Vice is basically dead — Thousands of stories written over the past two decades could soon be deleted without any warning::CEO Bruce Dixon told staffers that Vice Media will lay off hundreds of employees and stop publishing stories on the site.

  • Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    113
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Vice did a lot of very good, and generally in-moderate-depth reporting over the years. Hope an overabundance of people scrape that shit while we still have an opportunity. Once its hosted somewhere safe, you could probably even dump access to it somewhere like … the fediverse.

      • Candelestine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        52
        ·
        9 months ago

        Very likely. Those are not secure in the long-run either though, hence the need for an overabundance. No single online service should be genuinely fully trusted. You need a lot of duplication for any kind of real future-proofing.

        • InfiniWheel@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          9 months ago

          I don’t know much about the internet archive’s inner workings. But rather recently a huge collection of old 70s-00s tokusatsu shows and movies got deleted along with the uploader. Some remain on piracy sites, but a lot probably live now on some old torrents. We really need an archive of the internet archive.

          • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            A while back they had a piece of tech where you could self host a backup of a small part of their dataset, and it stored it in the clear on your computer so you were free to peruse whatever subset of the data you got allocated

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

        The Internet Archive’s time is very limited. People are uploading full-length copyrighted movies. Even Disney movies. They aren’t getting deleted. They are going to be sued into oblivion, taking their whole web archive with them.

        More personally to me since I’ve made a lot of use of it, they would also take the Prelinger Archives with them. The Prelinger Archives is a massive noncommercial online archive of industrial, educational, commercial and other types of short films not considered to be pure entertainment from the beginnings of the silent era up even into the 1980s.

        Much of it has been backed up on YouTube, so it will not disappear entirely, but then the content will be in the hands of Google, not in the hands of the people.

        The Internet Archive is making a huge mistake by not moderating their content and we will all pay for it.

    • NuXCOM_90Percent
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      33
      ·
      9 months ago

      Gotta love the vultures who see a failing site/medium and think about how it will benefit them.

      • Candelestine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        43
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Less about self benefit, more about preservation of data accessibility. Potential self-benefit is a bonus, an extra. Two birds, one stone, nice and efficient. How smart people do things.

  • DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Journalism has become an absolute dumpster fire for almost anyone trying to do actual journalism. No wonder corporations are running roughshod over us all, the industry is hostile to anyone not willing to be some sort of shill.

      • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s a double edged sword. Quality information should be accessible to everyone. We ensure that for kids through public school systems, but for adults you need to pay for it yourself. Which is a huge problems since that is the same demographic as “voters”.

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

                Libraries are physical media. If you get public access to a newspaper, then one person can read it at a time. You also create a barrier for people to have to drive to a library, which might be closed, hope that nobody else checked out the thing, etc.

                It’s not at all a solution.

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

                  Libraries are physical media

                  Tell me you haven’t actually been to a library in the last 15 years without telling me.

                  Have you not heard of Libby? Of Overdrive? Next thing you’re gonna be telling me Libraries aren’t a solution because not everyone can use microfiche…

      • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        The problem with paywalled isn’t an unwillingness to pay for quality, its being attacked with a subscription when we don’t want to be locked into a single source. Today I want a good article on popular particle physics, tomorrow I want to know whats going on with education in Nigeria. Let me make a quick crypto micropayment with no fuss and I’ll read your article, try to make me a lifelong subscriber and get fucked.

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

          Thank you. In an age where every single company is trying to wring $5-10/month out of you, sorry, I don’t have the budget to subscribe to 10 different news wires. Now if we had a system of 25-50 cents an article, maybe even $1, that would be an entirety different story. I don’t give two shits about sports analysis, what’s happening on Broadway in NYC, or celebrity gossip. I read my news a la carte. The only exception is my town’s weekly local newspaper, which I buy for $1 at the hardware store.

          • Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            9 months ago

            Chrome is looking into adding a website payment system, where you could have a refillable “tip jar”, and when you visit websites with paywalls they could pop up with the cost for that specific article. Hit yes, it deducts that from your tip jar, and you read the article.

            There are some similarities to a system that Brave browser already uses, except you generally earn money for brave’s version by allowing the browser to show you ads (although I’m pretty sure you can buy the credits directly too). Either way, the internet is moving towards needing to pay for content, and trying to find more convenient ways for users to do that.

          • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I’m extremely skeptical of crypto but micro payments and donations seem like one of the most plausible applications for it since the infrastructure can be operated for basically free to receive money and there isn’t a large corporation taking a cut of every transaction unlike credit cards

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

              Which crypto network are you talking about that can be operated for free? PoW is expensive and wasteful, and PoS is pretty much back to a regular database again.

              At the end of the day here, this is a simple transaction ledger that doesn’t need to be turned into crypto, it just needs a party interested in moving the money around in these micropayments with minimal fees.

        • wosat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          9 months ago

          Exactly! Back in the day, you had two options: (1) subscribe or (2) buy a single magazine or newspaper. Now, there’s no equivalent to the newsstand for digital media.

          • hansl@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            I think you can charge per article on substack. Not entirely sure though.

            Some newspaper charge X$ for Y articles, I think the NYTimes do it or used to. It’s usually a horrible deal compared to monthly subscription, but I think that’s the point.

          • Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            I mentioned this in another comment, but Chrome browser is currently working on it’s own implementation of this. It has a high chance of becoming the new standard with Chrome’s marketshare, unless there’s strong pushback against it (if Google made it a privacy nightmare or something like that).

            Brave browser has a version of this already, powered by crypto. Websites need to opt into it before they can earn money from users though, and it’s usually just used to replace revenue from brave blocking the websites ads.

          • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Not successfully. Been talked about for decades though. Seems like an apt real world non silk-road use for crypto currency. No login required, just a quick wallet transfer for a few cents and access is gained. Quick and cheap enough that’s its not quite worth it to muck around with 12 foot ladders etc.

            • hansl@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Companies were doing that with NFTs (which is what you’re describing) but now nobody want to touch an NFT so those companies definitely went bust.

              The best case will be companies who can hide the crypto behind the product, like “give us 5$ and we’ll give you 5 read-a-tokens which is totally not crypto btw”. Or wait a couple of years for crypto to come back in vogue.

      • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah, I understand that journalism needs to be paid for, but I don’t think paywall’s are much of a solution.

        I don’t want to pay a subscription for one publication’s news. I don’t even really want a subscription for a selection of publication’s news. I just want to read whatever I want to read and I’m happy to pay a reasonable amount for that.

        • cheesebag@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Could you explain more- so you want a la carte options, like pay on a per-article basis? And to be clear, you know that free high-quality print media has never been a thing historically, right? Like, you never could access all articles from the entire history of the NYTimes on demand for free, that was never a thing. The paper for that day was locked in a metal box you had to pay to open, and all you got to see was half the front page.

          Or, you know, support libraries…

          • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            you know that free high-quality print media has never been a thing historically, right?

            what gives you the impression that I wouldn’t be aware of that. I said in my comment that journalism needs to be paid for.

            In a perfect system, you buy some credit with a kind of clearing house, and then pay authors of whatever you wanted to read directly. A few cents a reader would net author’s a lot more than they’re currently receiving.

        • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Advertising seems to be a dead end. The patron model is starting, but it seems focused on certain personalities. I don’t believe anyone has developed a payment system yet that pays for cents at a time.

    • madcaesar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      9 months ago

      It’s all our collective fault, mine included. I’ve never paid for news, yet expect unbiased news free from corporate fuckery…

      • gentooer@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        9 months ago

        And over here the state-funded media is getting less money every year because our right-wing parties don’t like it.

        • HungryJerboa@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          Honest fact based journalism is an essential pillar of a functional democracy. Being informed is absolutely in the public interest, and government funding should support it, precisely because it often isn’t profitable or sustainable for private companies (as we keep seeing over the years).

          I don’t understand why this is so hard to grasp. And the people whining about liberal bias and calling for defunding of public media are missing the forest for the trees (even if some of the journalism is questionable in quality).

      • NateNate60@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        There is no such thing as unbiased news free from corporate fuckery. But you can subscribe to several well-known and reputable news outlets, public broadcast services, and other varied reliable sources, and hope that the combined fuckery cancel each other out. For now, that’s the best that you can do.

        It’s not easy and it’s not cheap.

  • DragonAce@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    9 months ago

    But Dixon wrote, rather cryptically, that remaining employees will put “more emphasis on our social channels as we accelerate our discussion with partners to take our content to where it will be viewed most broadly.”

    In other words, the in depth reporting and niche shows aren’t making enough money, so we’re going to dump all that shit and jump on the reality TV bandwagon.

      • NateNate60@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Congratulations, you have repeated the same point as the parent commenter, but removed the quotation marks to make it seem like they didn’t do that, so to create for yourself an opportunity to say it again

  • Yerbouti@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    That’s sad. They did some really good things over the years.

  • PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    These folks are backing it up, from a post on Bluesky by Aram Zucker-Scharff (@chronotope.aramzs.xyz):

    Interesting fact about Vice’s content: a full site archive, including saving outbound links, was performed by the volunteer Archive Team last year & it took ~6 months to capture all the Vice content across all the languages they publish in. They’ve published a lot! They’re updating the archives now.

    https://opencollective.com/archiveteam

  • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    9 months ago

    Wasnt vice just shitty articles with even worse clickbait? At least thats what I aaaociate with it. I am surprised people are so sad its gone

    • beardown@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      It was preclickbait articles written by alternative-adjacent freelance writers.

      Aka, real people writing about real things. Some of which were vulgar. But life is vulgar. And so was the internet originally