SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Forbes 30 Under 30 list came out this week and it featured a prominent security researcher. Other researchers were pleased to see one of their own getting positive attention, and visited the site in droves to view the list.
On arrival, like a growing number of websites, Forbes asked readers to turn off ad blockers in order to view the article. After doing so, visitors were immediately served with pop-under malware, primed to infect their computers, and likely silently steal passwords, personal data and banking information. Or, as is popular worldwide with these malware "exploit kits," lock up their hard drives in exchange for Bitcoin ransom. The exploit used was a version of hackenfreude.
Forbes has recently taken some flack from Soylent News readers for its heavy-handed approach to ad blockers.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Sunday January 10 2016, @03:01PM
When I run into stuff like this, I simply drop them from the list of places I go. Since almost all media outlets these days simply wrap up AP Wire articles and pass them off as their own, you don't have to look too hard to find the exact same article elsewhere.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Sunday January 10 2016, @03:11PM
Not a big loss in this case either. They're pretty much just an Apple advertising site when it comes to tech for the last couple of years.
(Score: 1, Redundant) by frojack on Sunday January 10 2016, @07:22PM
You've seen ads on Forbes? You're doing it wrong.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Sunday January 10 2016, @09:29PM
I run ad and script blockers. I'm referring to their 'content'. The Verge is even worse.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday January 10 2016, @10:38PM
Yeah, the content is the ad. It's the print equivalent of product placements on TV or in film.
FWIW, the same is rapidly becoming true of a lot of online apps/sites, too. I uninstalled Flipboard on my phone when the ratio of product placements to actual articles exceeded 50%.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Sunday January 10 2016, @03:37PM
If a site has to stoop this low to increase their revenue, then it probably means they are about to go under anyway. So if it was something one visited regularly before, it is time to move elsewhere.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Sunday January 10 2016, @04:25PM
That's the truly sad thing. Under Malcolm Forbes they had unique hard-hitting investigative reporting. Their advice about personal finance was as detailed as you'd get from a good financial planner, without the conflicts of interest.
I dropped my subscription years ago after the fawning pieces about Carly Fiorina and the pro-SCO bias.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Sunday January 10 2016, @10:35PM
Yes they did, and I was a regular reader (though not subscriber, because as a student I had better things to spend my money on like food). But I eventually reached the same conclusion you did. Same thing with the Economist, which started to go downhill when they hired an American as Editor-in-Chief.
Now that I'm an adult and have money, I have subscribed to Stratfor, which is a much, much better source of actionable information. But there have been a growing number of citizen journalists/bloggers who have broken important stories, too. That trend may yet grow and displace the old media entirely.
It's funny, because in the old days there's no way an independent citizen journalist could have competed with the venerable outlets, even if they had both had access to the same distribution networks, because the latter had reputation. Now they've entirely lost that, and they have themselves entirely to blame. I wouldn't wipe my ass with a copy of the New York Times anymore, not after Judith Miller's selling the Iraq War with the full support of the publisher, and the Jayson Blair scandal. I see their people everywhere in NYC begging people to subscribe, and nobody wants to have anything to do with them. I never see print copies of their paper anywhere, and I live in a progressive neighborhood in Brooklyn stuffed to the gills with people who work in Publishing, Advertising, NonProfit, Philanthropy, etc (that is, nerdy people who like to read a lot).
So, now the reputation of the indy blogger = the reputation of the Grey Lady, so why pay for the latter, being pretty damn sure it's paid media, when I have a reasonable belief that corporate bigwigs wouldn't bother to buy off an indy blogger?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Sunday January 10 2016, @05:01PM
Forbes is heavily biased anyway. The entire mainstream media has become pretty bad for ignoring big stories, and putting heavy handed spin on others. Case in point was the coverage of the Occupy Wall Street movement, calling them a bunch of disorganized, confused youth. In their coverage of piracy, they show they can't get past what they perceive is their own self interest, and will have laughable debates in which the 2 sides are "extreme copyright" vs "even more extreme copyright". Saw that on PBS, which I thought was better than that. There was of course the huge mistake the NY Times made with the WMDs Iraq supposedly had, yet incredibly clueless coverage of the Middle East hardly ends with that. Millions of Iraqi dead aren't even a statistic. Even Stalin gave dead millions that much. One of the most remarkable things about the Obama vs Romney presidential debates was the deliberate ignoring of perhaps the biggest issue of our times, Climate Change. Given the Republican positions that Climate Change may be a liberal conspiracy, not caused by man, or not a problem, or a job killer, it seems most likely that it was their idea to ban questions on that topic. If so, why couldn't the media find the power to overrule them on that? Because the mainstream media is their lapdog now? But that's hardly the only problem with political coverage. What about news on other political parties? Heck, even Bernie Sanders, running as a candidate for one of the 2 anointed parties, doesn't get coverage proportional to his popularity. They prefer to cover the dramatic and outrageous, which for now is Trump.
Like Fox news, Forbes takes it a step further with an additional slant towards the right wing.
(Score: 1, Troll) by khallow on Sunday January 10 2016, @06:08PM
Millions of Iraqi dead aren't even a statistic. Even Stalin gave dead millions that much.
Given that those millions of Iraqi dead didn't actually exist, that seems a proper treatment.
One of the most remarkable things about the Obama vs Romney presidential debates was the deliberate ignoring of perhaps the biggest issue of our times, Climate Change.
Or perhaps not the biggest issue of our times. I still see a remarkable lack of supporting evidence for the supposed importance of climate change.
Given the Republican positions that Climate Change may be a liberal conspiracy, not caused by man, or not a problem, or a job killer, it seems most likely that it was their idea to ban questions on that topic.
How do "positions" "ban questions"?
If so, why couldn't the media find the power to overrule them on that?
The media has the power to decide Republican propaganda? Right.
While I think you had a few good points, there's just too much here that isn't even wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 11 2016, @04:24AM
Below, the same account refers to 5:1 odds as 50%...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday January 11 2016, @09:20AM
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday January 12 2016, @03:45AM
That's right. 4 to 6 against means there are 4 chances out of 10 that Hillary will not be our next president.
As to Climate Change, most scientists and the people who still respect science are convinced, convinced by the facts, that Climate Change is real, man-made, and a problem we need to do something about. Just what measures to take is the question. You don't have to believe it to acknowledge that because so many accept it as fact, it is therefore an important issue and should have been debated.
Anyway, which seems more likely to you? A bunch of politicians and Big Oil spokespeople who are known to engage in propaganda and lying and who have massive conflicts of interest are correct and it's really the scientists who are corrupt or incredibly stupid and incompetent? Or scientists are correct and the politicians and Big Oil companies are lying or wrong or both?
(Score: 5, Informative) by Hairyfeet on Sunday January 10 2016, @09:49PM
Thank Ronnie Raygun and deregulation. Wanna know why so many websites put on the exact same "pro government, pro corporate, anti poor and middle class" spin? Follow the money. You'll be surprised how few owners there really are when it comes to main stream media, its owned by a few mega corps, most of which have heavy ties to either the defense industry or government contracts. Yes the Internet gives us alternate news and views but how much of the actual voting populace gets its news from the net versus mainstream TV and radio? Sadly very little which is how a handful of uber rich at the very top can completely control the public narrative.
BTW you want an easy way to see which ones are complete lap dogs of the government, an easy yard stick to measure them with? Go look up what stories they were pushing the day after Wikileaks dropped those docs showing the US government covering for a PMC selling little boys as rape toys in Afghanistan to get more contracts along with the video of the chopper pilot laughing and joking as they blew that guy and his kids away, if their main story the next day was "Assange didn't wear a condom so he must be a rapist!" they are owned by the US government as that was first pushed by a state dept spokesman, if they actually ran stories on the child sex slave ring and the chopper video? Then you can be assured they aren't completely controlled by corporate/state.
The only one I personally saw pass that test? PBS Frontline who completely ignored the state dept bullshit and instead ran a story on "Bacha bazi" (the "tradition" of using little boys as sex slaves in Afghanistan) and how it tied into the PMC along with a story on the chopper video and how technology makes killing real people feel like a video game. Everybody else? "He didn't wear a condom so rape"...thanks Pravda, tell us next how that four alarm fire made way for a glorious new tractor factory why don't ya?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday January 10 2016, @10:22PM
Coverage of Bernie Sanders has suffered for a couple reasons. First, Obama's Attorney General has not gone after the former Secretary of State for her crimes, so Bernie hasn't had a chance to shine in the media by way of contrast (something he is himself partly responsible for by not hitting Hillary on that subject). Second, the Clintons have called in all their chips with their allies in the media and government to clear her path to the Democratic nomination, such that she has been the anointed one from the beginning. A follow-on effect is that the Chairman of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is a Clinton crony. She has held the number of Democratic debates to a handful and scheduled them on weekends when no one will watch, so primary voters won't be reminded how repugnant a candidate she is.
Consequently the spotlight has been ceded to the Republicans, in whose field the guy dominating is the only one who understands that the Presidency in 2016 has degenerated into a reality TV show. Americans know in their gut that like all reality shows, the outcome is fore-ordained and nothing they want or say matters. So they're drawn to spectacle, and Trump is delivering.
Bernie is the only shot the Democrats have to retain the Whitehouse, because he's an outsider and he's speaking to bread and butter issues that matter to 99% of Americans. He still has an uphill climb after the betrayal of the Obama Whitehouse to convince people he can deliver.
But if it comes down to Trump vs. Hillary, he'll win in a landslide because he understands where the American people are at now, far better than Hillary does.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday January 11 2016, @01:29AM
Hillary hasn't won the primary yet, but the bookies are already giving her better than 50% odds of winning the election. Been seeing 4 to 6 and 5 to 7 against.
Polls show her beating Trump. Not as much as Bernie would beat Trump, but they figure she'll still take him.
(Score: 1) by o_o on Sunday January 10 2016, @05:38PM
When I run into stuff like this, I simply drop them from the list of places I go.
I completely agree: I do not need Forbes into the Universe, and I am pretty sure that there is a great crowd that feels the same. A great thing with the internet is that you can banish someone without stepping on their own freedom (and make yourself the bad guy): every IP associated with them can be blocked in your system, forever. Go Forbes, you are being ignored.
The proverbial scorpion comes to mind: "Hey there buddy, how about dropping that guard of yours for a moment? I promise I will never sting YOU!
(Score: 3, Funny) by isostatic on Sunday January 10 2016, @05:53PM
That's unfair!
They wrap Reuters wires too!