Readit Newshttps://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/social-med...
Folks who want more traditional journalism will pay for it.
> The article focuses mainly on the publishing industry, news and magazine sites that rely primarily on visits to their sites and selling ads.
I'm not sure where this comes from. The way forward for publishers of content like newspapers is subscription fees and has been for a long time.
The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Economist revenues are subscription fee dominant, for example.
However, me personally, I don't want to be lured into some web store when I'm looking for some vaguely related information. Luckily, there's tons of information on the web provided not by commercial entities but by volunteers: wikipedia, forum users (e.g. StackOverflow), blogs. (Sure, some people run blogs as a source of income, but I think that's a small percentage of all bloggers.)
Have you ever looked for a specific recipe just to end up on someone's cooking website where they first tell your their life story before - after scrolling for a half a day - you'll finally find what you've actually come there for (the recipe!) at the bottom of their page? Well, if that was gone, I'd say good riddance!
"But you don't get it", you might interject, "it's not that the boilerplate will disappear in the future, the whole goddamn blog page will disappear, including the recipe you're looking for." Yeah, I get it, sure. But I also have an answer for that: "oh, well" (ymmv).
My point is, I don't mind if less commercial stuff is going to be sustainable in a future version of the web. I'm old enough to have experience the geocities version of the early web that consisted of enthusiasts being online not for commercial interests but for fun. It was less polished and less professional, for sure, but less interesting? I don't think so.
In the short term it will feel liberating; in the long term it will kill the web.
Their tactics are not "enforcing immigration law" -- we have non-secret and accountable police forces whose job is to enforce the law. ICE is more like the vigilante groups enforcing Jim Crow laws in the South back in the day.
Deleted Comment
I wonder if experts will emerge to call this inciting "stochastic terrorism" [2]. I won't be holding my breath.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_immigration_stat...
there's law enforcement that follows due process, and there's "law enforcement" that doesn't
the former is the regular police (when they're doing their job right), the latter is the Gestapo and ICE
the problem isn't so much immigration laws; it's 1) the way ICE is enforcing them, and 2) the fact that a non-trivial percentage of US businesses actually depend on that illegal immigration (which is why after political pressure, Trump made "exceptions" for certain businesses--not exceptions to the law, exceptions to its enforcement)
.. mainly that’s because that’s the only game left