At a time when the always newsworthy Donald Trump is headed back to the White House, the venerable Washington Post should be gearing up to cover his second term but instead is being subjected to an exodus of top reporters and internal strife, reports the Wall Street Journal’s Alexandra Bruell.
A loss of 100 million is significant to most, but not bezos.
What’s stopping all of these journalists that are leaving in protest from starting a journalism cooperative and splitting their work amongst themselves and taking votes on what should and should not be included in the news?
Money.
How were The Onion writers able to buy their publication back? Was it just dirt cheap?
Divide and conquer. By destroying large journalistic institutions, or converting them into voice boxes for nationalistic propaganda and policiy, the criticism of large corporate and governmental institutions becomes diluted and harder to find. The eventual plan is probably to use the dissolution of net neutrality to heavily limit access to dissenting voices from independent journalists and/or just people making dissenting content, effectively shadow banning anyone who poses a threat to the state and corporate power, while also preventing potential future rival voices and political parties from gaining a foothold in the minds of the populace at large.
We’re going need a army of Lugi’s. When do we get started. Revolution is needed instead we are rolling fast into a nightmare version of 1984.
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with viewpoint. It refers to IP source and destination; e.g. AT&T can’t cap Netflix but let their affiliate Max through.
Just jumbling up a bunch of words you heard, that’s solid reasoning!
Replace “Netflix” and “Max” with “Substack” and 'Washington Post" and what you wrote absolutely applies to viewpoint.
It really doesn’t, those services don’t produce terabytes of daily traffic that needs congestion management.
Don’t just make things up. The idea of Network Neutrality is clearly defined, and doesn’t involve viewpoint.
Here’s some of those clear definitions
Cambridge Dictionary: “Net neutrality is the idea that Internet providers must treat all content equally.”
Brittanica: "net neutrality, principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) should not discriminate among providers of content."
“Traffic congestion” is the reasoning ISPs use to defend subverting net neutrality, but it still results in certain viewpoints being favored over others. If Spectrum decides to throttle Fox News and not CNN, it doesn’t matter if their reasoning is that Fox News uses more bandwidth, the result is still that the viewpoint that Fox espouses is throttled while that of CNN is not. Sure it’s conjecture that is or will happen, but it is the case that the doctrine of net neutrality is what is standing in opposition to it.
Ryan grim and the intercept’s co founder just started something, “Drop site” IIRC.
Also, I think “Semafor” might be a sort of gathering place forming for folks wanting a better way. https://www.semafor.com/article/10/18/2022/what-is-a-semaform-anyway-and-why-should-you-care
I had no idea this was already in motion, thank you.
Wish bezos would choke on a fat dick
Glad to hear it. Let’s hope the trend continues.
