- Nov 17, 2007
- 18,607
- 22,799
- AFL Club
- Richmond
TOR v3.5.3
Jesus, you dug that one from the archives. Mine is v9.5
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: St Kilda v Western Bulldogs - 7:30PM Thu
Squiggle tips Saints at 51% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
TOR v3.5.3
Now that is pretty much all the news does
Majority of the time it's tweets with like twelve retweets too. Irrelevant even on the vapid platform of twitter, but elevated and enshrined in a "news article" as though it's the voice of the people enunciating a consensus. No wonder people feel like we're more divided than ever when the media is scouring for the fringe extremists to represent the popular discourse.Drives me ******* crazy to click on a "news" article and it is one small paragraph of what happened and pages of quotes from randoms on Twitter. Even worse is they have the Twitter link and the text of the twat or twit or whatever directly underneath.
Talk about bone-idle "journalism"...
This is a fair chunk of news.com.au articles. "Someone did/said something and some people on Twitter didn't like it so here's an article about it". I know when it comes to news sources news.com.au isn't the highest of quality but jeez, you'd think a paid journalist would want their work to be a bit more substantive than simply embedding tweets from internet nobodies.Drives me ******* crazy to click on a "news" article and it is one small paragraph of what happened and pages of quotes from randoms on Twitter. Even worse is they have the Twitter link and the text of the twat or twit or whatever directly underneath.
Talk about bone-idle "journalism"...
Kind of a random thought and I'm not really in the right state of mind to articulate it well (feeling quite ill, hopefully not corona), but does anyone else feel like the wild west tone of the internet in the 2000's is basically dead and buried, never to return? I remember when I was like 11 going on a guitar forum which had a drug thread with detailed stories about taking smack and hallucinogens which was really fascinating to read through, and all sorts of weird websites and strange people getting their crackpot opinions out there.
Now the internet is rapidly turning into the same sanitized corporate-boardroom designed experience as watching television, and half the content seems to be designed to sell you something and has clearly been through review. Something a random dude came up with getting traction on the internet now seems impossible to me, at least in the ways the net used to do that, and I don't see another technological platform coming into existence which can recreate that spirit of counter-culture on the scale of the internet again.
Cut and paste saves on having to pay for real journos.
Nowadays they dont even go for the two hours
It's far easier and cheaper to trawl Twitter for quotes than cultivate sources and go outside and talk to real people.Drives me ******* crazy to click on a "news" article and it is one small paragraph of what happened and pages of quotes from randoms on Twitter. Even worse is they have the Twitter link and the text of the twat or twit or whatever directly underneath.
Talk about bone-idle "journalism"...
it was like a print outWild-West era of the internet - where watching pr0n was waiting for a photo to download, centimetre by centimetre
it was like a print out
Girls didn't have to wait long to see my nudesWild-West era of the internet - where watching pr0n was waiting for a photo to download, centimetre by centimetre
Google, Facebook and Apple have reached monopoly positions only dreamed of by Mypsace. I think you are in for a long wait for a 'serious competitor' to emerge to any of them (especially one that wouldn't just sell out to them at the first opportunity to make bank).Good post. For years I posted on the Misc. subforum of bodybuilding.com, starting in early high school and I remember how epic that forum used to be, largely because of the sh*t talk, entertaining/funny trolls, and lack of censorship. That place has nowhere near the same activity level these days and that is in part due to the moderation becoming stricter and stricter over time and banning people for things they used to get away with. They ruined all the fun.
The overall premise of your post is correct though; with youtube becoming more popular than free-to-air TV, they've had to make everything on the platform advertiser-friendly (and anything that isn't gets demonetized), so what we're seeing is increasing sanitisation and censoring due to corporate interests. I'm not sure whether you're aware that there's a massive pushback against this, though. With all these censorship-free video-sharing platforms arising like Bitchute, Bittube, Peertube, DTube etc, I think it's only only a matter of time before one of them poses serious competition to YouTube, at which point YouTube will have to adapt or risk becoming what MySpace became when Facebook came out.
Ten years ago homophobia was still an acceptable part of social discourse. You can see why social conservatives still get huffy about it, in the broader scheme of things the gay rights movement has been ruthlessly successful.
This is why I couldn't care less 'journalists' are losing their jobs in droves. deservedly so, you did this to yourselves pumping out shite for months/years and now no one reads so you aren't profitable.Drives me ******* crazy to click on a "news" article and it is one small paragraph of what happened and pages of quotes from randoms on Twitter. Even worse is they have the Twitter link and the text of the twat or twit or whatever directly underneath.
Talk about bone-idle "journalism"...
Also it shouldn't be overlooked that the average/mean age of people on the internet has risen. An 18-year-old in 1999 calling everyone "****" is now a 39-year-old with something to lose if they call people "****". People become more mature or at least do a better job cloaking their immaturity the older they get.
Also it shouldn't be overlooked that the average/mean age of people on the internet has risen. An 18-year-old in 1999 calling everyone "****" is now a 39-year-old with something to lose if they call people "****". People become more mature or at least do a better job cloaking their immaturity the older they get.
It was a young person's thing in the 90s and early 2000s. When I was 14/15 and talking to friends after school in ICQ, there was a social stigma if you were 35 and doing that. My oldest cousins were teenagers in the late 80s and early 90s and by late 90s were in their 20s and had no interest in internet stuff.
Now it's way more mainstream. Kids are always at the forefront of new tech and trends, but if you are 35 now and not on the internet then that's where the stigma will be. With stuff life Facebook really penetrating everything you now also see the 65 year old racist aunties etc. getting on board also having barely used a computer in their lives.
If you called someone a f** on the internet in 1999 then no one would give a fu** because the internet isn't real life. It still isn't, but people make a big deal out of everything hence people mostly pull their heads in.
How is it now not real life?
You want to be judged in real life for everything 'Bomberboyokay' says?