/sexist/etc.) then maybe you should look inwards to see *why* people are pointing their boycotts at you.

"If a website's editorial stance is pure, unadulterated racism or misogyny, or it is calling for violence against minorities, then it falls under hate speech, and it is quite reasonable to boycott them."

That doesn't seem to agree with your Penn Jillette quote.

On the topic of archiving websites, they are also useful for keeping around unedited versions of publications.

Ninjamurai:

DrownedAmmet:
Reading an article and then repeating it verbatim is 1) an impressive mental exercise, and 2) not the same as posting the entire article in a way that denies them payment. If you 'bought' that article in the first place, youve earned the right to discuss it. It goes way past "kind of dick ish" territory and lands verrry close to "theft' territory
It boggles my mind how people can defend this, it's really simple. It's like when you buy a newspaper from one of those paper boxes, they are trusting the consumer not to be an entitled sleaze bag and take the whole stack. Let's not defend these entitled sleaze bags

But it isn't taking an entire stack. It would be more akin to taking one newspaper, and then photocopying & printing to hand out to others for free. They aren't stopping anyone who *does* want to support from doing so, they are simply suggesting that people shouldn't support. It does not deny them anymore payment than if you were to explain it to a friend. It's trying to inform people of 'XYZ' while not supporting the people doing it. If this in turn causes them to no longer be able to continue doing 'XYZ,' then perhaps the boycotters actually have a point & aren't completely wrong.

They aren't stealing articles to make profit or try & become popular off of other peoples work, they are simply saying "We believe these websites/writers have issues, we don't want them to be supported, & here is a way to read their articles (so you know why we don't like them) while not having to support them." Don't get me wrong, the people doing it are too vindictive for my taste, they are assholes. But I'm defending boycotting, and their right to do it. I could ask you why you want to defend these websites that promote click-bait, lying, and overall garbage? If anyone is wrongly-entitled it's the writers & websites that willfully host this stuff, thinking they *deserve* a living for writing little more than low effort clickbait. Archiving is used to share an article without supporting, very similarly to re-writing it on a forum/chat, or telling the gist of it verbally. It's simple really.

Boycotting is a different thing than archiving, I'm in full support of boycotting. If you don't like what a site is putting out, it's totally cool to not go there and encourage other people not to go there.
I don't care if these writers make a living or not, I'm not saying if they "deserve" to be able to make a living, I'm saying they "deserve" to get paid for the things they write if people read the things they write.
It is simple, a website doing bad things doesn't make doing bad things back at them not bad. You have an option if you don't like the site or author, you don't have to read it

I think it's petty in some regards and reasonable in others.

If you're looking somewhere for content and the source is from Breitbart or Kotaku or whatever website you dislike, and you're clicking on the article to see the story, or get news, then I consider it petty to use an archive. Whatever you think of the site, you are using its services, and there's a reason you want to read that article that's intrinsic to the article itself. Might as well reward them for writing something you want to read.

On the other hand, often an article is shared as a negative illustration, you're not reading it to be informed or entertained by what they're written, you're reading it because the "story" is the article, not what the article is trying to say. Essentially you're reading so you can get angry at the writer. While it's probably a bad habit, you don't like the article, you don't stand for what it says, and you knew you wouldn't from the second you were told about it. The story is "Somebody wrote an article about X and said X". It's more similar to a news blooper.

If this is why you're clicking on the article, it doesn't make much sense to me to pay them for it, unless the purpose of the content is to get people to click it because they're riled up.

Others have already said what I was going to say so I will add:

If your website has done a good job of engaging with it's base, it has nothing to fear from archive sites "denying" them views. If archive sites are threatening your pageviews, maybe the site needs to take a good and honest look at why people would rather go to an archive site.

StatusNil:

Robert B. Marks:

Dear Internet,

We really need to talk.

On behalf of the Internet, I accept the invitation to talk, even though in my experience it usually means "You need to listen and obey!"

Funny you should mention that exact train of thought.

Robert B. Marks:
Dear Internet

Garwulf's Corner is made possible by the support of readers like you. If you would like to see more content like this, please visit the Patreon, and if you can, contribute.

Oh really? Why on earth would you need patreon if the website was doing well enough that you can decry "SOME PEOPLE FROM 2014", first note, what fucking year is this, denying you views by using archive.is?

If people want your stuff, they'll pay you for it, or watch ads on the website you contribute to. Until then, back in the box. You are not entitled to broadcast gunk and then expect to be rewarded for it.

Pseudonym:
The archiving trick is extremely petty and hypocritical and it displays a profound disrespect for the person you are reading and the discourse you are engaging in.

Of course it is, look at the crap that makes it to the forums.

I have to disagree with Marks on this as well.

Now, I can certainly see that it's frustrating (and somewhat unfair) to write articles, or create videos or what-have-you, and for a portion of your audience to experience the content without giving the creator the page-views.

However, it's also a bit inescapable that providing page-views is supporting the writer (albeit individually in a tiny way). The nature of discussing bollocks online is that you'll need to provide reference material and links and such, and that if your post refers to someone you don't want to support, you're not going to have much choice. People should not have to support an objectionable outlet in order to refer to their material.

Now, of course, that principled stance just starts to look petty when you're using archived links to Kotaku or Robert Marks or any other essentially-harmless cultural commentators.

ResonanceSD:

Oh really? Why on earth would you need patreon if the website was doing well enough that you can decry "SOME PEOPLE FROM 2014", first note, what fucking year is this, denying you views by using archive.is?

The sentence structure and reasoning here are both so muddled I'm at a loss as to what your argument actually is.

Silvanus:
I have to disagree with Marks on this as well.

ResonanceSD:

Oh really? Why on earth would you need patreon if the website was doing well enough that you can decry "SOME PEOPLE FROM 2014", first note, what fucking year is this, denying you views by using archive.is?

The sentence structure and reasoning here are both so muddled I'm at a loss as to what your argument actually is.

Did you read the second half? You know, the half you left out?

ResonanceSD:

Did you read the second half? You know, the half you left out?

I did, but it didn't seem to help. It didn't offer many clues about the relevance of decrying the 2014-ers, or why this invalidates someone asking for Patreon support. It reads like a stream of consciousness performance.

The issue I see is that there is a toxic element of gaming 'culture' and the media has labelled that as what 'gamers' are. Someone who likes games can't easily describe their hobby or passion because a group of left-leaning people rightly called out a bunch of trolls but in the process basically captured all 'gamers' under that umbrella.

Lot of games have troublesome elements and there are lots of diverse voices that want to be heard in this space. Lots of people who wouldn't classify themselves as 'gamer's want diverse voices in the space, and that's a good thing, it's something 'gamers' should want too. What we're seeing over the past few years ranging from aggressive and inaccurate articles about 'gamers' being dead which have now moved onto discussions on difficulty and how they impact accessibility. The goal being to encourage devs to make their games have less challenging modes which is going to become a much bigger thing.

Behind all of this is the 'gatekeeper' role over games. It's between those who want more diversity represented in games and those who want more of a strict focus on games and gameplay. No one wants to give up the role of gatekeeper so this battle will go on and on. The traditional 'gamer' crowd is where the majority of money comes from in PC and console and it's not a silent demographic. Those with a focus on diversity have more power in social media and their demands aren't unreasonable. The gaming industry is a bit in the middle, it likes games and doesn't want to alienate 'gamers' but it's also forward looking and does want more diversity. As none of these things are mutually exclusive I think we'll get to a place where games just do it all - more diversity, more diverse stories, more accessibility but still very fun and playable games.

What we won't see the end of though is trolls, trolling, and arguments about what games are or should be and who they are or should be for.

dear internet
thanx for sharing this information free steam gift code generator

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here