• simple@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    So you think they should just make no money because you’re mildly inconvenienced?

    • hglman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      No. If you make money from ads your clients are the adversers and your readers are an asset you seek to capitalize. That is in opposition to journalistic integrity.

        • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          no, they don’t. you (the reader) have to pay for them - if you want to be the client, that is. otherwise you are the goods that is being sold.

    • RavuAlHemio@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’m not saying they aren’t allowed to show ads, but I am saying that once they do, they are no longer allowed to refer to themselves as independent.

      No company that wants to advertise on your website is stupid enough to sign away editorial control, i.e. once you agree to display their ads, you are no longer allowed to say anything bad about them. And even if they did, there’s still the looming risk that if you do, they are well within their rights to pull their ads and there goes your income.

      If you’re going to show ads, be honest to your readers about what that means.

    • Simon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      In opposition to popular sentiment, good journalism actually does make money. It just doesn’t make as much money. And bad journalism without advertising makes no money.