Slashdot Mirror


Medium Cuts Staff By One-Third, Shuts Down New York and DC Offices (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Medium, the San Francisco-based online publishing platform founded in 2012, has laid off 50 employees, or roughly one-third of its staff. The company will also close offices in New York and Washington, DC. Ev Williams, Medium's CEO, wrote in a lengthy post on Wednesday that the company would be changing its business model despite ending 2016 as "our best year yet." He blamed the entire concept of "ad-driven media on the Internet" as the root of the company's shortcomings. As Williams, who is also a co-founder of Twitter, wrote: "It simply doesn't serve people. In fact, it's not designed to. The vast majority of articles, videos, and other "content" we all consume on a daily basis is paid for -- directly or indirectly -- by corporations who are funding it in order to advance their goals. And it is measured, amplified, and rewarded based on its ability to do that. Period. As a result, we getwell, what we get. And it's getting worse."

177 comments

  1. So medium is now a small? by SensitiveMale · · Score: 5, Funny

    So medium is now a small?

    1. Re:So medium is now a small? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugh. Where's the SCO troll when you need him?

    2. Re:So medium is now a small? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      To this day, I fail to understand the hypocrisy in supporting the little guy against giants like Apple and Microsoft, but rooting for another giant, IBM, to decimate SCO.

      Some of us pay attention to who is right and wrong, rather than deciding absolutely everything based on "big mean corporation."

      SCO originally filed for misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition. Later, they decided breach of contract might be better. Still later, they decided maybe copyright infringement. Obviously, SCO wasn't so sure exactly what they were complaining about - not nearly as sure as you are.

      They claimed that up to 0.0001% of the Linux kernel might have been derived from Unix, but refused to say which parts. As the judge began to strike down their claims unless they identified which code they were talking about, they pointed to some BSD licensed code written by Thompson - code they clearly had no copyright rights to.

      When it was pointed out that Novell, not SCO, owned the Unix copyright, SCO tried to buy the copyrights from Novell. Again, Novell clearly wasn't too sure they owned the copyrights, they were trying to buy them from Novell, yet you're sure that they already owned them.

      SCO then claimed that the GPL itself is illegal and unconstitutional! Which would of course mean that SCO were themselves unlawfully distributing GPL code! Yeah that annoyed some people.

      SCO didn't just lose a case, they were laughed out of court repeatedly. "We're suing you for violating the copyright on Unix, but we're still trying to buy that copyright so can we have a short delay?" What!?!? It was one of the most ridiculous cases ever. That's why people didn't root for SCO, it was because SCO was engaging in ridiculous trolling that made no sense. They argued that the "offending code" was part of the Linux kernel, then argued that it wasn't. They couldn't even make up their mind.

    3. Re:So medium is now a small? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You win the internet today.

    4. Re:So medium is now a small? by rmdingler · · Score: 2
      Medium's claim that ad revenue is now paid in the blood currency of corporate pandering is a valid and pertinent one.

      It is arguably true that this has always been the case, and that we are just now privileged to the information.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    5. Re:So medium is now a small? by rmdingler · · Score: 2
      Not this time coward.

      The intuitive leap from medium to small is unquestionably the insightful equivalent of Beamon's long jump in the same vein that Joe Mixon will ever play a down in the NFL.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    6. Re:So medium is now a small? by Tackhead · · Score: 1

      So medium is now a small?

      No, they've regressed to the mean.

    7. Re: So medium is now a small? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a new winner.

    8. Re: So medium is now a small? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's median fucktard.

    9. Re:So medium is now a small? by fubarrr · · Score: 1

      >He blamed the entire concept of "ad-driven media on the Internet" as the root of the company's shortcomings.

      Welcome to the Internet baby

    10. Re:So medium is now a small? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      From here:

      This s:Linux:GNU/Linux:g meme has got to die. There is no such thing as a 'GNU/Linux kernel module'.

      Christ man even RMS himself gets annoyed when people just randomly starting inserting 'GNU' where it has no meaning because it means they don't understand why he uses the term 'GNU/Linux' and what he uses it for.

      Look at the FSF pages,you will see the term "Linux" being used unwaveringly when referring to the kernel. Not 'The Linux kernel' just 'Linux'

      This is a kernel module that exposes a character device /dev/heart, reading from it produces binary audio data. GNU has nothing to do with this.

    11. Re:So medium is now a small? by shanen · · Score: 1

      Slightly funny, but mostly reminded me that January 3rd was January 2nd this year, at least locally. New Years Day didn't count as a holiday because it was already Sunday, so they had to move it to Monday, but then that official holiday had to be postponed and the calendar then insisted January 3rd was a holiday called January 2nd... As translation problems go, it must be extra large?

      Anyway, if I ever had a mod point, I wouldn't have given a "funny" to that one. Now about moderating this one... I guess "off topic" since there's no "petty nit" mod.

      --
      Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
    12. Re:So medium is now a small? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Medium's claim that ad revenue is now paid in the blood currency of corporate pandering is a valid and pertinent one.

      It is arguably true that this has always been the case, and that we are just now privileged to the information.

      You missed the target. Ads being paid for by corporations is old news. What is new though is that the articles, the newsworthy things a newspaper (online or not) is supposed to do is BEING bought for and paid by corporations. It wasn't like this in the old print days. And you know why ? Because readers paid the newspapers and that money was used by the newspapers to pay journalists that did investigative reporting.
      That whole readers paying for news went mostly away with the internet, and guess what took its place ? Yep, corporations. So the end result is that newspapers except for a tiny few have become nothing more than glorified PR companies. There is simply no value in that and Medium recognized it.

    13. Re:So medium is now a small? by fleabay · · Score: 2

      Now that's what I call Stallmansplaining!

    14. Re:So medium is now a small? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, please! Just shut up!

    15. Re:So medium is now a small? by quenda · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because readers paid the newspapers and that money was used by the newspapers to pay journalists

      No it was not. The cover price was not even enough for printing costs. What paid for those journalists was classified advertising, called "rivers of gold" by Rupert Murdoch.
      Of course the internet killed the classified ads, and online subscriptions can never replace that.

    16. Re: So medium is now a small? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SCO could have won the case if they portrayed the case as US verse a foreign entity. Albeit, slighly tougher to do so against an European.
      Like Apple or Trump

    17. Re:So medium is now a small? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system

      If by "normally" you mean "most commonly", then that would have to be Android.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    18. Re: So medium is now a small? by tsqr · · Score: 1

      That's median fucktard.

      In statistics, regression toward (or to) the mean is the phenomenon that if a variable is extreme on its first measurement, it will tend to be closer to the average on its second measurement—and if it is extreme on its second measurement, it will tend to have been closer to the average on its first.

      Note the use of "the average". That is most definitely not "median", except in cases where the median is equal to the mean.

    19. Re:So medium is now a small? by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Birkenstock granola craigslist killed newspaper journalism. Umm, Yay?

    20. Re:So medium is now a small? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Medium is just bitter that people are finding no value in visit click-bait or other sites that are just fluff. Blurbs about the cardashians(sp) or latest DNC press release is something very few people are interested in reading.

    21. Re:So medium is now a small? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      cardashians(sp)

      Is that really easier than editing the inaccurate representation of letters in a word?

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    22. Re:So medium is now a small? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the choice to maintain offices in areas that are ridiculously expensive to work and live in has something do do with their financial troubles....

  2. 150 person company - stuff that matters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    really?

    1. Re:150 person company - stuff that matters? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      150 people to run a blogging platform, no less. I wonder what the org chart looked like. Hopefully most of them were in commissioned ad sales, but fifty seems like it would be big for that kind of business anyway.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:150 person company - stuff that matters? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I have to agree. Back in 2008 I got laid off with 50 other people from a company roughy the same size (they dropped all the new hires with 2 years or less working there) and no news about that.
      Sure I understand covering big companies cutting thousands of people or a big unit being dropped getting some coverage. But a small company with less than 5 years of operating having proplems and reducing in size is depressing and I feel bad for those who got the axe. But it isn't so news worthy.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re: 150 person company - stuff that matters? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I guess you don't actually work for any business do you?
      A 100+ size company may have 1 or 2 HR. Who mainly is working on staffing and tracking vacations and sick days.
      Heavy on sales people and nearly equal part product creation and delivery. The CEO for small companies is often split across the department and often the guy who is plunging the toilets

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:150 person company - stuff that matters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason it is "newsworthy" here is because of all the clickbait articles from Medium that got posted to Slashdot.

    5. Re:150 person company - stuff that matters? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      150 people to run a blogging platform, no less. I wonder what the org chart looked like.

      Medium should have no more than 20 people, and that would still be considered inefficient for what they are and do, IMHO.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    6. Re: 150 person company - stuff that matters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Retard... CEO cannot plunge toilet in women's bathroom or there would be more problems for HR to fix. And don't ask what happens if CEO is transsexual.

  3. the start of .crash 2.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    God I hope so. So fucking overdue.

    1. Re:the start of .crash 2.0? by mike2006 · · Score: 2

      Why? That would put more people out of work, we will have less competition, less access to unique content and more reliance on just a few monopolies that simply copy one anothers content. Let me guess you work for Facebook, Microsoft or Google?

    2. Re:the start of .crash 2.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just described ObamaCare.

    3. Re:the start of .crash 2.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's going to happen anyway when net neutrality is finally eliminated.

    4. Re:the start of .crash 2.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Google, Microsoft, Apple and Facebook are all bailed out, you will understand what this truly is.

    5. Re: the start of .crash 2.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hardly. It's the opposite of Obamacare, which forced more people into the market, spread costs, and widened markets. Stop being a Turd-Sucker-Trump toadie.

    6. Re:the start of .crash 2.0? by Mashiki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why? That would put more people out of work, we will have less competition, less access to unique content and more reliance on just a few monopolies that simply copy one anothers content. Let me guess you work for Facebook, Microsoft or Google?

      Because the entire dotcom industry needs a massive correction again. Uber being valued at half the valuation of Intel? More then Ford, GM, or Chrysler? Not seeing a problem here. It's pets.com and their ilk all over again.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    7. Re:the start of .crash 2.0? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Because some people think after such a crash they will take a step back and realize how wrong they are.
      However what normally happens is people will fall back on what they know and not take risks.
      The lesson after the market crashed?
      The liberals say well we need to be more liberal to get ourselves from the conservative Bush administration.
      The conservatives after loosing the election figured that they lost because they weren't conservative enough.

      What actually happens is during the good times people begin to moderate and work with each other and realize that the other side isn't so bad. But after a crash they fall back to their comfortable positions and double down.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:the start of .crash 2.0? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Why can't we have a slow minor correction? Where over valued companies slow down and stop growing. And their downsizing comes from not replacing the natural turnover. Can we hope for slow evolution vs revolution that will make fallout for many positive aspects?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re:the start of .crash 2.0? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Uber being valued at half the valuation of Intel? More then Ford, GM, or Chrysler?

      Everyone wants to invest in the next Google early. Uber could potentially be huge, especially with a fleet of driveless cars. Imagine not needing to own a car yourself because it's cheaper to just call an uber when you need one, and bus/taxi companies going out of business because of it. and GM dying again because no-one wants the hassle of owning a personal car...

      Of course, it's far from clear if it will happen. At least they have the potential though, unlike a lot of the dot-com companies whose plan was basically to get as many users as possible with a free service and then figure out how to monetize it later.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:the start of .crash 2.0? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      We are having exactly that, but it's causing newly minted MBA CEOs to miss their performance targets so they panic by shooting into both feet of the companies they run.

    11. Re:the start of .crash 2.0? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Why can't we have a slow minor correction? Where over valued companies slow down and stop growing.

      People tried, and people warned that's what needed to happen back in 2008/09. When the economy was shit in 08/09 that would have been the perfect time. You know what the response was? We're gonna dump money into the market, turn on the printing presses and go like mad at it. Austerity? Real austerity? Hah. Nope, that's what it was called it was anything but.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    12. Re:the start of .crash 2.0? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Everyone wants to invest in the next Google early. Uber could potentially be huge, especially with a fleet of driveless cars.

      Uber is around 10 years too early. Just like many of the very first automakers, they're at the cutting edge and it will likely fail. Other companies will pick up from where they left off. But the people investing in Uber and driving up the valuation are VC's hoping that they'll get their initial buy-in back before the company goes tits up. Uber's potential is exactly the same as many dotcom companies, lots of flash no actual plan. It's the same reason why if Uber hadn't gotten an infusion of cash from the Chinese buy-in last year, their last quarterly loss would have been $4B-7B. FYI GM and Chrysler were on the verge of bankruptcy with billions in solid and liquid assets in the span of 3 fiscal quarters, Uber doesn't even have that.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    13. Re:the start of .crash 2.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      less access to unique content and more reliance on just a few monopolies that simply copy one anothers content.

      That's baloney. The Internet has millions of websites, and more content being generated than could be consumed in a lifetime. The barriers to entry have never been lower to get your voice on the Internet. It's trivially easy to buy a domain and set up a webserver to run whatever kind of site you want, or to register on one of the huge amount of blogging platforms and blog away your days forever. I'd say that access to unique content is more available than ever, but due to the sheer number of sites out there now, discoverability is the real problem. Nobody surfs the web any more looking for interesting links. Nobody types in URLs to visit a website. Everyone goes to search engines, news aggregators, or social media to get a curated feed of links, looks at one page on a website, and then never comes back. Shareable links are the new economy of the web, but that represents less than 1% of the content out there.

    14. Re:the start of .crash 2.0? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The key difference between Uber and a typical dot-com is that Uber has a revenue stream. It actually charges to use its service, instead of providing it for free.

      I still wouldn't invest, but it's not the same kind of crazy as dot-com. This kind of crazy involves just ignoring taxi laws because... innovation or something means they don't apply to you.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re: the start of .crash 2.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. That's why costs went down. Oh, wait...

    16. Re:the start of .crash 2.0? by haggisns · · Score: 1

      I am reminded of Netflix. The company started out mailing DVDs to homes, they knew the technology and ecosystems would evolve to allow them to stream directly to TVs, but they started with mailing, this is why they called it Netflix and not MailFlix.

    17. Re:the start of .crash 2.0? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Plenty of other things charged users for things during the previous dotcom boom. Almost all of them had some form of revenue stream besides VC injections. Almost all of them followed the laws in the countries they operated in. The difference as you pointed out correctly though, is that Uber believes the law doesn't apply to them. Which of course has led them to multiple criminal and civil cases being filed against them.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    18. Re:the start of .crash 2.0? by SScorpio · · Score: 1

      Then why when they were considering spinning streaming away from mailing were they going to have Netflix be the mailing company?

  4. ServePeople by Luthair · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know what else doesn't serve people? Firing fifty of them right after Christmas because you lost interest in your hobby.

    1. Re:ServePeople by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Medium, the San Francisco-based online publishing platform

      s/online publishing platform/blog/g

      Medium, Macy's.... What's the world coming to? Back in my day, people used to get fired right BEFORE Christmas.

    2. Re: ServePeople by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what I'm talking about.

    3. Re:ServePeople by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at will works both ways.

    4. Re:ServePeople by supercell · · Score: 2

      Doing it right before Christmas, would have been worse. All those ad-blockers have an impact.

    5. Re:ServePeople by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      One less bag of horsehit feeding the gullible. It's not clearly biased, but it is noise where more signal is needed.

      Losing 50 people to win the war on facts is fine at thus point. I'll happily pay my share of unemployment insurance for them.

      Journalism or die.

    6. Re:ServePeople by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      It may not be clearly biased, but the majority of articles hew to a common theme.

      Liberal left memes.

      I've been trying to read Medium for about a year or so. It's difficult. No, it's painful. Medium essentially plugs itself as a forum for writers who just want to write. Wow, that's revolutionary. And the result is a forum for navel-gazing, self-absorbed Millennials, the constantly offended, and whiners of every stripe - except conservative, alt--right, or middle of the road.

      Every time I go to read there, or open my daily update, the first three or four articles make me want to delete my account. Some are merely infantile, some are juvenile, but many are exactly what the mainstream is enamored of; railing against outrage, calling out imagined racism/sexism/misogyny/*phobias. Or decrying their disadvantages, their injuries and failures due to forces aligned against them and all their colleagues, and of course the evil forces running the world.

      It's pretty much not worth my time. And it appeals to a market I am unaware of the value offered. No wonder they are not generating revenue.

      To be fair, the content isn't much different than a lot (a LOT) of ad supported sites.That's perhaps the problem. No value to me, and I may be a sliver of their target market. But it's awful on a regular basis. It can shrink until the dross is scraped off and content improves, no harm done.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    7. Re:ServePeople by trevc · · Score: 1
      ServiceMaster is upholding that tradition.

      Medium, the San Francisco-based online publishing platform

      s/online publishing platform/blog/g

      Medium, Macy's.... What's the world coming to? Back in my day, people used to get fired right BEFORE Christmas.

      ServiceMaster is upholding that tradition.

    8. Re:ServePeople by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doing it right before Christmas, would have been worse. All those ad-blockers have an impact.

      Depends. If you are the type that finances Christmas and then pays for it over the next few months this way is worse. If you got let go before Christmas you would have known not to spend so much.

    9. Re:ServePeople by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      Doing it right before Christmas, would have been worse. All those ad-blockers have an impact.

      Cool. "Adapt," I say. Come up with a way to sell shit other than advertising on the 'net. If there isn't a way and people hate it, uh, it's not going to work. It's amazing that online ads have actually had a function to this point! I pay no attention and avoid them, but that's my personality. I guess others still have "OOH, SHINY" reactions or something. *shrug*

    10. Re:ServePeople by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As they say on the Reddit:

      WEW LAD

      You've got a lot of pent-up hate for your straw-millennial-liberals and you're just spewing "MUH SPESHUL SNOWFLAKE SAFESPAYC BLARGH BLARGH BLAGH" all over the place.

    11. Re:ServePeople by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand... when is a good time to get laid off? Why is Christmas the key holiday? Would it have been better to lay them off before Christmas? Then they would have been laid off right after Thanksgiving. Before Thanksgiving? Then it would have been right after Halloween. Before that? Columbus Day. Etc...

  5. Re:Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't worry my sad friend. Donald will get you a job mining coal any day now, and you won't have to spend your pathetic existence trying to bring everyone else down to your level of despair anymore.

  6. Re:Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    their*

  7. Who is medium? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've never even heard of them before? Are they important?

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    1. Re:Who is medium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Farts with a Bang used to spam slashdot with articles published on Medium, the unnecessarily graphic-heavy blog-hosting site. So, no.

    2. Re:Who is medium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is Google?

    3. Re:Who is medium? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      I asked Google if Medium was important and/or notable and it didn't answer sufficiently, actually.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    4. Re:Who is medium? by Luthair · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They're a crappy centralized blog site that had a terrible layout with a huge font rendering it unreadable .

    5. Re: Who is medium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are we talking about the same Medium? Hardly graphics intensive. While the front page has a graphics for each article and articles have rather large graphics for the few that they have, most articles are mostly text. The problem I see is the unnecessarily large font, not graphics.

    6. Re:Who is medium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually think the layout is pretty good when the authors don't put gigantic header images and I make the font 2px smaller.

    7. Re:Who is medium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had no idea who they were so I went to medium.com and I still couldn't fathom what they were about beyond the terrible layout with a huge font rendering it unreadable, so I wound up going to Wikipedia. Is it me or does this kind of app designed for readers on the go shit represent the new norm?

    8. Re:Who is medium? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Their layout is good, If that is the exact layout you want, and don't want bold or different sized fonts or different fonts, or even different colors; or any thing else that might come from having an ounce of creativity in design.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:Who is medium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bunch of self-important hipsters.

      Basically the Twitter of blogs.

    10. Re:Who is medium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably no more important than any international company that only employs 150 or less employees.

    11. Re:Who is medium? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I've never even heard of them before? Are they important?

      Does Starts-With-A-Bang ring a bell? Horrible horrible pseudo scientific garbage being spammed onto Slashdot so Medium gets more page views?

      You're UID is low enough that I imagine not only do you know who Medium are but you probably also contributed mod points to mod up comments saying "Stop linking to medium.com garbage"

    12. Re:Who is medium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least they tried to buck the cliche of "85% size 85% gray body text" articles that most Web 2.0 sites used, and I could actually read them without having to use ctrl-plus. On the other hand. I had to use ctrl-minus to read more than a paragraph at a time.

    13. Re:Who is medium? by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Does Starts-With-A-Bang ring a bell? Horrible horrible pseudo scientific garbage being spammed onto Slashdot so Medium gets more page views?

      No, but that's likely because I tend to avoid Slashdot summaries that meet that criteria typically.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    14. Re:Who is medium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      troll or idiot?

    15. Re:Who is medium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A crappy imitation of DuckDuckGo

    16. Re:Who is medium? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      He was one of the most prolific self promoters on Slashdot. https://slashdot.org/index2.pl... He eventually moved to Forbes which caused people to hate Forbes just as much.

    17. Re:Who is medium? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      The depressing thing about Starts-with-a-Bang was that from his other online information, he did actually know what he was talking about in terms of science and specifically astronomy. But he seems to have deliberately dumbed it down severely for the clickbait platforms of first Medium and then Forbes. Both of which went onto my noScript and Adblock shit lists because of him.

      I note he's been quiet for a time. I hope this means that he's back in paid employment and no longer having to whore out his braincells to Medorbes or Forium.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    18. Re: Who is medium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tridiot?

  8. "He blamed the entire concept of ..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey buddy, if you can't beat them, join them. Problem solved.

  9. Re:Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry my sad friend. Donald will get you a job mining coal any day now, and you won't have to spend your pathetic existence trying to bring everyone else down to your level of despair anymore.

    Yea 'cuz there are a lot of coal mining jobs in the Bay area...

  10. Medium is well named by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The post's are neither rare nor well done.

    1. Re: Medium is well named by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Funniest thibg ever said hands down

    2. Re:Medium is well named by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Nice to see you've come back from the dead and have decided to post to Slashdot, Mr. Kovacs!

      That was a really funny paraphrasing.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Medium is well named by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apostrophe plurals are also neither rare nor well done. Post's would mean something belongs to a post (possessive), or post is (contraction). Neither makes sense.

    4. Re: Medium is well named by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they do give you the beef?

  11. bad business model by ooloorie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Evan Williams blames a "broken system" of financing media through advertising.

    I think a more likely problem with Medium is entering the crowded commodity market of blogging platforms with a bad business model and a staff of 150 for something that should take no more than a handful of people.

    Of course, he is worth $1.7 billion, so what does he care.

    1. Re:bad business model by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I'm not particularly a fan of Medium, and it may be that in this instance, blaming the "broken system" is an excuse. However, that doesn't mean he's wrong. The system is broken. It is not serving people well.

    2. Re:bad business model by ooloorie · · Score: 2

      The system is broken. It is not serving people well.

      Works fine for me. How is it failing for you?

    3. Re:bad business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's serving people fine. Most people want to read garbage so there's a lot of garbage published. There's still tons of quality content available.

    4. Re:bad business model by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It encourages click-bait and other advertiser-friendly content.

      The ideal would be for journalism to be purely about presenting factual information in a digestible, engaging way that helped people understand the world and participate in democracy. It should also offer longer, deep investigations that are in the public interest.

      The practice journalists need to sell their product, which means getting people to click on headlines and not pissing off advertisers too much. It would benefit everyone if we could find a better way to fund journalism that preventing those things influencing it so much.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:bad business model by nine-times · · Score: 1

      It's not working for you. You're just so misinformed that you don't know how badly it's serving you.

    6. Re:bad business model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Medium was never journalism, nor is other, less crappy blogging journalism. That's one of the great fallacies underlying all this: giving every Tom, Dick, and Harry a soapbox does not make people "understand the world" or "participate in democracy." The social-media addict who blames Russia and racists and corporations for everything under the sun because, well, everyone else says so (i.e. living by rumor, which is all social media really does) is no better a citizen than the 1960's suburbanite who got along with his fellow citizens, held down a job, and served his community as an upstanding member of various real-life associations. In fact, the latter was more likely to consume responsible journalism rather than internet rumor, and he spent more time making real-life contributions to society and less "raising awareness" (signaling virtue) and spreading gossip.

    7. Re:bad business model by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      The ideal would be for journalism to be purely about presenting factual information in a digestible, engaging way that helped people understand the world and participate in democracy. It should also offer longer, deep investigations that are in the public interest.

      And who determines what is "factual" and "in the public interest"?

    8. Re:bad business model by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      It's not working for you. You're just so misinformed that you don't know how badly it's serving you.

      You have no idea what sources I use to stay informed or how "misinformed" I am. So, don't you worry your pretty little head about how the media are failing me.

      Try again: how are the media failing you?

    9. Re:bad business model by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Other journalists. That system works fairly well - when one media outlet prints something demonstrably false, the others are always quick to jump on it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:bad business model by nine-times · · Score: 1

      By no longer being news, and being tabloid journalism instead. By being clickbait instead of useful information. I go through a lot of different news sources, and many of them are still full of nonsense.

    11. Re:bad business model by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      I disagree that that system works fairly well. Before the Internet, journalists had turned into a powerful little oligarchy with way too much power, power they wielded primarily for their own benefit.

    12. Re:bad business model by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Sure, it works well now because people have easy access to a plurality of media. Well, unless they live in their little alt-right bubble or whatever.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:bad business model by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      You were saying that "the system of journalists checking on each other works fairly well". That is what I disagree with: history shows that that system fails badly, and it is still failing badly. In the US, for example, journalists overwhelmingly lean Democratic and those biases come through in shared errors in reporting.

  12. One problem with this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's New Hampshire. Who the fuck cares...

    1. Re:One problem with this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even still, if it's the sort of "news site" that causes its readers to write incoherent diatribes like this, then it's best avoided out of principal.

  13. Too much overhead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easier to stay afloat when you're not running 3+ offices with 150 employees

    1. Re: Too much overhead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cost of installing multi-gender transexual friendky restrooms did them in.

  14. % of workforce , then u wouldn't complain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah that is the thing, such a small number of people running a somewhat well known website. 50 is indeed a laughable small number. The key to make it sound bigger is to use percent of workforce. Like they do With Twitter here is a headline where both % and raw numbers are used
    http://venturebeat.com/2016/10/27/twitter-confirms-its-laying-off-9-of-its-workforce-roughly-350-employees/

    1. Re: % of workforce , then u wouldn't complain by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      If I see a % in an article I expect it is an attempt to lie.
      Because you can hide a lot of data in these numbers.
      I had a failure in a project I was working on which had a 1% error rate (due to org's blind trust in a vendor)
      However over 300,000 data element crated a massive problem to be fixed.
      99% if the data is fine. But that 1% caused a lot of trouble because of the data size and volume of the application meant 1% error rates caused production problems multiple times a day.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  15. Re:Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yea 'cuz there are a lot of coal mining jobs in the Bay area...

    Perhaps you should notify the President-Elect the lack of coal mining jobs in the San Francisco area! He'll bring coal jobs back, even to places that never had them!

  16. Donald Trump promises to get the jobs back! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His plan? Eh, who cares, he's going to sell California to the Japanese anyway.

  17. No US Gov Subsidies, No Medium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ev and others in his ponzi scheme were desperately banking on Hilly winning!

    Why? Billions in US Gov subsidies to fund cocaine-Mt Dew-Starbucks enamas.

    Reality! Hilly lost!

    So for Ev et al to "keep it up" enama wise, they have to "poop" the staff.

    Too Bad! Haahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha

    1. Re:No US Gov Subsidies, No Medium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, you come off as a moron when you keep misspelling the same word. But you're a Trump supporter, so I guess that's being redundant.

  18. Re:Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "there head devops"??

    Do you even English, brah?

  19. Re:Lol by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    Well, there are some bathhouses where you can go exploring shafts if you like.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  20. Re:Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Yea 'cuz there are a lot of coal mining jobs in the Bay area..."

    Actually...
    There were several large Coal Mines in the East Bay, supplying much of the Central Coast over a century ago.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Diamond_Mines_Regional_Preserve

    Not very good coal, but then again Trump isn't a very good man. Since the mines are on Public Lands, they are now fair game. The Rose Hill Cemetery contains the remains of many children, who traditionally worked in the mines along with their parents.

  21. I care because? by Snotnose · · Score: 1, Insightful

    1) Never heard of the company
    2) Laid of 50 peeps, kinda insignificant
    3) Offices closed are 3k miles from me.


    Oh, it was some startup trying to feed me ads. So 4) fuck you.

    1. Re:I care because? by Snotnose · · Score: 1

      How exactly is my comment offtopic? Whomever modded me, chime in any time.

    2. Re:I care because? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless I misclicked, I'm pretty sure I modded you Overrated, so I think it was someone else?

    3. Re:I care because? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Oh, it was some startup trying to feed me ads.

      They still haven't added ads to their site. I don't know what their monetization strategy is.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  22. Who is medium?-Smalltalk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Depends. Did you read the recent Smalltalk article? Yeah, it was on their site.

    1. Re:Who is medium?-Smalltalk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Totally, bruh. I read it right after the ones on Simula, Modula-2, Algol68 and Fortran77.

  23. Translate that for me? by dave562 · · Score: 1

    Based on the summary, the CEO seems to be saying that because corporations pay for advertising as a way to drive crappy 'news' to the forefront of the Internet, his site (which it is implied) has non-crappy 'content' that 'advertisers' (read corporations) will not pay for.

    Is that a long winded way of telling his ex-employees that his business model /really/ is sound, but the man is keeping them down?

  24. Alternative financial models to eyeballs-for-ads by shanen · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Based on my comments posted over on Medium (but largely applicable to Slashdot, too, so you can substitute in most places):

    Pretty sure I looked at Medium a while ago, and if so, today’s visit reminded me why I wasn’t interested. Same sad story, same verse.

    There’s a fundamental mismatch here. Many people really do want to know about the problems of the day and even want to help make the world better. Many people want to learn new things so they can make better choices and be more free.

    Such goals are irrelevant to the advertisers who are paying for the “free” websites. They would actually prefer docile robots who will quietly obey the ads and buy the toothpaste or politicians. The kind of news they want to pay for is disaster porn like CNN or profitable propaganda like FAUX “news”.

    Apparently Medium is not succeeding with what appears to be click-bait approach. Are they desperate enough to consider REAL alternatives? Here are a couple of the top of my head:

    (1) Sell SOLUTIONS to the problems. After each article about a problem there should be some links to proposed projects to help SOLVE the problem. Interested readers could look over the projects and buy a share, perhaps $10 a pop, and if enough wannabe-helpful donors agree, then the project would get funded, and later evaluated and the results reported on. The sponsor should be a charitable umbrella organization that would make sure each project proposal was complete and a percentage of funded projects would go back to the websites that helped publicize the problem (like Medium).

    (2) Auction my valuable time in LIMITED amounts in exchange for sponsored news. The intermediary (which might be Medium) would have good reason to protect my privacy and personal information in order to protect their involvement, and the companies that are selling goods and services I actually want would get more reliable access to the customers who actually WANT to buy what they’re selling.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  25. Blogging != journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i still believe it's the equivalent of the meme texting is for teenagers

  26. Re:Alternative financial models to eyeballs-for-ad by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    The biggest problem with news reporting is that once news is out there, it's free. If you spend a year doing an in-depth investigation, or even if you just bag an exclusive interview with some interesting person, the moment you publish it every other news outlet repeats the interesting bits and if you are lucky throws in a link to your original post.

    Some companies have managed to turn this into a business. Take Reuters and AP, for example. Other news outlets pay them a subscription to access their stories and then reprint them wholesale, or with minimal changes. Maybe Medium could start providing a similar service to other media outlets.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  27. Re:FreeKeene! Great free content- for New Hampshir by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    Wait... you think people demanding we let them drive on roads we all share without proof that they are capable of doing so with a modicum of responsibility and skill, or worse with convincing proof that they cannot (known as 'license suspended') are somehow heroes for liberty ?

    When your actions endanger the lives of uncountable innocent people - they are NOT an action of liberty. Regulating you from doing so is not government overreach - it's government doing exactly what it exists - above all - to do. On the contrary - not letting you drive with a suspended license is PROTECTING liberty - it protects MY liberty to walk the streets without an unreasonably high risk that the people driving on it will fail to stop at zebra crossings.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  28. Re:Alternative financial models to eyeballs-for-ad by wicka_wicka · · Score: 2

    I don't think you know what Medium is...this is like suggesting that a paper company is at fault for the failure of a newspaper. Medium is a publishing platform, nothing more. You accuse them of using a "click-bait approach," but there are thousands of sites running on Medium, each with their own approach.

    --
    hi
  29. Small medium at large by UnixUnix · · Score: 1

    ...was an original, meme-before-memes headline, years ago

  30. bu-huu by campuscodi · · Score: 1

    bu-huu, we can't find advertisers that don't want to censor our content... bu-huu

    1. Re: bu-huu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You misspelled 'bu'.

      And 'huu'. :(

  31. Expenses expensive by SumterLiving · · Score: 1

    Medium is headquartered in SF with offices in NYC and DC? Those three cities are probably all in the "top-15 list of the most expensive office space" cities in the U.S. Is it possible the long list of start-up and "interruption" companies aren't really good stewards of their investor's money? Why not buy/lease office space in places like downtown Gary, Indiana or Glasgow, Montana? The overhead would certainly be a lot cheaper and once they figure out their real business model and start making real money, they can move to the glitz and glamour cities.

    1. Re:Expenses expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But then no one would see the beautiful offices they built... *

      Ok, the SF one I looked at is warehouse shabby chic basic but location looks very pricey as hell!

      OMG, I calculated what it costs to have that PING PONG TABLE in downtown SF...holy shit...you can rent my whole 6000 sq ft warehouse for that in Spokane :O

  32. Out business model isn't working out so.... by EvilSS · · Score: 1

    The vast majority of articles, videos, and other "content" we all consume on a daily basis is paid for -- directly or indirectly -- by corporations who are funding it in order to advance their goals. And it is measured, amplified, and rewarded based on its ability to do that. Period.

    Ev noted, continuing

    Apparently we suck at this, and those corporate overloards aren't paying us enough to keep the lights on so we will have to find another way.

    --
    I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  33. The facts by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Medical and insurance costs have been rising for decades. Overall, under ACA/Obamacare, they rose more slowly. There are outlier cases on both sides, and of course the ones you hear the most about are from the people who see unusually higher costs. I'm one of the other outliers; but my costs went down considerably and my access to healthcare went up. Same for my SO.

    The situation is far from perfect. The ACA either needs tweaks, or we need to transition to a socially responsible form of single payer, which means straight-up tax-based medical care. What we don't need is a return to pre-existing condition death and suffering consequences, and under/non-cared-for poor people.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  34. Didn't see that coming by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    *rimshot*

  35. Yay! Fuck Medium! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember when their bottom-of-the-barrel "articles" were being posted to slashdot every day.

  36. Surfing vs Search-engineing by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Nobody surfs the web any more looking for interesting links. Nobody types in URLs to visit a website.

    Nonsense. My logs show all kinds of link-clickery on actual links to other sites (as opposed to the spammy crap generated by ad vendors.) My logs also show a majority of people arrive from other sites - not google, etc.

    Google, by its very nature, aims at the mediocre. It ranks search results by "popularity", and uses multiple metrics to determine who/what is most popular. Popular means median/average. That's because they have no way to actually determine when content is most relevant, because that requires subject-matter expertise — so far, at least, that requires human skills. Not that Google can't find worthy content; it absolutely can, but you certainly can't count on it being at the top of the results unless your Google-fu is master level and you know exactly what you're looking for.

    Subject-matter expertise is the precise thing that drives outlinking on a decently curated website. In my areas of expertise, when I pop a link into my serious content, I'm doing so because the linked site actually contains further expertise. Not because the thing is "popular."

    That's why hand-linking, and related surfing, is capable of a much higher quality web experience. Granted some number of people don't do this and don't have the attention span to actually read anything more than a text bite, preferring to be spoon-fed with video and twitterized, pre-digested pap. But quality web sites were never about appealing to those who don't read for content. There are more high-quality sites out there than one could have any hope of consuming, even in areas of knowledge that are fairly esoteric. I know this because that's where I spend most of my web-surfing time, reading significant content written by people who know what they're talking about in areas of interest of mine that are not mainstream. In the high-value portion of the mainstream, such as politics, news, and social analysis, there are even more high-quality sites. Just because many get their content from Drudge, Huffington, or (vomit) Facebook, doesn't mean that quality content in those areas doesn't exist. It just means some people never see it.

    As long as the costs to get online remain as low as they are, I don't see any of this changing, either. Costs me a trivial amount to keep my websites up and running, and to put a lot of quality information and capability out for people who share my interests.

    Those with their nose buried in text- video- and sound-bite class "apps" and exclusively chasing Google searches will often think that's the entire online world, as the parent post has asserted, but that isn't the case now, it never was, and it seems entirely unlikely that it will ever be so.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  37. Re:FreeKeene! Great free content- for New Hampshir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait... you think people demanding we let them drive on roads we all share without proof that they are capable of doing so with a modicum of responsibility and skill, or worse with convincing proof that they cannot (known as 'license suspended') are somehow heroes for liberty ?

    Hey, it's the system society uses for sex: Cross an age line, you can do whatever you want. Society seems to be perfectly happy with the chaos and destroyed lives that arise from that particular bit of underthink; so why not drop the whole inconvenient test-for-competence thing with driving, too? Hell, they let incompetent-to-drive old people renew without even blinking. It's not like they have actually developed a system that makes driving significantly more safe. That would take work, whereas low-effort, one-size-fits-all rote behavior is government's go-to solution for just about everything.

  38. There should be no profit motive by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    The biggest problem with news reporting is that once news is out there, it's free.

    It's only a problem because we allow news gathering and dissemination to be a for-profit enterprise; everything that derives from that will be (and is) tainted by valuing money first, which in turn means that facts aren't the goal, whatever content draws the most eyeballs is the goal.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:There should be no profit motive by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I agree, but I'm not sure what the alternative is. Government funded will lead to accusations of those outlets being little more than propaganda, although I suppose the BBC proves that it is possible to be independent and funded by a licence fee.

      Charity perhaps, but then you have the same problem with needing to woo donors instead of advertisers.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:There should be no profit motive by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Charity flat out is insufficient to the needs. If it wasn't, we would have no homeless, no one without proper healthcare, no one going hungry, no starving stray animals, no unnecessary suffering in general. There's no truth at all underlying the various absurd claims that charity could replace government redistribution in our society at this point in time. Selfishness is rampant, and highly thought of, in the public mindset; those of us who contribute (and I do, a lot, both money and time) get our ears bent a lot hearing about the profound limits of charitable efforts imposed by lack of funding.

      Certainly charity is fine — as far as it goes. But it doesn't go nearly far enough. Government taxation and subsequent redistribution is the only solution to these types of problems, and the only possible significant amplifier for fact-based, unbiased news gathering. I agree, the BBC does much better than US news. They definitely have visible cultural bias, they're not a bastion of fact-based reporting by any means, but they certainly show up most US media outlets as the pap-fests they truly are.

      But I don't think we're ever going to see it in the US. US news is an embedded social mores pandering corporate money-trough (PBS as well), and our government is almost entirely steered by corporate money, both directly and indirectly. If we want accurate news, we have to seek it out somewhere other than commercial news gathering operations. Some of us already do.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    3. Re:There should be no profit motive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So my local, state, and national governments take 50% of my money and you complain that the crumbs I'm giving to charity is not enough. If I wasn't supporting so many government employees, I'd have more money to give to the homeless.

  39. Nothing more? Hardly. by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Medium is a publishing platform, nothing more.

    That is incorrect. Medium is a publishing platform, but of the many writing efforts it carries, the ones that it pushes absolutely define it as a highly biased site in terms of what people are most likely to see. It is not in any way a level platform for its writers. Spend just a little time considering which articles they push to the front page, and you'll realize this.

    There are plenty of worthy efforts that hit Medium. Very few people ever get to see them, though.

    It's all about the eyeballs; because it's all about the money.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  40. He blamed the entire concept of "ad-driven media" by cant_get_a_good_nick · · Score: 1

    Umm, that's the way it's been for years.... You should have thought of "the way people are paid suck and will kill us down the road" before opening the third office.

  41. Why on earth is this news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Been laid of from many internet startups that grew too fast with no clear business plan. 50 people lost their jobs? That's really not many people at all, and they'll all (probably) walk into new ones. Boo hoo. Why is this news?

  42. Ash-Fox gets smoked for stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & Ash-Fox stalking me 20x++ https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10073651&cid=53610991/ blown away https://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10024927&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=53533417/ technically for it as his reward, lol!

    APK

    P.S.=> Quit stalking me Ash-Fox, or I'll keep exposing you in your sockpuppet self-upmodded posts of yours... apk

    1. Re:Ash-Fox gets smoked for stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you unable to see the hypocrisy of replying to a post that has nothing to do with you to accuse the person of stalking?

      Dozens of people have told you, flat out, that they refuse to reply to your posts with their usual accounts because you then follow them and post this sort of nonsense in whatever discussion they are involved in. You keep bookmarks and lists of previous conversations with people and obsessively link to them and reference them whilst replying to every post they make - while at the same time haranguing them for 'running' if they refuse to reply to you.

      _Your_ behaviour is closer to 'stalking' and your justification, when you bother to address the issue at all, is that you consider what you are doing justified because someone disagreed with you or objected to your spam.

      Your accusation is ridiculous.

      YT

    2. Re:Ash-Fox gets smoked for stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's obvious you're Ash-Fox replying anonymously to try defend yourself. Dozens of links apk posted of you stalking him are impossible to deny. Colossal fail for you Ash-Fox. Bigger fail than your fail on browser addons apk posted.

    3. Re:Ash-Fox gets smoked for stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obvious troll is obvious.

      Stop being boring. You've made better shit-stirring pro-APK posts in the past. Up your game!

      At first I thought you were just playing 'let's you and him fight', but APK is entirely self-fuelled. I swear he'd argue with a mirror, and his inability to identify universal condemnation obviates any benefit from 'at least someone supports me'. I've seen other folk assume you were an APK sock, but his language use seems pathalogical - I'm unconvinced he's capable of the sort of grammar you use. Which just leaves you tagging along behind the train-wreck that is APK and ... well, trolling weakly.

      There, there. You can try again in a bit. It happens to everyone. No. Really. I'm not disappointed. Just relax and try not to think about it too much.

      YT

    4. Re:Ash-Fox gets smoked for stalking by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      You've been told to stop involving me and others in your criminal activities. You are in direct violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Slashdot is not a platform your illegal spam and illegal comments. Your activities have only caused Slashdot to tighten filters to the point that insightful commentary is now difficult to try to deal with you.

      You have previously violated on Slashdot privacy rights, promoted offers without the express written consent of Slashdot Media, your content is destructive due to what has happened with Slashdot filters and embedding advertising without the express written consent of Slashdot media. All of these are against the Slashdot's "Terms of Use" and in turn you have violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

      Your criminal activities are unacceptable and your continued persistence after being advised of such means you willfully and intentionally violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Slashdot's "Terms of Use" to further propogate your spam without a care that you are responsibile for further ruining discourse on Slashdot.

      You've been asked to stop, you've been told to stop, you've even been banned and you continue. Your persistance in unethical and criminal behaviour is disgusting.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    5. Re:Ash-Fox gets smoked for stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YT I read about you getting blown down by apk while you were eating your words dying of poor dietary habits causing malnutrition YT https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10083863&cid=53615315/ hahahaha

    6. Re:Ash-Fox gets smoked for stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ashfox you don't own Slashdot. You're shown stalking apk https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... failing technically https://ask.slashdot.org/comme... and you've been asked to stop stalking him. Get over your delusions!

    7. Re:Ash-Fox gets smoked for stalking by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Cease and desist your criminal activities immediately, APK. Your disgusting behaviour is unwanted.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    8. Re:Ash-Fox gets smoked for stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got schooled by apk AGAIN count stalkula? Yes. You got your ass blown down both barrells https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org] seems like its' a habit for you. Bad one unless you are a sado-masochist, *snicker, chortle!* projecting away stalking apk!

    9. Re:Ash-Fox gets smoked for stalking by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      This sock puppeting is still in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Slashdot's "Terms of Use", cease and desist your disgusting unethical and criminal activities immediately, APK. You are knowingly violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Slashdot's "Terms of Use" and you are adding more to your infractions.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    10. Re:Ash-Fox gets smoked for stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sign of the cross + "Back, count stalkula! Back!!!" hahahahaha R o T f L m A o

    11. Re:Ash-Fox gets smoked for stalking by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Cease these criminal acitivites, immediately.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    12. Re:Ash-Fox gets smoked for stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sign of the cross + "Back, count stalkula: https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10073651&cid=53610991/ Back!" hahaha R o T f L m A o...

    13. Re:Ash-Fox gets smoked for stalking by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Immediately cease these criminal activities.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    14. Re:Ash-Fox gets smoked for stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sign of the cross + "Back, count stalkula: https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10073651&cid=53610991/ BACK!" hahaha R o T f L m A o...

    15. Re:Ash-Fox gets smoked for stalking by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Your persistent willful criminal activities have revealed exactly what kind of person you are. Stop involving Slashdot and others in your crimes.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    16. Re:Ash-Fox gets smoked for stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sign of the cross + "Back, count stalkula: https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10073651&cid=53610991/ - BACK!" hahaha R o T f L m A o...

    17. Re:Ash-Fox gets smoked for stalking by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Cease your criminal activities immediately, APK.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    18. Re:Ash-Fox gets smoked for stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sign of the cross + "Back, count stalkula: https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10073651&cid=53610991/ - BACK!" hahaha R o T f L m A o...

    19. Re:Ash-Fox gets smoked for stalking by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      You have been told to cease your criminal acts and you still persist, APK.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    20. Re:Ash-Fox gets smoked for stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sign of the cross + "Back, count stalkula: https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10073651&cid=53610991/ - BACK!" hahaha R o T f L m A o...

    21. Re:Ash-Fox gets smoked for stalking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sign of the cross + "Back, count stalkula: https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=10073651&cid=53610991/ - BACK!" hahaha R o T f L m A o...

  43. I hope Reason is next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those smug self-satisfied neckbeard libertarians don't deserve a platform

  44. Re:FreeKeene! Great free content- for New Hampshir by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have no right to safety nor police protection. The supreme court has REPEATEDLY ruled that. Being raped? Cops don't have to come stop it (yea- actual supreme court cases). Our system doesn't work the way you think it does- but even if it did I don't think we should sacrifice liberty for a little bit of safety. The reason we have most 'safety' laws is because of private corporations lobbying- but sometimes it's police associations or similar (one need only look at where the funds go and one can see that its a revenue generator for both police and cities across the country and around the world). What we have now is security theatre. Your letting emotions rather than logic drive your beliefs.

    Drivers licenses don't stop arrogant ass holes from driving and the government uses drivers licenses to do stuff that is far from "to keep people safe" and things like license plates even endanger democracy by giving police and government the ability to track, intimidate, and arrest people who have unpopular (to them) political views and are politically active (and they are using it for that purpose- they have 'high risk' driver lists they utilize to target political activists and those whom they don't like for harassment/arrest... nobody drives perfectly all the time so it is very easy for the police to pickup on 'high risk' or really political targets they don't like and find BS reasons to pull em over because of modern mounted automated license plate readers that scan and track as many as 30,000 cars a shift).

    The majority of suspended licenses are unrelated to safety issues.They will for instance suspend peoples drivers licenses for unpaid non-moving violation fines (parking tickets for instance), under-age graffiting (it's actually that they'll delay giving you 'permission' to get a drivers license, at least this was true in NY maybe 10-15 years ago), and unpaid child support (which humorously is often the result of arrogant judges deciding father x has degree x and therefore should be able to making 100,000 yr but in reality father can't find a job within his area of study and makes 30,000 a year in an area that costs 50,000 minimally just to survive)

  45. Re:Alternative financial models to eyeballs-for-ad by shanen · · Score: 1

    It sounds like you're referring to the "scoop" problem? There was an extra value in being first because of the delays in publishing or even getting it on a later news problem. That part has basically been crushed out of the system by Internet speeds.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  46. Re:Alternative financial models to eyeballs-for-ad by shanen · · Score: 1

    I basically agree with you that I know little about Medium. My fuzzy recollection is that it sounded like a good idea, but when I looked at it, the reality was pretty much click-bait. The advertising links seemed rather weak, and that seems to be confirmed by the financial results of the article.

    I'm suggesting a more general approach to funding better journalism. I've seen a number of minor variations on the old standards, but so far nothing I'd "invest" in.

    --
    Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
  47. Not surprising - it's their editorial policies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I got banned on Medium because I said something that I and many others believe is true but was not politically correct with the ultra-Marxist/Left/SJW crowd. So like most of "mainstream media", some animals are more equal than others, and when you are the unequal, you walk away. Sort of like how Trump got elected. So I'm hardly surprised they are having problems.