onoes! teenz on teh pr0n webs! It's been a year since I posted about
Stickam, and in that time, one would be naïve to think that a community of unmoderated videos broadcast live from the private and semi-anonymous bedrooms of the world would not result in
epic lulz (nsfw). To no one's surprise, disgruntled Stickam ex-VP Alex Becker says
Stickam shares office space, staff, and equipment with live pornographic video providers -- this via
NYT tech writer Brad Stone. Cue the
"think of the CHILDRUNZ!" moral
panic. But popular websites being related to or backed up by prurient interest are nothing new: Wikipeda predecessor
Bomis was once accused of having
"softore porn" in its "Babes" section, and of course everyone knows
porn drives technology. What do you think the internet is
for? But if you use Stickam and this bothers you, the burgeoning field of live embeddable Flash-based webcam video streaming is rife with alternatives:
uStream.tv,
Justin.tv,
BlogTV,
Mogulus, and
Operator11, just to name some -- but there'll be naked girls on those too. I guarantee it.
posted by brownpau
on Aug 6, 2007 -
41 comments
NY Times will be going pay-only for access to columns by Paul Krugman, Thomas Friedman, and Maureen Dowd. On the 19th of Sept! And I assume the others like Herbert and Frank will drop behind the iron curtain as well. These are obviously some of the most blogged about and emailed content on the NYT site. Do you think it will be worth $49.95 year (it does come with 100 archive articles, which is admittedly pretty sweet)? Do you think that bloggers will stop linking to those columnists? Is this the end of free?
posted by zpousman
on Sep 13, 2005 -
85 comments
Krugman on Iraq "The direct military cost of the occupation is $4 billion a month, and there's no end in sight. But that's only part of the bill.
This week Paul Bremer suddenly admitted that Iraq would need "several tens of billions" in aid next year. That remark was probably aimed not at the public but at his masters in Washington; he apparently needed to get their attention."
posted by skallas
on Aug 30, 2003 -
41 comments
Dan Rather vs. The World (NY Times link) -- While the
conspiracy theorists and much of the mainstream media were jumping down Gary Condit's throat, Rather and company held firm and kept the "news" off the Evening News. Despite airing a few reports, they intend to keep a comparatively low level of coverage in the future. Is this how we'd like to see the media behave, or is this just a more notable example of The Media's Liberal Bias™ showing through?
posted by mrbula
on Jul 23, 2001 -
31 comments
