Comments on: In defense of the New York Times http://emilyiles.com/2010/01/21/in-defense-of-the-new-york-times/ Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:35:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: emily iles http://emilyiles.com/2010/01/21/in-defense-of-the-new-york-times/comment-page-1/#comment-42 emily iles Sun, 24 Jan 2010 18:35:12 +0000 http://emilyiles.com/?p=221#comment-42 Too true, Steven, I will clarify. Government content: "should" is an awfully nasty word. I think that content created by our government is obliged be free because it concerns a very fundamental ability to participate in, understand and monitor the people and organs that make decisions on our behalf. That we have paid taxes seems a secondary reason: maybe paying taxes is why it <em>can</em> be free, not why it should. As far as bloggy content, I will restrict my above comments to "news" blogs, or even more narrowly, the blogs that do what I have accused them of doing (making money off of others' free creation). Certainly there is a fantastic wealth of people who offer sometimes very valuable information (I'm thinking tutorials especially) for free. I think that is precisely what makes it so difficult to charge for content. It often seems free to put things online, but even I pay for hosting and my domain name (which I was very glad to get:). There are options for free content hosting and sharing everywhere, but I operate at a loss because I do not wish to host ads. And I can avoid ads <em>because</em> I pay for hosting. I am often amazed, though, by the quality of free content that exists, that exists because someone thought: other people might benefit from this! Other people should know this! I do hope that's a quality that perseveres. Too true, Steven, I will clarify.

Government content: “should” is an awfully nasty word. I think that content created by our government is obliged be free because it concerns a very fundamental ability to participate in, understand and monitor the people and organs that make decisions on our behalf. That we have paid taxes seems a secondary reason: maybe paying taxes is why it can be free, not why it should.

As far as bloggy content, I will restrict my above comments to “news” blogs, or even more narrowly, the blogs that do what I have accused them of doing (making money off of others’ free creation).

Certainly there is a fantastic wealth of people who offer sometimes very valuable information (I’m thinking tutorials especially) for free. I think that is precisely what makes it so difficult to charge for content. It often seems free to put things online, but even I pay for hosting and my domain name (which I was very glad to get:). There are options for free content hosting and sharing everywhere, but I operate at a loss because I do not wish to host ads. And I can avoid ads because I pay for hosting. I am often amazed, though, by the quality of free content that exists, that exists because someone thought: other people might benefit from this! Other people should know this! I do hope that’s a quality that perseveres.

]]> By: Steven http://emilyiles.com/2010/01/21/in-defense-of-the-new-york-times/comment-page-1/#comment-40 Steven Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:25:42 +0000 http://emilyiles.com/?p=221#comment-40 <q cite="Content from your government should be free. Everything else is a product, created by a person, and the reason we produce it is to make cash."> A couple of clarifying/detailed points on this. First, and simply, do you mean all content from the government should be free because the citizens have paid taxes which cover the cost of the content? Second, your reason for people to generate content is not universally true. On the internet especially (or at least more visibly than in other forms), content is made for a wide variety of purposes, frequently not being for profit. A great deal of sites are supported by cash from ad revenue, but there is so much content generated for free by members of the human race! Even if Geocities puts an ad on your personal webpage in exchange for hosting, the content itself is still free and not created to make money. People sharing photos, communication, ideas... those are usually informal and free. Consider your blog, even! No profit/cash there. There is still some truth lurking in this statement, if it can be teased out. That said, I am also a fan of supporting newspapers and their worthwhile and useful and (otherwise non-existent) reporting. On a similar (but for other reasons) note, I am a subscriber of my local paper, and not only enjoy a printed copy every morning with my cereal, but also have an online subscription to access local news and happenings.

A couple of clarifying/detailed points on this. First, and simply, do you mean all content from the government should be free because the citizens have paid taxes which cover the cost of the content? Second, your reason for people to generate content is not universally true. On the internet especially (or at least more visibly than in other forms), content is made for a wide variety of purposes, frequently not being for profit. A great deal of sites are supported by cash from ad revenue, but there is so much content generated for free by members of the human race! Even if Geocities puts an ad on your personal webpage in exchange for hosting, the content itself is still free and not created to make money. People sharing photos, communication, ideas… those are usually informal and free. Consider your blog, even! No profit/cash there. There is still some truth lurking in this statement, if it can be teased out.

That said, I am also a fan of supporting newspapers and their worthwhile and useful and (otherwise non-existent) reporting. On a similar (but for other reasons) note, I am a subscriber of my local paper, and not only enjoy a printed copy every morning with my cereal, but also have an online subscription to access local news and happenings.

]]>