Publicly funded
this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2026
62 points (100.0% liked)
No Stupid Questions
47686 readers
754 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm ready to be wrong but isn't that what the associated press is for?
No, AP isn't publicly funded. You might be thinking of NPR and/or PBS and/or VOA.
I mean isn't there a world where we have unobtrusive adverts that are for products people actually want, and can sustain the reporting?
I think people would use less ad blockers if the ads were not designed / placed in a way that feels almost seizure inducing at times.
Unfortunately I think threads/twitter might be the future as a type of open source reporting, as everytime I hit a pay wall I turn around and leave.
adverts that are for products people actually want
This requires metadata fingerprinting which can be used to deanonymize people. And has been used as justification for intense surveillance of users and aggregation of user data. It is also profitable to sell this data to third party data brokers which inturn sell the data collected to other private entities which might have nefarious intent.
Basically, this means that modern advertising on the internet is inherently wrong, even if it's ads that people might actually like.
load more comments
(3 replies)
By doing good enough journalism that people want to pay for it.
Sadly, this appears to be an unreachable bar for most.
Strong protections and regulations on what counts as 'news' and then offering subsidies paid for via taxes on Internet/cable TV/etc subscriptions to non-profit news outlets.
Of course that's near impossible and humanity would corrupt it eventually, so I don't know.
I agree in theory, but that makes journalism too dependent on state approval. There are too many journalists throughout time who were publicly discredited and shamed for not towing the line. Publishing something of which the state does not approve is scary enough without the news orgs funding being cut as a result.
Sorry, but did you mention any of these 250+ banned words in your article? OpenAI has said you did and now we are revoking all grants and funding ever promised to your organization. You have also lost your media license and will be placed on a watchlist.
Mining crypto on visitors' machines. (/s)
Installing ransomware on every computer that visits the site. (/s)
DDOSS ing other news sites through malicous javascript to ensure their is no competition
/s i think...
It’s called a “strategic investment into maintaining competitive advantage” in corpo talk.
And if you want to go the non digital route, bank robbery.
It’s not just ads. It’s ads that cover what you want to see. Popups that intentionally trick people into clicking on it when they are trying to close it. Hiding the X. Having subtle ‘click to read more’ instead of scrolling down into ad slop.
Let me read the fucking article without being harassed and bombarded. Let’s not pretend like this is a binary ads / no ads concern. When ads are predatory and take up the majority of the space, don’t act like you’re a victim trying to make a buck. There’s a long way to go from hosting ads on your site to making the experience as ad-intrusive as possible, which seems to be the goal
(The generic ‘you’ is used. I don’t know what website this post is referring to and am not calling them out specifically)
Let’s not pretend like this is a binary ads / no ads concern
It def is though... people, myself included, turn on an adblocker or install pi-hole and set it and forget it. All ads blocked. That's binary. No one is going to a site, turning off the blocker, investigating the quality of the ads (lmfao), then deciding if they want to turn the blocker back on or not - total fiction.
So you’re kinda the problem that OP is asking about though. How are they supposed to generate income?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Id bet most people only set up an adblocker because the ads got out of hand. If it was just a little image here and there for generic stuff it would be fine and most people wouldn't bother.
Go back to the way things were. Static ads that aren't obnoxious and topical to the article or audience of the site might keep the few that haven't turned on adblockers from doing so. Engage users, don't insult them and get your demographics by opt-in surveys. Offer subscriptions that give benefits. Ask for donations. These things are all possible. Maybe get rid of some C suite types and keep your organization small and lean and just pay the journalists and editors (and support staff that actually create the content/keep the blinky lights on).
To hell with the megacorps and ad execs that have ruined the internet.
A percentage is funded by a local media budget as long as they maintain fair and accurate news coverage designed to inform the public. The rest can be subscriptions and ad partnerships. Like they can write an promotional piece and mark it as so and be paid for that.
I get my access to most of my news through my local library. My library card comes with access to NYT, WaPo, and the Seattle Times, amongst others. I pay my taxes, my library pays a deal with the news site, and everyone’s happy. Seems like a good setup to me.
Normalize paywall.
You had to buy the newspaper to read the newspaper, so paying for a digital newspaper isn’t any different. Plus, people will pay a reasonable fee for good content.
Even the ny times has paying subscribers. This isn’t much different from Netflix. As long as the pricing is fair, and the articles don’t double dip by including ads on top of subscription, it will work just fine.
Give people a free trial to test the content.
Aside from maybe my local paper which reports on things NOBODY else cares about, there is not one source that I would want to invest in like that.
Paywalls nudge people towards choosing one or two sources for all of their information. The more sources they pay for, the less value each one provides.
Diversity of information is better for society.
The news organizations that exist eight paywalls are things like info wars, fox and oan. People who've gravitated to those free sites have gotten us to the mess we're in now.
I’m happy to pay subscriptions, it’s just frustrating on aggregate sites like this where you see all these interesting titles and want to interact, but don’t subscribe to THAT news site. I can pay for all of them, and I don’t want to support a lot of them.
Nyt is an interesting case because they do have good quality reporting i might be willing to pay for. Then they post some ultra-conservative sociopathic stuff on their op-ed or opinion page and I want to block their shit.
Washington Post was also under consideration before it got Bezo’d
Basically this. I will pay for good coverage and news that doesn't normalize insane bullshit.
Donations.
I don't find subscriptions too offensive, however any kind of restriction of the flow of information (e.g. by paywalling it) implies its enforcement. What are you going to do about people bypassing the paywall? Even if you only responded by patching whatever allowed them to bypass the paywall, you're either going to have to let up eventually, or get into a protracted cat-and-mouse game with paywall bypassers. And you don't want to end up on the side of the people who want to gatekeep information.
So that leaves us with the possibility of having a subscription that's not stringently enforced—in which case it is just a recurring donation anyway.
Of course, this discussion is limited to the scope of "what would a news outlet do without changing anything about society"—but the decent news outlets do also try to change things about society. Within capitalism, things like UBI would make it much easier for free journalism to exist. And of course this problem goes away entirely with capitalism.
Good question. What pisses me off is that all these websites want $9.99 monthly subscription while I want to read a single article. There's no viable micropayment system where I could pay 10 cents for one article access
The news article should be free to read. After all it’s only text and it was written to be read. Ads greatly detract from the whole experience.
My proposal for a new model of news would be to be able to create an account for a one time fee of $5, which allows you to comment on articles for $0.25 per comment. Users who are logged in are also allowed to tip articles they enjoy, with proceeds going at least 50% to the author. Another option would be to hide or blur all images on articles unless the user pays $0.25. I think this model could make money, and allow customers to pay as you go and support the content they want more of. A regular subscription is a blank check for them to publish anything.
I’m okay paying, but I won’t pay $5.99 a month each for 5000 different news websites. I think there needs to be a micropayments system where I can pay $0.10 to read an article and have that same payment system work on other news sites.
Idk but people seemed more okay with paying for a physical item... like newspapers, rather than just words on a page that they cant touch...
I remember my dad used to read newspapers, now he just scrolls WeChat...
(But then again the newspapers he used to read in China were all state-approved anyways... not really the beacon of truth...)
load more comments
(1 replies)
By selling papers?
Worked for centuries.
What do you think a subscription is? Or do you really think people are going to go back to buying physical papers?
People need to get used to paying for things online.
If more people are willing to do it, the cheaper it can be for each of us.
If your news is free, it's trying to sell you something.
The idealistic approach would be: all content freely available, and ask readers to donate if they value it, to fund continual production of more work. E.g. Democracy for Sale. Even better if it's under a free content license.
The practical approach would be: make some content freely available, and put the rest behind a paywall. But the content should still be available in open formats like RSS, via a private feed. E.g. LWN, Stratechery.
Most people would prefer it to be both free and ad-free and just make it work somehow. Doesn't matter how - use magic or whatever.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Maybe the solution is some Spotify like service for journalism. Ie. Pay $20 a month and get access to most papers, and the revenue is split by view count. Even better would be making it a tax so since everyone is paying there's no need for login.
A local website shows article comments to everyone, but to make one you have to subscribe. The comments are mostly boomer rage bait.
Normalize product placements in reports /s
Honestly if I had a "tap to pay" concept for articles or news, but only AFTER I've read the article, I'd do it more.
I'm not going to sign up for you substack. I don't want a subscription. I'll give money if that I consumed was interesting or relevant to me.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Subscripttion services for actual journalism?
How did bookwriting monasteries sustain themselves in the medieval ages?
I think that newspapers should be surprisingly similar to that.
You're gonna have to explain yourself because I'm not sure collecting rents and tithes and recieving gifts from pious nobles is that great a business plan.
eh i don't have the energy to explain it rn in full detail but let's say at the least i think that literature (of all sorts) should be a non-profit thing, not written for profit. and monasteries were the closest to a non-profit thing that you could get in the medieval ages.
view more: next ›