> Your response is unrelated to what I was disagreeing with.
Well the flow of money is the source of pretty key in enabling a strong, free press.
> My underlying argument is that a strong free press must be maintained and that the reductionist argument that legitimate news sources and JoeRandomYouTuber should be treated identically is naive at best.
Sure.
So there should be some kind of non-discriminatory rules that allow new players to find a voice as well as maintaining credible news sources.
> Traditional news sources found their revenue declining and so chased whatever attracted consumers, including sensationalist cretins like Bolt. Google should accept responsibility for this.
Well I agree that the news ecosystem has changed, and I agree that a strong and free press has value.
> At least they're doing something.
See I don't see this as a good thing at all. I see this as making the problem worse by funding players who are some of the worse examples.
Well the flow of money is the source of pretty key in enabling a strong, free press.
> My underlying argument is that a strong free press must be maintained and that the reductionist argument that legitimate news sources and JoeRandomYouTuber should be treated identically is naive at best.
Sure.
So there should be some kind of non-discriminatory rules that allow new players to find a voice as well as maintaining credible news sources.
> Traditional news sources found their revenue declining and so chased whatever attracted consumers, including sensationalist cretins like Bolt. Google should accept responsibility for this.
Well I agree that the news ecosystem has changed, and I agree that a strong and free press has value.
> At least they're doing something.
See I don't see this as a good thing at all. I see this as making the problem worse by funding players who are some of the worse examples.