Jer Warren @nyquildotorg@mastodon.social

I'm thinking about starting an online reality TV style competition. Haven't worked out the rules and prizes yet, but the title is BRING ME THE HEAD OF TUCKER CARLSON.

“The problem is that Tim is telling the world that we make great products without monetizing users. Ads would be weirdly at odds with that.”

Indeed they would be. And are.
https://9to5mac.com/2021/05/04/apple-emails-search-ads-app-store/

And I thought it was bad having to wipe a Wear OS watch to connect it to a different phone. (It is, but not this bad...)
https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/4/22419569/apple-watch-series-3-software-update-reset-bad-experience

Learn more: https://m.facebook.com/policies/ads/prohibited_content/personal_attributes

Hot take: Facebook gets to dictate the terms of what you can do with their advertising platform.

Signal violated #12 on the prohibited list after expressly agreeing not to violate any of the things on the list, so they should shut up about getting their account shut down.

"what about YouTube???!"

Yes, look how well that worked out. Their algorithm optimizes for ad revenue, and thus has a problem with suggesting the kinds of content that makes a lot of ad revenue. (Conspiracies.)

The company that controls what content you see can't be in a financial relationship with the people creating the content. It just can't work.

They either have to strong-arm them ("boy, it'd be a shame if your articles stopped going viral..") or to subsidize it by paying them to be part of it.

Neither of these options are good for the publisher or "journalism" at large.

There's no strong arming publishers to join Scroll. They either do or don't.

But now that Scroll is part of another larger ad tech business, it won't be able to continue the way they run now.

There's now too much pressure to make it attractive to more publishers, which means:

I loved Google Contributor while it existed. But it so obviously runs counter to Google's monetization strategy that it simply couldn't continue to exist. Both Contributor and Scroll worked essentially the same, but with a big difference:

Publishers have to sign on to Scroll.

This makes me very sad, but I can't let the money I pay to help fund journalism instead fund rando "wordsmiths" that Twitter has encouraged to sign up for the newsletter service they also bought. (Revue.)

I don't want to use my monthly revenue to help kickstart people publishing newsletters via Twitter. I pay Scroll because it improves journalism. Kickstarting places for not-journalists to publish for cash to put their stuff is not going to help journalism.

I'm very happy to pay $5/mo to Scroll, who divvies up money to all their partners on whose sites I don't see ads.

But I'm not happy about paying any amount of money to Twitter for the same service.

And definitely not "a larger subscription," like they're saying.

I'm really curious to hesr how publishers are reacting to Twitter's purchase of Scroll. I gotta imagine some of them are uneasy about Twitter determining who sees ads and who doesn't.

I've been a Scroll user the whole time it has existed and I'm happy for their exit, but Scroll becoming part of a larger Twitter subscription is not something I'm interested in whatsoever.

I'm very sad to see Scroll go.

I always wondered what Melinda Gates thought of the old Stephen Colbert charity "The Stephen & Melinda Gates Foundation."

[Mark Rober Googling]: do Nazis hate fart spray and glitter?

Jenna: "You're such a big Night Court fan, Kenneth. I'm surprised you didn't know I played the werewolf lawyer."

Kenneth [awkward look]: "... I knew..."

I hope the Night Court reboot features Sparky Monroe, the werewolf lawyer.

If they do it right, they'll definitely sell a ton.
https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-expects-to-ship-20m-foldable-iphones-in-2023-report-says/