vinnypoh (vinnypoh) wrote in klump,

Not Quite Free Internet

The reason this post is - yes, guys -  this is again about my favorite writer Irina Deduhova. At a small extent. As many of you know she has a blog, just like many of you. This is not something unusual or extraordinary. But what takes difference, the blog is not available for reading free of charge. So, news, and posts, she published, are available at small amount of 3 USD per month. All the described is not a reason to discuss the ability of someone to pay, but the reason to discuss how we pay for information we get. Generally we accustomed that you pay only for access to the Internet. BBC, NBC, whatever else, news blogs are considered to be free of charge.

Well, to be honest, they are not totally free, right? If you would think a little, you can understand that these Internet news sites need to take money to pay from somewhere for hosting, for materials, for photos, at last. They just like a usual newspaper need to pay to editors, web-masters, to journalists. Yes, the amounts in my consideration are much less, than paper ones. As they paperfree.  Still the amount is not zero at all.

So, we read it for free, but somebody pays the materials we would read, right? So, who is that guy who pays for information you read?. Do I need to care whose voice to hear to? Facts are facts some may say. But adult persons they know how they are manipulated with lack of info, or by viewing facts from the engaded view. So, some guys paid for my reading, while others put slogans “it is Internet, everything is free”, or “information is free to distribute”. Do these slogans have any relation to a real life? My opinion –no. You clearly understand what I’m approaching to.

To pay their expanses some news sites are using advertisement, some are free, but in both cases we PAY for our reading. I would say that news blogs in Russia use their resource at full extent. Sometimes, I need to get through a lot of pop-ups, see porno banners, etc just to know the news of what president said. With some moral damages, I finally would knew, who was really this or that deputy in Russia, or how much FSB paid for internet “business” of this “sexy” Russian spy. With some moral “expences”. But the more interesting thing. But, to be honest, I do not believe that Internet ads really pay. May be it works with Google or Yahoo, but I do not think 1000 of visitors can pay with banners for a news site with regular updates. I gave figure of 1000 because I think this to be an average.

So, all sites, except Google or Yahoo need other sources of financing. I do not want to say that all these sources of financing is something illegal. I want to say that these are tools of the guys who pay for it. That would be only wise, right? If someone puts some money into a business, he accounts for return of their investments.

What do advertisers invest in I can clearly understand. They use their creators and their artists to create a vivid image of cup of Nescafe to make me choose it instead of competitors by remember some formulae.   I want to say tha news sites also have their creators. Creating a vivid formulaes look very natural and phrase fit the situation very easily, even there is a feeling sometimes that somebody makes you say so. But only sometimes. I would not continue to speak about this theme which very interesting linguistically and psychologically. I’m interested much more in receiving a trustful information for my every day   life. I’m not all against such sites, but when we speak about politics, engaged view sites can really create  community opinion.

So, is that better to pay directly for the news, for analytics, made by professionals, or use “free” souces of information? That doesn’t mean that I would not watch TV from now, but I would certainly try to understand who pays for my “free” reading.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded