Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pirate Party Founder Rick Falkvinge Launches News Service

Posted by Soulskill on from the news-for-the-meme-generation dept.

New submitter lillgud writes: Rick Falkvinge, founder of the first Pirate Party, has unveiled a news service to compete against "oldmedia." The news stories will be three sentences in length, and distributed within shareable images. Falkvinge says this obviates certain parts of the industry — for example, there will be no need for clickbait headlines, because there's nothing to click on. The business model is based around advertising, but those ads will simply be a watermark on the image. Thus, no worries about adblock, and no concerns about ad networks collecting information from users. The service is targeted to be operational in Q3. Each writer will be paid in accordance to a revenue sharing model, and Falkvinge's goal is for each part-time writer to receive €125/month in exchange for four stories (12 sentences).

66 comments

  1. Independent News Wins!! by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 0

    Nice to see another news outlet that isn't corrupted by ad dollars.

    1. Re:Independent News Wins!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The business model is based around advertising, but those ads will simply be a watermark on the image."

    2. Re:Independent News Wins!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "isn't corrupted by ad dollars" vs "has ads as an image watermark". One doesn't necessarily imply the other.

    3. Re:Independent News Wins!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. He should have included "each part-time writer".

    4. Re:Independent News Wins!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "isn't corrupted by ad dollars" vs "has ads as an image watermark". One doesn't necessarily imply the other.

      Oh, you were thinking the ads were going to be free, I see. Wait, what?

    5. Re:Independent News Wins!! by gnupun · · Score: 2

      This news site is hypocritical. One the one hand they encourage pirating IP of other companies, and on the other hand they charge advertising fees for their own IP (news articles). Pirate activists give activists a bad name.

    6. Re:Independent News Wins!! by houghi · · Score: 1

      If you pirate their stories, they would be happy, because that is a way to distribute their images.

      becaise what they are about is not pirating IP. What they want is free (as in beer for the receiver) distribution of content. This results now in issues with copyright.

      So they encourage you to 'pirate' the content, because that would mean they get more readers for less cost and are able to charge more.

      The issue I have is the limit in length and the fact that there is no clicking. It will basically be just shouting heatlines, without any content. Or "FoxNews on streroids."

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    7. Re:Independent News Wins!! by execthis · · Score: 1

      I agree that its nice to see another option becoming available, as it is so alarmingly clear that the existing sources of news are highly controlled, bias, and frequently inaccurate. And especially at the community level we need to enable new processes for news to be gathered and made available because everything begins at the community level.

      If anyone out there has the good fortune to have access to one of the newer generation of online, local niche news reporting for their community, and the often active and informational forums that are integrated with them, you will know exactly what I mean by this. These sites and these forums are provided much needed places for community voices to be heard and opinions to be ascertained.

      As a true devotee of freedom I would like to see such systems be as open and free as possible, hopefully inspired by and utilizing Open Source ideals to the greatest extent possible.

    8. Re: Independent News Wins!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are three sentence stories. Doesn't much matter whether their independent or not, nothing useful in this area is going to be comressible down to three sentences. That's like one quote and nothing else, if even that.

    9. Re:Independent News Wins!! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      "The business model is based around advertising, but those ads will simply be a watermark on the image."

      And there is no simple way to automatically remove watermarks from images, as far as I know.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  2. Frosty revenue sharing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will four First Posts count? I demand my eur125!

  3. Truth In The News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Won't be had there!

  4. Thanks, I'll pass by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 2

    A news service brought to you by politically motivated "writers" with a political agenda and served via images with included ads? Thanks, I definitely don't need this kind of "news".

    1. Re:Thanks, I'll pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      because the "other" news you have been reading are not illegitimate children of political agendas and advertising...

    2. Re:Thanks, I'll pass by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You're cute.

    3. Re:Thanks, I'll pass by meta-monkey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm concerned too about the "politically motivated" part.

      For instance, I agree that there is a problem with excessive use of force by police in America. Reddit, however, has a massive boner for any kind of story that depicts police as bloodthirsty maniacs. So you'll see a front page story with a headline like "Man Shot 47 Times by Police Just For Asking For Directions." And you open it up and find out the guy was raging on PCP, firing at cops yelling "Which way to hell pigs?! 'Cause that's where I'm sending you!" The authors of such titles are far more concerned with pushing their narrative than informing people.

      It's bad journalism to assign motives to people that they didn't tell you and you can't back up with facts. Just report the facts, and leave the opinions to the comments section.

      I support the Pirate Party, but I'm wary of any "news service" run specifically by any political party.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    4. Re:Thanks, I'll pass by tmosley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The reason for your wariness is that the vast majority of other political parties advocate for something other than freedom.

      When you have a political party that advocates something approaching pure freedom, then their political affiliation is no longer destructive. Freedom is good. Any thing which promotes freedom is a virtue, not a vice.

    5. Re:Thanks, I'll pass by Troed · · Score: 3, Informative

      I support the Pirate Party, but I'm wary of any "news service" run specifically by any political party.

      Thank you for your support, it's much appreciated. However, Falkvinge's news service isn't in any way affiliated with the Swedish Pirate Party (or any other Pirate Party as far as I know). Interests and viewpoints might of course overlap regardless.

      --
      it's in my head
    6. Re:Thanks, I'll pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When you have a political party that advocates something approaching pure freedom, then their political affiliation is no longer destructive

      Just because someone's political orientation agrees with yours, and is on the good side, doesn't in any way stop their political affiliation from being destructive. It is pretty easy for people to unknowingly sabotage their own side, because they go too far. As with what the GP was talking about and many other examples, if you misrepresent reality in the name of pushing an agenda, or even introduce strong bias, you risk hurting your own cause when others call you out for your mistakes.

      A good cause doesn't need more preaching to the choir that just polarizes everyone and kills any spread of an idea to new people.

    7. Re:Thanks, I'll pass by eurythmech · · Score: 1

      ...and a big reason why this news service will be a total trainwreck is that it'll attract writers this naïve.

    8. Re:Thanks, I'll pass by meta-monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's incredibly naive.

      Pretty much everybody likes "freedom." But everybody has a different idea of what "freedom" means. A conservative businessman might argue environmental regulations impinge on his freedom to dump soot from his factory into the air. Hippies downwind might argue allowing the businessman to dump soot into the air is impinging on their right to breathe.

      The Communist Party of the USSR defined "freedom" as "absence of opposition to world socialism." Some Muslim clerics believe freedom (or peace, at least) is found in "submission to the will of Allah."

      I do not want a news service that promotes "freedom." I want a news service that provides facts, and promotes nothing.

      And claiming to be unbiased, when in fact presenting a bias sabotages the arguments. Liberals have such a distrust of Fox News that Fox could say "the sky is blue" and liberals will question their accuracy and motives. Truth, reported from a news agency founded by somebody who founded a political party (that is seen by many as radical, and these very people we're trying to convince to change their minds) will be seen as suspect, and rejected.

      There's a cognitive bias for this. I can't remember the name of it, perhaps one of you can, wherein truthful arguments presented by someone you don't like reinforces your adherence to your own false beliefs.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    9. Re:Thanks, I'll pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are worried this bomb might explode? Why?

      I am pretty sure I have seen other bombs explode.

      Yes, but THIS bomb isn't the kind that explodes.

    10. Re:Thanks, I'll pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because the "other" news you have been reading...

      I suspect GP's post was satirical and that in your fervor to support anything Pirate Party or bitcoin related you just got whooshed.

      But whether it's serious or satire the point is well taken, this "news" will be so biased it will be not worth reading.

    11. Re:Thanks, I'll pass by tmosley · · Score: 1

      "It is pretty easy for people to unknowingly sabotage their own side, because they go too far."

      There is literally no such thing as "too far" when it comes to the freedom of the people. If you disagree, then you are a bad person. Sorry :(

    12. Re:Thanks, I'll pass by tmosley · · Score: 1

      "Pretty much everybody likes "freedom.""

      Yo, I disagree. Most people, rather than supporting the freedom of others, want other people to be forced to agree with their own views. But that isn't freedom.

      Words have meaning. Those who attempt to take away the meaning of words should be exposed to the full force of an outraged society. They attempt to win arguments through redefinition, often to double meaning, ie Orwellian doublethink. This is bad.

      Both liberals and conservatives are rubes, both have been taken in by the same people, to disastrous ends.

    13. Re:Thanks, I'll pass by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Which is why I put "freedom" in quotes. Because people like their own "freedom," however they choose to define it.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    14. Re:Thanks, I'll pass by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The reason for your wariness is that the vast majority of other political parties advocate for something other than freedom. When you have a political party that advocates something approaching pure freedom, then their political affiliation is no longer destructive. Freedom is good. Any thing which promotes freedom is a virtue, not a vice.

      This is simply bollocks. You are perfectly "free" to write some white supremacist news involving a made up story about people with brown skin being sub-human (or whatever). That doesn't make it right.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    15. Re:Thanks, I'll pass by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      "It is pretty easy for people to unknowingly sabotage their own side, because they go too far." There is literally no such thing as "too far" when it comes to the freedom of the people. If you disagree, then you are a bad person. Sorry :(

      Anything involving advertising is not free.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    16. Re:Thanks, I'll pass by wertigon · · Score: 1

      So in your opinion we should abolish jails alltogether then? Because jails hinders the freedom of some individuals though not all of them.

      --
      systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
    17. Re:Thanks, I'll pass by tmosley · · Score: 1

      There are ideas out there for free market "jails" where incentives are set such that people who repeatedly commit crimes will have powerful incentives to stay there, but that requires massive change on a societal level (including replacing government with social insurance policies). Absent such change, I would say that jail is for people who take freedom away from others, by hurting or killing them, defrauding them, stealing from them, etc. Governments are typically the ones curtailing freedom the most overall, but criminals often curtail the rights of a single individual much more than the government, and as such, they need to be curtailed as well.

      If I were president, I would actually immediately shut down most jails, as they are full of people who committed victimless "crimes" like possessing drugs.

    18. Re:Thanks, I'll pass by wertigon · · Score: 1

      You miss the point.

      Complete, total freedom means everyone always have freedom to do whatever they want e.g. anarchy. So yes, you can go too far on the freedom front. Freedom in moderation is great, too much or too little will lead to bad things though.

      --
      systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
    19. Re:Thanks, I'll pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are ideas out there for free market "jails" where incentives are set such that people who repeatedly commit crimes will have powerful incentives to stay there

      Won't work. Criminals have powerful incentives to remain free. The same incentive that you have.

      If you could create such an incentive that outweighs their incentive for freedom, you might as well use that to create the perfect welfare state. Everybody on welfare. Everybody with strong incentive to stay on welfare. A statist's wet dream.

      Governments are typically the ones curtailing freedom the most overall

      That's the whole point of government. Somebody has to be the enforcer to throw people into jail. Government is the "legitimate" recognized entity that does that. You, as a private individual, could be jailing people right now (build a jail in your backyard, or just use your basement or something). But you won't be recognized as legitimate. If you ever got to a point where you jailing somebody is recognized, then congratulations, you've become the de facto government, the one who is curtailing freedoms the most overall.

    20. Re:Thanks, I'll pass by tmosley · · Score: 1

      It really doesn't. Anarchy is NOT a synonym for chaos, as much as some like to paint it so. Rather, Anarchy simply means that men rule themselves via VOLUNTARY interactions. Involuntary interactions are countered by force.

      I am reminded of the people who think that freedom of speech means freedom from the consequences of speech. Such positions are asinine.

    21. Re:Thanks, I'll pass by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Note that you only heard the basest concept and just waved your hands and said that it wouldn't work. Monarchists thought the same of Democracy.

      No, the incentive is that when they leave the geographical region where their cut-rate social insurance will cover them, they can be murdered and cannibalized for their organs and meat without recourse. Continued life is the strongest of all incentives.

  5. So, a haiku, then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Three sentences is
    Just enough information
    For stupid people

    1. Re:So, a haiku, then? by tmosley · · Score: 1

      It's just enough to alert people to the fact that something is happening, allowing them to go dig up details themselves. Instead of biased crap like "We report, you decide" it's more like "we alert, you take a look for yourself and see what is actually going on".

    2. Re:So, a haiku, then? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      It's just enough to alert people to the fact that something is happening, allowing them to go dig up details themselves.

      Without any link to in-depth stories or sources, it is not going to be used by those who want more information than what amounts to a tweet.
      This is for Generation ADHD.

      I'm just surprised they won't drop the text altogether and use a 5 second video snippet.

    3. Re:So, a haiku, then? by robi5 · · Score: 1, Troll

      > Three sentences is
      > Just enough information
      > For stupid people

      A dumb, Haiku-loving person, reading an article on Slashdot, which used to stand for 'News for Nerds', encounters an article about a novel news service. The blurb is using terms which the reader might be unfamiliar with, such as 'sentence', and mistakes it with 'row'; he also fails to take into account the possibility for complex and/or compound sentences. Having demonstrated his lack of grasp on the matter publicly - with the foresight of posting as an Anonymous Coward however -, somebody else, who on the other hand hasn't read TFA, comes and points out the irony for him.

  6. Good initiative by Skarjak · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I like this guy. Instead of bitching about adblock, he tries to adapt to it. More people should be willing to adapt to changing realities rather than crying to legislators so they can rig the game for them.

    1. Re:Good initiative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't. I'm getting visions of a web future where every site is one big static image with burnt-in advertisements, disabling not just ad-blockers, but also such niceties as selecting text.

    2. Re:Good initiative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't like this guy. He's finding a way around adblock.

    3. Re:Good initiative by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I like this guy. Instead of bitching about adblock, he tries to adapt to it. More people should be willing to adapt to changing realities rather than crying to legislators so they can rig the game for them.

      I suppose if you're a libertarian, then any article is just another excuse to blame the government.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:Good initiative by Skarjak · · Score: 1

      And you assume I am a libertarian because... ?

  7. What's your goto place for news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fox? Sun? Some Murdoch toilet paper? Google News?

    Do tell, please...

  8. Sounds awful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like facebook.. but with the ads embedded into the idiotic gifs.

    1. Re:Sounds awful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cracked has started running something similar in their "X Most Insane Things Happening Right Now" weekly series. It's just a bunch of images with text over them relating some random news from the last week or so. The only difference between this and Cracked is Cracked has traditional ads (including some auto-playing video bullshit on top of their Like/subscribe begging) instead of water-marked ads. As much as I like Cracked, this sounds like a much better deal.

    2. Re:Sounds awful by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Also Cracked is funny.

    3. Re:Sounds awful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see why he thinks adblock can't adapt to this. Add some image processing into adblock (or create a image-specific adblocker), and your ad just disappear. CPU power is almost free these days.

    4. Re:Sounds awful by NominalLoss · · Score: 1

      Cracked was funny. All the good writers left a couple years ago and now its amateur crap.

  9. Advertisers by The+Raven · · Score: 1

    This will depend on advertisers being on board. Assuming they are (which is not guaranteed, since you can't click their ad to visit their site) at a reasonable CPM this looks doable. I like the model.

    I am amused at the idea of news-via-image-macro (aka, meme pic).

    --
    "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
  10. Limited text length sucks by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    I thnk knw why limtd txt svcs fail.

    Twitter, this news service.. Painful to read. For crying out loud, people need enough text to complete their thoughts.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Limited text length sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to take into account that the average attention span has been degrading greatly. Instead of properly researched long news articles, easily digestable fun snacks are preferred instead.

    2. Re:Limited text length sucks by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Then the human race is truly headed for Idiocracy.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  11. 3 sentences? by cdrudge · · Score: 1

    I'm all for being brief and getting directly to the point, but either a lot of details are going to be left out of an "article" or will be a overly complex run-on sentence. I don't want to have to read 18 different images (with accompanying ads) just to get the full story of something more complex than what can be said in a slightly more than a single tweet.

    1. Re:3 sentences? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not all that different from Slashdot, all things considered. Both have a short summary and that's all people read, both have ads, and apparently Slashdot started experimenting with unclickable links to the article, so you don't have a source.

      Now they just need to add Internet Comments and it'll be another goldmine of insightful contributions.

    2. Re:3 sentences? by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      I suspect the aim is to replicate the "News in brief" segments that used to be parts of paper newspapers (they may still be, I dunno, been a while since I read one...) and TV news shows. The idea is that you can get a rough idea of what's happening in the world in just a minute or two.

      Actually I think in the Internet age it's a pretty good idea. If you need more information, you can always google it with Bing, Yahoo, or another search engine that searches news sites. The alternative right now, which the write-up above alludes to, is just seeing a bunch of headlines, but headlines are designed to make you click through to the big article, not provide you with a summary, so they usually purposely miss out information that gives context.

      Headline version: "You won't believe which building in New York is on fire right now!"
      Summary version: "Jets crash into WTC in NY. Thousands likely trapped in what officials are saying is likely a terrorist act. Collapse seems imminent."

      Headline version: "What happened after THIS famous athlete checked into a clinic!"
      Summary version: "Olympic Gold winner Bruce Jenner has undergone sex reassignment surgery and wishes to be known as Caitlyn Jenner. Caitlyn recently revealed that she had been dealing with gender dysphoria since her youth. Her family has issued statements of support for Caitlyn's transition."

      Headline version: "You better hope THIS escaped con isn't hiding in your basement!"
      Summary version: "Police are warning residents near a North Country state prison to be on the lookout for two escaped prisoners (pictured.) The prisoners, Richard Matt and David Sweat, are considered highly dangerous. If you see them, do not approach, and call 911 immediately."

      I don't know about you, but I get more information from the summaries, and for the most part I'm unlikely to need more information unless I'm really genuinely interested in the subject of the story.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  12. And sources? by eurythmech · · Score: 1

    Are we to believe that these writers will find stories without the help of "oldmedia" doing the dirty work? And if not, are we supposed to applaud a news format that does not even try to attribute its sources?

  13. advertising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "but those ads will simply be a watermark on the image" well i am certainly not in the target demographic.

  14. This Bombing has been Brought to You By... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This bombing has been brought to you by Pepsi. Pepsi: for all your Explosive Party Needs!

  15. Three Sentences? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

    The news stories will be three sentences in length, and distributed within shareable images.

    So their news stories will be brief snippets (no linking to sources or examining issues in depth). In addition, they will be posted as images so you can't copy snippets easily (not without posting the entire image). Three sentences is fine for a comment, but news stories often require more in-depth coverage than three sentences will allow.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re:Three Sentences? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally, I think three sentences ought to be enough for anybody.

      After all, I was able to reply to reply to you in one sentence.

      Oh, wait, . . . that was two sentences.

      Well, I guess now it is technically three.

      Oh, fuck!!

    2. Re:Three Sentences? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      In other words, it's perfect for the attention span and depth of engagement of the 'net generation' Falkvinge wishes to reach out to. If it can't be summed up in an image meme/slogan - they aren't interested.

    3. Re:Three Sentences? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      In other words, it's perfect for the attention span and depth of engagement of the 'net generation' Falkvinge wishes to reach out to. If it can't be summed up in an image meme/slogan - they aren't interested.

      I think the correct term nowadays is "millenial" which has the twin advantages of sounding cool and making no sense, thereby appealing to millenials.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  16. News is only for non-blind people? by oneiros27 · · Score: 1

    I tried reading the article, but either it's blocked, or the site's being overwhelmed right now. (I apologize, but I actually try to confirm things before I rant about them ... but I can't, so I'm going to instead take the normal slashdot approach).

    If the proposal is what I think it is, it's no different than people passing around images filled with text to get past the twitter character limit.

    People in the accessibility community realized the problem a year ago, but it wasn't until last week that I saw other coverage of the problem.

    The solution for the blind is to come up with a way to encode the metadata into the image ... of course, you waste a lot of bandwidth in the process, but at least they can get the information. I don't see people wanting to do that with these images, as you could then more easily filter out the crap (like the ad portion of it).

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  17. But it's being written by Nathaniel Hawthorne by ZipK · · Score: 1

    The news stories will be three sentences in length...

    But each sentence will be 200 words long, with plenty of commas and semi-colons.