Haha, I see what you did there.

You Google-translated your English prose into French. When I translated the French back to English it was the exact same as your English, word for word.

And you are right, that is what we'll get. Google-ophones.

Expand full comment

he truth is, I agree with this column in it's entirety.

Horrors!! Someone agreeing with the evil, right wing media. You are right wing aren't you? Oh, you're not? Well, I agree anyways.

I do not like Facebook (I use this medium under protest only to deal with things like commenting on The Line) or Google, et al. Nevertheless, why should they pay for something that isn't their fault? If I like a particular article and want to tell others about it then they - if they choose - can go an pay the media organization to see the story / column / whatever. If they won't pay then the media org can give away the product or keep it. But, but, but, I shouldn't have to pay FB (and, yes, FB will find a way to ding me) just because you want to read an article in the (awful) Toronto Star. If the Star wants me to see their product, they should charge me. If I wan to see that product, I should pay for it.

Full disclosure: I have in years past paid for a Toronto Star subscription (what a waste!), I currently pay for many subscriptions, including The Line, The Grope and Flail, Post Media, some US thingys and so forth. So, yes, I do put my money where my mouth is and, no, I don't want to pay to subsidize those other media orgs that can't persuade their consumers that they are worth paying for.

Expand full comment

Glad to hear it is not just me that thought charging social media for free promotion (by users) made no sense! Are they also charging search engines for showing results? Social media is basically a search engine where the users are (part of) the algorithm. Why are they only charging for news links and not links to any other website? Who defines news sites? Why aren't they paying me for my self-created content? Oh wait, that would just be a simple tax on the whole company which goes to the taxpayer/government. I don't blame Facebook at all: it is making the logical choice.

Expand full comment

I may be able to connect the dots for you RE: Replay All

I listen to the podcast intermittently and noticed that after George Floyd's murder, Emmanuel Dzotsi 'hosted' a show where he talked with Black Americans about how strangers and acquaintances were reaching out to venmo them as a type of 'reparations'. The format was definitely a warm, peer-to-peer interaction. In other words, they NEEDED someone Black to lead that show (in contrast to the usual 2 white dudes bantering) but Dzotsi was not listed as a co-host in June; he was a producer. And I was cynical about the podcast's opportunism: using a coworker of colour when it suited them. So when I saw Dzotsi was added to the mast as co-host in October, I wondered if there were some behind-the-scenes push back that led to the addition. Even his twitter announcement hinted there were more details to come.

Lastly, we add activism journalism, which is fated to eat itself as the reporter becomes the reported. When Reply All uncovered injustice, they placed a target on their back, and I suspect some of the fuel can be traced to this very incident.

Expand full comment