Slashdot Mirror
Google Fund To Pay For 1 Million Copies of Charlie Hebdo
BarbaraHudson writes The Register is reporting that money set aside from a deal with France's publishers is going to pay for the printing of 1 million copies of next weeks' Charlie Hebdo, "Eight of the 12 people killed were journalists attending an editorial meeting, however, a senior editor and the magazine's chief executive were in London at the time of the attack. They have vowed to do a massive 1 million copy print run next week – Charlie Hebdo's circulation is normally around 60k. The cash will come from €60m fund (€20m per year over three years) that supports digital publishing innovation. The fund was set up in 2013 following negotiations between Google and the French government as a remedy to demands from European publishers that Google pay for displaying news snippets in its search results.
OK, so how do I get a copy as I'm outside France? Time to prove that the pen is mightier than the AK-47.
I vote for a cartoon of Mohammed and his six-year-old bride Aisha on the front cover.
And a few Jesus & Moses gags inside for balance.
I'm left wondering if the people behind the attacks will try to get some of their more brain-damaged followers to believe that google is now a legit target, even though google had no say in how these funds were to be used.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Will it have a caricature of Muhammad?
That's what needs to happen, millions and millions of Muhammad cartoons all over the World.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
a senior editor and the magazine's chief executive were in London at the time of the attack.
They'll continue on, which is more than most people would have done in their situation. As for the fund, I would think that using some of google's money for this is a good thing (and maybe something they wouldn't have done voluntarily). Charlie Hebdo, like most papers, survives on advertising, and at least some advertisers are going to be relucttant (to say the least) to advertise with them given recent events. I doubt very much that they're "swimming in money."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
1. A group of people were murdered for expressing ideas which another group of people (the murderers) didn't like. This is wrong, the people behind the killings are guilty of premeditated murder and should be punished accordingly. It should also be noted that this kind of thing happens all the time. 2. From what I've seen of the publication in question it was not good satire, it neither made me laugh nor had any great insight. This is just my opinion.
They didn't run any ads. Freedom is difficult when you depend of large companies.
Google's giving them $300K, but the government is giving them $1.2M.
While freedom of speech is a law that needs to be upheld, how many people would be happy with the government (or google?) giving an organization like stormfront a million dollars to publish pictures of Obama with a tail and a banana in one hand?
Google isn't trying to do anything. The money comes from France's publishers fund, and it's irrelevant to mention the source of that money. Using the source of the source of the money you'd get the headline "AdWords customers To Pay For...", and so on.
How does funding a tree-ware print run fall under the remit supporting digital publishing innovation? I assume this refers to the Digital Publishing Innovation Fund, which Google said was created "to help support transformative digital publishing initiatives for French readers".
How are the Charlie cartoons racist, or, how is islam a race?
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
How is this insightful ? The magazine isn't racist, and Google does not want to support it.
Charlie Hebdo, like most papers, survives on advertising
Wrong. Charlie Hebdo is one of the rare newspapers in France (another example is le Canard Enchaîné) with zero ads, and which survive only from their readership.
Suggestion to Google:
You seem to want to support racist publications.
[Reference needed]
The Charlie Hebdo, second attack by lowlife politicians. Francois Hollande, before all this wanted to shutdown this magazine. The politicians jostling each other to try to get a Photo shot of themselves being important even pointing their fingers in the air when they see a camera even though they are talking to nobody. These journalists and cartoonist died for freedom of expression and none of these politicians represent freedom of expression. They all want to use these dead cartoonists and journalists. These lowlife politicians have no shame. If these dead cartoonists and journalists could do one more magazine from their graves what would they have printed? Francois Hollande, with his mistress giving him a blowjob with the caption: Unemployed actress sucks. Angela Merkel, with the caption Gestapo returns to Paris, Sieg Heil Monetary Union! Benjamin Netanyahu, get the fuck out of my way I’m going to build an Israeli settlement in this here Paris road. David haemorrhoid Cameron, am I on camera? are they taking pictures of me? look at me! look at me.. The world economy is safe in my hands I am not just a toffee nosed dickhead from an underprivileged island. Get that nigger out of my way! Sorry about any spelling mistakes I am rushing I’m on a deadline.
Well, Charlie Hebdo published a lot of hateful anti-christian and anti-jewish cartoons. Since nothing happened, they got cocky and upped the ante with anti-mohammed cartoons and got killed for it.
Charlie Hebdo is basically a hate group (radical atheists) publication.
The story of their demise is overblown, imo. On the same day, 30 got killed in Yemen by al-Queda, a few days ago 2,000+ in Nigeria by Boko Haram. Nobody cares.
Actually the magazine is deeply racist. Even conservatives like David Brooks have said things like "If they had tried to publish their satirical newspaper on any American university campus over the last two decades it wouldn’t have lasted 30 seconds." Of course Brooks thinks the problem is that universities aren't willing to celebrate racist speech, as if everybody deserves not just freedom of speech but that others provide them a platform for it.
And if what you are really saying is that same old canard that you can't be racist against people who share a common religion, I suggest you check your dictionary because the OED defines race as "A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc."
OED defines race as "A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.
So, if somebody says something bad about Nazis, they are racist ?
I was wondering if any malware writers would like to help.
Lots of malware will scan the infected computer for E-mail addresses so that it can send out spam.
Suppose someone wrote a virus which scans infected computers for E-mail addresses with common muslim first names, and sends a randomly selected offensive Mohammed cartoon to that person. One of 10 cartoons that comes bundled with the malware, for instance. (Google has many to choose from.)
This would have the simultaneous effect of trolling (getting others emotionally upset), swatting (getting others to do precipitous actions), ferreting out the extremists, and getting the Islamics more used to satire and criticism.
Of the proposals so far, I think this has the potential to really change the situation. It's like getting allergy injections to teach the body to tolerate irritation.
Any malware writers out there?
Boko Haram would be the true hate group in your little screed.
Charlie is not hateful a single bit, they're simply very offensive, which is different; but one may be mistaken anout it when one happens to be on the receiving end of their offensiveness. Besides, they don't switch targets over (long periods of) time: they are equally offsensive to all targets, without a discernable bias except based on what the current news gave them as the week's targets (side note: the remaining staff held an editorial meeting on Friday for next wednesday's issue. In Liberation's report of the meeting was this gem: one of the Charlie staff said "so, let's make this issue. What do we put in it?" to which another one answered "Dunno... what's in the news right now?" -- typical Charlie humor, like it or not).
If they say nazis are bad because they gassed millions of people, then that's both factual and there is no further context to the statement
Actually, most Nazi party members and supporters were not personally involved in the genocide, so that would not be factual. By the way, holocaust denial is a pretty big thing in the Muslim community. And even after the Paris attacks, I've heard a surprisingly large number of Muslims claim that the Jews were behind it.
Google did not support anything in this case. The only reason the name is brought up is because it is attached to a fund Google agree to create years ago to escape legal problems in france. Google has no say in how it is used or the present use.
Thank you for correcting me. I guess this gives them the editorial freedom that lets them take the stands they do.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
... until everyone is willing to say "yes, it was Islam, and we are done letting more of you into our countries," then all the hashtags and belated "I am {victims}" (they sure weren't Charlie Hedbo before it happened, when it might have mattered) and candlelight vigils and "oh nos, watch out for imaginary backlash" isn't going to do anything to stop this.
This is an evil death cult, and they don't care what we think, except to use an excuse for more murder.
Insulting the prophet does not carry the death sentence as during his life he was insulted, and worse. These attackers had Islamic precedent to draw from and had they looked it up, would not use the cartoons as justification. I submit to you that there is another reason behind this: http://www.independent.co.uk/v... There is no justification for the murders, but we can grasp to understand the underlying issues.
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
Stalk and ac post harass others that got the best of you http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ??
Hypocrite.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
I thought Print was dead...
The rallies and cartoons at least let ISIS know that their Stone Age crackpot faith and those who promote it are no longer welcome in Europe. Send them back to their hellholes of origin before the next attack.
Yes, it is. When you sign up, you sign up for what they stand for. If they were saying "Jews at great" while secretly gassing them, that'd be one thing, but there was no secret that people were being rounded up for concentration camps. Anyone who knew that and signed up was complicit. Much like all the people who voted for Bush are complicit in all the acts he did. It's not like it was a secret who he was, and what he advocated. And he won. Twice. If Bush were hanged for treason, so should all the people who put him there.
Learn to love Alaska
mabey, but more people are going to start reading it now that its gotten so much publicity.
Another reader pointed out that I was wrong in assuming that Charlie Hebdo was ad-supported. It isn't, which explains why they have so much editorial independence. For sure they'll increase their subscriber base. Rather than terrorize people, they've galvanized them. There will be much more support for anti-terrorism programs.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
And a publishing group that subsidizes them.
None that its Wikipedia page knows of, and this page is the object of much updating right now, both from goodwill and less good will editors, so any reliable source about outside financing would certainly be mentioned right now.
That's why the US tried revisionist history to call them internment camps and such, but my dad was 16 when WWII ended. They were "concentration camps". But we "knew" they weren't killing people in them Did the Germans not know anything about the conditions in their camps? 3,000,000 enter. 0 leave. The math doesn't add up.
Learn to love Alaska
You are being too cute and cryptic for me. I didn't see the Jewish section of the German army. And are you saying that the Jews took down the World Trade Center?
Learn to love Alaska
Well I think its great that more and more people are coming out on the pro freedom side rather than pro islam
ac stalking/harassing/libelling... well, look who's talking.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Yeah, like the #FreeOurGirls tweets have put Boko Haram on the run.
Let black Judges deal with black Culprits;
Let moderate Muslims deal with radical Muslims;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... VERSUS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Casteism