this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2026
133 points (97.8% liked)
Showerthoughts
40297 readers
1079 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The former Vice crew (404, Remap, probably others) have talked about this in their various podcasts and blog posts and so forth:
My take is that there are two big, but linked, problems:
The first is... there is a reason all these news media outlets are shuttering. People don't want to read. They also don't want to watch a documentary that isn't over-dramatized trash. And any form of monetization model mostly just antagonizes the audience who were never going to consume it in the first place but will GLADLY derail every single discussion to say how much they hate a paywall. So you become VERY dependent on your hardcore subscribers and that is an incredibly dangerous tightrope to walk. Do you prioritize your coverage based off what your patrons (because that is what they are) would want? Do you NOT cover something because it might make subscriptions go down? What do you drink when you realize you are literally the person who fired you a year back?
And the other is that legal representation costs a lot of money. Last Week Tonight have covered SLAPP Suits a few times over the years but that is also the reality of it. Any form of investigative journalism pretty much guarantees you are getting, at the very least, a C&D. If not a full blown lawsuit. A good lawyer can make the vast majority go away but... a good lawyer costs money.
The former Vice crew were pretty much all in a special case. 404 came out of Motherboard which was pretty much one of the most trusted and respected "tech" news sites out there. Aftermath has some of the Motherboard crew and but also is basically a who's who of games media as a whole (arguably everyone who was keeping Kotaku alive). And Remap is mostly the people who were at Waypoint until Vice realized they were still getting paid and that audience is one of the most rabid and faithful out there when it comes to subscribing to content we love.
Whereas most outlets actively try to prevent people from getting enough popularity/notoriety that they could get their own funding for a new start. Like... think about who the big names in traditional news are? MAYBE you remember whatsherface's name from PBS? But it is almost entirely going to be the anchors/commentators like Anderson Cooper because they are the ones you see night after night and they are the ones who present the stories written by the "normal" journalists. And zero shade to Mr Cooper, but that is very much intentional. Because if some third party wanted to pay him to spin up a new outlet? That's great, but they ALSO need to hire like three or four more journalists to have anything for him to say.
As opposed to a Jason Schreier who, with sufficient lawyers and a contracted editor, can be more or less a one person show.
Is there a solution to all this?
I mean, it is the fundamental problem of art/science/knowledge.
It costs money/stability to create. That money often comes from either the wealthy or the state.The wealthy CAN be good but means you are catering to a specific audience and the problems can range from "We aren't going to talk about the BDS movement because our fans like xboxes" to "We aren't going to talk about the multiple wars and genocides facebook have supported because zuckface pays for our electricity".
As for the state? Under a just government, that is awesome. Moving on.
As for us individually? Probably the biggest thing we, as individuals, can do is to actually permit-list websites that we like/trust on the adblocker. Ads are a genuinely awesome way to generate "passive" income which goes a long way towards keeping said lights on.
But also? If you have the cash, consider actually subscribing to news/media outlets you like. Get a newspaper subscription. Look at the independent media outlets and pay for a month or three every so often. Because the broader the subscriber/patron base, the less temptation/need there is to cater to the whales.
This. There are a lot of plays I've seen recordings of where all I can think at the end is "I wonder how different it would be if their target demo wasn't the upper middle class?" I remain convinced that if "Rent" wasn't geared towards that demo Mimi would not have lived, for instance.
We can say "Do what you want, your audience will follow" all we want, but while some forms of art do well as passion projects (not to say you shouldn't pay your artists, you should, but not the point), journalism is not. It takes a lot of consistent time focussing on it, and you can't do that on your nights, and weekends off.
Don't know about the second point, but on the first, there's a online newspaper here that does it pretty well. It's like 240$ a year, but with the option to pay however little/much you want. the articles can be shared freely (no paywall, though i think since a year ago you need to enter your email to read, used to be completely free to share), but can't be discovered/found unless you're subscibed. it's split into two legal entities, the newspaper that employs the journalists and a second non-profit that actually collects the payments and that every subscriber is allowed to vote in, elect leadership for etc. that works out guidelines for the newspaper part to follow.
has been working pretty well for several years now and it's one of the last few places of quality, independent journalism in my country
Cooperative, decentralized, atomized journalism that starts small, stays small, spreads liability and is not for profit.
Alternatively, money. Lots and lots of money.