[grasen]

I have decided to stop paying my subscription to Roadcc. This is because I don’t se the point when more and more articles are full of blank spaces and a link to some social media site. I consider this sloppy journalist work because in the old days there were pictures and not just links. I know that others/most use social media – but I do not. I am not on Facebook or Google or what ever. So why should I pay for something that is not up to my standards. So in the future I will read RoadCC free of charge and with an adblocker. Your loss.

Topic

[quiff]

But you don’t have to go to

But you don’t have to go to the social media site. They are embedded in the live blog so you can look / watch / read the social media content on this site. If they’re not showing for you that is probably down to your browser settings.

[grasen]

Just looked at the Live Blog.

Just looked at the Live Blog. 4 blank spaces. I am not against ads for those that want them .I have subscribed to RoadCC from when they started with the subscription. I pay to compensate for not looking at ads – so they get money to pay the journalists. But when the journalists just link to this or that social media why should I pay for a subscription. I also have Netflix. I pay more to be free of ads. That is how it is done. If I pay here why should I have to go to a social media site to read an article with all their ads? Makes no sense.

 

 

[mdavidford]

Yes – the other one that

Yes – the other one that happens is where they’ve shared something ridiculous that the poster has then thought better of and deleted – not much they can do about that either.

[andystow]

Exactly. I’m not on X, but

Exactly. I’m not on X, but here’s what today’s live blog looks like. The video even plays for me.

I do occasionally see blank ones, usually when “this content is not available in your country.” Not much they can (legally) do about that.

[a1white]

Yeah, I know they are talking

Yeah, I know they are talking about Social media posts that they presumably block (or can’t see becuase they don’t have accounts with them?), but they mention using an adblocker instead of paying the subscription and then still reading the stories without paying or allowing the journalists to get any ad revenue. If you don’t like the Journalism, don’t visit the site. If everyone used an adblocker and didn’t pay subscription, as sloppy as they feel the journalism is, it wouldn’t exist at all.

[mdavidford]

I don’t think they’re even

I don’t think they’re even talking about the ads (subscription should remove the ads anyway) – they’re talking about the bluexstagram embeds in the stories, which ironically are probably only not showing because something on their browser is blocking them. 🤷‍♂️

[a1white]

So you don’t like the “sloppy

So you don’t like the “sloppy” Journalism, but still want to read it without the people writing it to get any income for it through advertisement revenue?

Well that’s nice. At least you’re honest about your morals.

[Author]

Replies