Ah yes, just like how free speech means corporations must be allowed to bribe politicians.

But they're people! Well, only in that one instance and not in any others that would allow punishments levied against people to be applied to businesses.

Like, if I sold poison that killed millions of people every year, I'd get the death penalty.
- Maybe you should have thought of that before you became peasants.

Didn't you know? Disabling ad blockers ensures free speech and apparently may also peacefully end the current crisis in the middle east... oh, did I mention it helps with world hunger too?

Don't worry we only serve "ethical" ads.
- Free range?
It'll also make your penis 10 inches long
- Finally, a free* reduction surgery!
Apparently it also erradicates every major disease
Itll also fix the Israel Palestine conflict.

We are dedicated to safe and ethical advertising practices

Mates, that ship has long sailed

There are ethical ad services, but I've never seen outside of one random blog site.
- Overcast iOS app comes to mind.
What gets me about them (and any other sites really) saying that is there are safer ways in showing ads and that’s just hosting them from their domain instead of selling page space to random ad buyers.

Guess that’s too much trouble and not enough profit for these corporations.
- Absolutely. I have no problem displaying a few ads with my content if it results in better content. If it’s done responsibly, which it never is. Instead, it’s always an abusive relationship.

Corporations are not people, therefore do not have a right to free speech.

Wasn't that the whole crux of Citizens United?
- CU vs FEC was specifically about campaign financing, but yeah basically ruled that organizations like corporations are protected by 1A, and money counts as free speech.
  
  Which is obviously bullshit on every level, but just one way that a SCOTUS with a few corrupt individuals can destroy democracy for an entire country.
Corporations are people and there should be a jail for them and a gallows.
In reality, no, you're right. Legally though, they are. And we are second class citizens.
I disagree. If you think USA today or any other news outlet shouldn't have free speech then why bother with free speech to begin with.
- I don't think USA today or any other outlet should be protected. I do think the reporters that work there should be protected.
  
  Corporations should be held accountable for what they say or "strongly encourage" others to say. Individuals should be protected if they get things wrong, though.

I allow USA Today to speak freely, including speaking their ad frames and images.

But that doesn’t mean I’m compelled to listen to everything they say.

USA Today: speech isn’t free if I’m forced to listen to it.

Well you're not forced. You don't actually have to go to their website at all.

They seem to be making the argument that if you want some of their content, you have to accept all of it (ads included). Of course, that's absurd. I can pick up a printed newspaper (if those still exist) and skip right to the comics if I want, and bypass the sports and classifieds entirely if I wish. I can pick up a book or album and only enjoy a single chapter or track. You get the idea.
- While I agree with you in principle, I'm not sure the newspaper example supports your position, although it is an apt analogy.
  
  I would imagine that the counter argument would take the form of something like, "Yes, you don't have to read the whole paper, but you can't just buy the comics. You buy the whole paper, get access to the whole thing, and the ads come with it. Similarly, with our web presence, in order to access everything, whether you choose to consume it all or not, the ads must come as a part of it."
  
  Personally, I don't fully agree with either that argument or yours, can see the merits and flaws of both, and fall somewhere in the middle.
  
  I'd argue that while they're within their rights to create, distribute, bundle, and price their content as they see fit, just like the current debate with social media companies, your monitor is your own personal, privately owned platform, and you shouldn't/can't be forced to offer a platform to any content you don't wish to publish (to your audience of one). So you're perfectly within your rights to want and attempt to only view the content you wish to see, while they're also perfectly within their rights to want and attempt to package their content in such a way that links their articles with the advertisements of their sponsors.
  
  So at that point, it's just an arms race between the producer doing their best to force ads onto screens and consumers doing their best to avoid same. Neither side is morally right or wrong, and while there likely is a middle ground that wild be acceptable to both parties, there's zero good faith between the two sides which would be necessary to establish that middle ground.
- I don’t think they’re arguing that the ads are part of the free speech, I think they’re arguing the ads are a revenue source that allows them to fund free speech. Blocking ads in this case is more akin to sitting down at the newsstand for two hours while you read the paper, then putting the paper back without having paid for anything. Yes online advertising has become a massive breach of privacy, but they have no obligation to give away their product for free, and looking at ads is how you pay for it.
  
  Free speech ≠ free beer.

"We believe in free speech, so you should let us sell your data."

See, if it's hard to get my data, suddenly it becomes more valuable. These organizations try harder and harder to get to it, and really won't stop. And really, once it's out, it's out.

So I'm just gonna make my data worthless. Fuckin everyone can have it what the hell do I care. I was among the first on Facebook when we had no idea what was happening. Phone numbers, email addresses, home addresses, bare ass to the world. It's all out there already, no going back in the tube.

I don't see many ads, so who cares if they have a better idea of what to show me. I don't spend frivolously, and don't buy from websites I don't trust, so what even if I do see some more relevant ads. They're ads. I'm not paying attention anyway.

I'm not giving out answers to security questions and I'm using two factor authentication everywhere. My credit is frozen and I've got all the big stuff bought. I'm not really sure what I have to lose here
- Data laws aren't for you. They are for marginalized and vulnerable demographics, who are put at risk when they get doxxed.
- I just don't feel comfortable having these big companies profiting from my information. If it's that valuable to them, then they should be paying me for it.

Yeah, advertising is not "free speech." It's a way for corporations to steal your life from you, 60 seconds at a time

... They mean that you're supporting free speech by disabling and block and supporting them
- Seriously. When did everyone get so stupid? They obviously aren't saying ads are free speech

FREE* speech for everyone

*_{conditions_apply}

Fee speech
free installation, free admission, free appraisal, free alterations, free delivery, free home trial, and free parking. No cash? No problem. No kidding. No muss, no fuss, no risk, no obligation, no red tape, no down payment, no entry fee, no hidden charges, no purchase necessary, no one will call on you, no payments of interest 'til September. But limited time only, though, so act now, order today, send no money. Offer good while supplies last. Two to a customer, each item sold separately, batteries not included, mileage may vary, all sales are final, allow six weeks for delivery. Some items not available, some assembly required, some restrictions may apply.
- Choose a life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television. Choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers... Choose DSY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit crushing game shows, stucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away in the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself, choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that?
- George Carlin bit?
  
  Edit: reference
- I miss that man
- I'll take four!

Injection hackers do not give a single wet fuck about your "safe and ethical advertising practices".

Alright this just has me wondering which is worse, a wet fuck or a dry one...
- Tell me you’ve never fucked without telling me you’ve never fucked….
- Ben shapiro????

Whether or not USA Today believes in free speech, its sponsors to not. They expect brand safe conduct.

Also USA Today's upper management has opinions on what they would publish. You won't see pro-anarchist op-eds in USA Today.

That said, news agencies are less good for getting news rather used in conjunction with others to confirm their veracity.

Lol how insane and out of touch

Hilarious, though this was an onion post

No it wasn't

If garbage had a face.

why does nobody know what the concept of free speech actually is? it literally means congress will make no law restricting your right to assemble or speak as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights to do the same

It's because the people who pick and choose what the constitution is to them are the same people who pick and choose parts of The Bible. They believe they're always right and they don't want anyone to ever tell them they're wrong.
They're arguing that the press is important to maintaining and exercising free speech. If they go out of business because they don't make ad money, bad for free speech. Not saying they are right, but I think everyone here is missing what they are really saying.
- Because they said it poorly. Why would I trust their reporting if they can't communicate a simple message like that?
Why do Americans think that American laws are the same thing as universal concepts?
You're confusing the "concept of free speech" with America's Constitutional protection of free speech (the First Amendment).

This is some peak America-brain to suggest that free speech only exists in the USA. I assure you, outside of America's borders, nobody is referencing the First Amendment when they talk about free speech, and the concept as you so condescendingly claim to be the expert on is not limited to government restriction.
- calm yourself i was obviously talking about the website usa today based in the usa. im not even from the usa...

Get fucked, USA Today

I've felt that way for a long time. It's nice to see someone else say it.

award winning content

sure jan.

Don't use your freedom of choice, it hurts our bank accounts and bonuses 😭😭 - board member.

What's "safe and ethical advertising practices"? Is it like pacifist inclusive Nazism?

Our ethics dictate we charge the advertisers the highest possible amount so we get more freedom bucks from them

PROVE YOUR FUCKING PATRIOTISM AND GIVE UP YOUR PRIVACY FOR [INSERT_COMMON_LOOTCRATE_ITEM]

If you don't look at ads on USA Today's website, YOU HATE AMERICA.

We believe in free speech, do you? Give us all your money and send us your nude to prove it.

How many lies can you fit in one sentence

🤮

Are you using uBlock Origin? I don't get that popup after clicking to a few articles.

"Turn off your ad blocked to prove that you believe in free speech."

This is a hilarious level of argumentation. What's quality of their content?

"Hit yourself in the balls with a mallet to prove how tough you are."

"Step in this pile of dog crap to prove how brave you are."
USA today? Somewhere between Newsweek and National Inquirer.

Honestly, they probably did OP a favor.

I decide what speech is welcome in my home.

Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to be forced to consume something (including ads). Freedom of speech includes not sending all of my metadata to you and your business partners.

freedom of their speech, not ours

Free speech = you must do what we say.

Yes let’s let corporations dictate our freedoms! Literally nothing bad could ever happen guys!

Dark patterns, gotta love em

This is not a dark pattern, it's just coersion
- The definition of "dark pattern" has been evolving. Today I think it means "UI design I don't like", or at least that's how everyone's been using it.
  
  Recently saw someone accuse PayPal of using dark patterns when they clicked the submit payment button and the payment went through (they wanted one more interstitial).

Just use the right ublock filter to get past these silly anti adblocks

Could you point an interested party in the direction where those filters are?
- I think they come with ublock itself and are called "annoyance filters" or something like that.

Lol that's the dumbest thing I've seen in a while.

There is no free speech in news.

Your ads are award-winning?!?

Oh, so you believe in free speech? Let me scream into your ear for 30 minutes straight then.

Its a bad marketing campaign because it is easily turned into threads like this. Also, I have no idea if USA Today is good or not (I genuinely have never even thought about it).

But it is worth understanding. News outlets need to get funding from somewhere. Some are state funded and I should not need to explain why that introduces biases. Others take massive sponsorship deals from companies and ensure that John Oliver will always have something to talk about. And others run ads to varying degrees of curation.

The last option is subscriptions and those are few and far between.

Its more or less the same thing we saw with ads in general over the 00s. More and more people learned how to block ads so more and more websites needed to add obnoxious flash based ads and insane uses of javascript and so forth to get any impressions. And fewer and fewer "good" companies wanted to advertise to adblock heavy audiences which led to more and more trojans and so forth. Which leads to more and more ad blockers and...

In the case of news media? We mostly see this manifest as less investigative journalism and more listicles and "clickbait" articles because those at least get the facebook crowd to click.

So it is very much worth looking in to more permissive blocklists and even permitlists. Block tracking cookies because fuck that shit. But permit sites that you "trust" to have reasonable ads and look in to finer grain blocklists that still allow the actual ads to be displayed, even if they aren't the ones based on Amazon figuring out you have a foot fetish.

Even though I'm probably not reading it enough to be worth it I pay a yearly online-subscription to one of the newspapers that gained my trust with good investigative pieces in the past.

If everyone was just consuming for free then a newspaper needs to either be heavily funded by a really wealthy person that pays them (and in turn makes it less likely that said newspaper will report against people like that) or the newspaper needs to sell ad-space. So if you are consuming for free AND blocking ads on a website then you are only costing that website money - and in case of newspapers that's not a good thing since it ensures that only those that are publicly funded or funded by billionaires will survive "almost unchanged" while the rest will try to get as populist as possible to the the most amount of clicks to increase their ad-revenue
I agree that state sponsored media has pitfalls but I never understood this appeal to “unbiased” media. It doesn’t exist because bias can’t be removed from humans.

I always ask 1 question and ask for 1 example here:

When did WWII start? If things are objectively true and we expect historical works/statements to lack bias then this should be pretty simple.

Do you have an example of an objective or unbiased media outlet? A writer? A single article?

This isn’t a dig at you. I just think this is a very broad social issue. Objectivity is a myth. We should recognize biases and account the best we can but “just the facts” reporting just doesn’t exist and never has. People demanding objectivity are often using it as a cudgel in defense of their argument. Take your more vocal folks on the right for instance. They claim “bias” whenever they don’t like something, and “telling it like it is” when it’s “their team.”
- Objectivity is a myth.
  
  It's not so much a myth, as an unobtainable goal that should be strived for. Like perfection. One can never be perfect, but one can always be better. There are such things as facts, and accuracy in describing them.
  
  To say objectivity is a myth, seems to suggest nobody has any responsibility to try to accurately represent any facts. If someone claims blue light has a wavelength of 150nm, is that a perfectly valid opinion? Do lies exist?
- Bias will always exist. That is a given
  
  But many outlets have learned to make clear demarcations between editorial and reporting. It isn't always obvious if you aren't looking at it, but it is the idea that actual data is reported "honestly".
  
  For example: Take a look at how most outlets report on the Israel/Palestine war. Some will list IDF casualties for Israel and civillian casualties for Palestine which introduces immense bias (I want to say Al Jazeera does this?). Others will use verbiage like "N Israeli citizens were killed. N*100 Palestinian civilians died" which introduces bias on the other side. A good outlet will use the same verbiage and data for both sides.
  
  And that is immensely useful. Because, again, to harp on that war: There is so much FUD out there that it is REALLY hard to know what is true or not. And sure, social media is a lost cause. But so are a LOT of news outlets and that is why the hospital bombing immediately entered "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" territory.
  
  And no, I am not going to list an "objective or unbiased" outlet. Because that never leads to a good discussion. It always results in "Yeah, well here is an example of them not being perfect. Checkmate" and, more importantly: People who understand the need to care about this should learn how to evaluate for themselves. Rather than rely on some rando on a message board to tell them how to think.
- Objectivity isn't meant to be a destination in the sense that it's a place that one's reporting can arrive at. It's meant to be a process, one that can never be executed perfectly, but one that has the effect of improving the final product over what it would otherwise be.
  
  As for your question, "when did WWII start?" The answer is that it's an objective fact that there are a number of events that arguably mark the beginning of the war, all of which have varying degrees of merit. Complexity, or the fact that there is no one right answer to a given question, doesn't mean that we have to throw out any effort at objectivity. It just means that we have to dig deeper.
One of the few sensible people in this thread. Hosting costs big amounts of cash. Paying decent journalists AND EDITORS even more. Their funding has to come from somewhere if you're trying to read news articles for free or using Archive and 9ft lol.

And people talk about reddit being half puns, memes, and pointless THIS comments lol.
This is also what nearly killed off local newspapers. It's a huge problem and journalism as a profession is still in the process of adjusting to the new realities.
They're probably from the "all publicity is good publicity" school of marketing.
- Nah. I think they just assumed more people remembered the ad campaign by (if memory serves) The New York Times where they more or less showed every step used to investigate and verify a story before reporting. Also, I would be amazed if that was actually the NYT's campaign which... probably sums things up.
  
  Before they were mismanaged to the shadow realm, Vice was similar. The idea that they very much were "good news" and ACTUAL freedom of speech/the press in contrast to "I want to say all the slurs"

I thought "whitelist" got cancelled for being racist? I distinctly remember being forced to rename everything to "IP Allowlist" and having to rename all my branches to "main" from "master". Jenkins is 3rd party software, so it still has slaves... 😂

It did, and I was also doing that in some of our software in a previous job. Other terms we had to stop using were black sheep, white washing, and even gorilla.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7dd3d/we-need-to-stop-saying-blacklist-and-whitelist
- What if I actually have a black sheep?
I know you won’t see this comment, but I’ll still respond anyways.

It’s not the most inclusive language. I don’t think anyone forced you at gunpoint to rename that stuff though?
There is no such thing as being cancelled. Do you think the cancelled police show up at usa today to shut them down for using whitelist?
- It's actually the Google corporate police
  
  http://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/2021/09/renaming-whitelisted-domains-to-allowlisted-domains-in-admin-console.html

Just disable JS if you are going to read texts.

Nope because "Javascript not enabled". I would instead recommend some sort of "Anti adblock blocker"

I wouldn't visit these sites if you paid me. Much less forced me to watch ads.

Read as giving them ad revenue allows them to write without doing sponsored articles

painfully true
Thank you, that's also how I understand it.

Still very badly explained I can understand the reaction...

I wonder which content blocker you're using, because with uBlock Origin (with a fairly aggressive config and custom blocklists) I do not get that "disable adblock" pop up.

Not like I'd visit this site at all, I just tried to see if I could create a uBO filter for you to remove the paywall.

Free speech doesn't mean a compelled audience.

Just because you can say it doesn't mean I have to listen.

If you’re trying to get paid based one someone’s views or clicks, it’s not free.

Reminds me of Microsoft's "1,000,000 PCs can't be wrong" or whatever it was when they started pushing windows 10 to 7 users

wow, the balls of the folk who came up with this 🤡

Makes sense lol

Ummm... That's the wrong freedom for them to be trying to invoke. They have their own. It's called Freedom of the Press. But they don't seem to want to invoke that one when they know it is bullshit.

Free speech for corporations and advertisers. For users is the paywall as adblocker. For this screenshot, Memes is a better place.

This might be a mildly infuriating moment

Free speech also entails how willingly you are to put that speech out there. If you want to cover it with a paywall of any sort, you are most welcome to do that. Keep in mind that free speech and its actions also have consequences. If your content is good enough, people might pay to see it. Free market and all that.

Literally asking you to pay for free speech jfc

Paid speech!

If you don't read our ads you don't believe in free speech?

Good Independent journalism requires money. You can't have everything for free you know. If you want to keep your privacy then you should pay for the news sources that you read.

Edit: I'm not american I do not know if USA today is good journalism or not. I am speaking more generally