hey gawker dudes. what the fuck is wrong with you?

lol we're gonna do the same argument about farmers in the 16th century from the p4k thread last week but for music pubs in the 1920s aren't we

I was just nostalgic for the mid 90s when I'd hang around the magazines at the grocery store as my family did shopping and browse publications with titles like "THE INTERNET" and it'd be a couple articles explaining what gopher or ftp were followed by pictures of strange shit on the nascent world wide web and maybe some pondering about whether newsgroups were still good

Now half of the still-functioning websites out there are 90% "here's strange shit from elsewhere on the web/twitter/instagram" including my local newspaper's web presence

diana moskovitz and lauren theisen also leaving deadspin

mh when you say the market was small before the 1920s do you mean the combined readership or the number of titles -- there were a *lot* of 19th century titles, including some big nationalish names still extant (harpers, the atlantic, scientific american just off the top of my head)

obviously the the 1920s was a very rich time for new start-ups, so i think there probably was a step change as you suggest (economic? technological? i don;t know)

also there's a lot of pie-in-the-sky stuff in this thread! as someone who tried and failed while on the "go it alone with no backing" path i'm happy to answer any questions you might have!

― maura, Wednesday, October 30, 2019 4:38 PM (thirty-four minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

i'm more just wondering aloud abt what could come next rather than saying this is something someone could do here/now. im also curious as to why popula didn't work, i know ppl were skeptical about it bc of the blockchain thing, but as a worker-run/reader-owned endeavour it seemed promising. do you think there's a future paradigm/model for online writing on the horizon, or as we stuck with vc-funded whimsical slapdash private equity model for ever?

xp I think "small" is probably an overstatement, but the market broadened and it was a long time before the contraction of the market

jim do u have any evidence jacobin has deep pocketed benefactors who float it? curious as i've never seen a suggestion otherwise

― flopson, Wednesday, October 30, 2019 12:42 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

pure scurrilous innuendo. just things like buying the tribune and launching Catalyst seem like things you have to be very flush to do and yet no-one else seems to be doing this well?

Per a number of tweets just now, it appears there's been a mass resignation among Deadspin staffers.

ya they prob have a couple donors greasing the wheels, but also a healthyish revenue stream from ads and mag subscriptions

whoa. did they say who? xp

popula’s (and hmm’s) struggles can be explained by civil being a huge boondoggle. which honestly was to be excepted.

yeah when it rolled out some sites I remember being like "oh somehow these blogs are a cryptocurrency scam, cool"

xxpost So far I've seen Tom Ley, Lauren Theisen, Kelsey McKinney, and I'm sure there are numerous others.

I don't want to tar journalists as credulous but I wanna know why anyone burned by previous iterations of digital media layoffs and crashes thought bitcoin was gonna be the way forward

xpost Laura Wagner as well.

xp. wow, reading up on civil and it sounds about as well thought through as Verrit

do u think if it weren't on blockchain it could've worked out tho

mass exodus at deadspin, looks like everyone's going

Yup. Redford just confirmed he's out.

oh my god they took the comments off of deadspin

— Lauren Theisen (@theisen95) October 30, 2019

Can confirm.

seems like unionizing isn't doing a tonne for these web media companies. i guess the payout from layoff is better at a unionized firm, but they don't seem to have bargained for much in terms of job security. perhaps it's too crassly libertarian, but despite the network platform stuff (which is obviously a huge challenge but maybe not totally insurmountable?) writers' labour is still like 99% of the inputs, so maybe next step is for writers to seize means of production? maybe an industry-wide strike? maybe there needs to be workplace organizing within facebook and other mega-platforms that acts in concert with new media unions?

the whole drive to unionization at these places felt like a willful denial of reality - they're in an industry with real struggles right now and an even bleaker projected future, working at sites that could go under or be sold at any moment, and producing content in an world where there's just too much and too many talented writers. an industry wide strike would be impossible to organize, easy to scab and barely noticeable by the public at large. unions make more sense when workers can expect a lasting relationship with your employer - they can't here, for reasons even beyond their employer's control.

I mean given the state of the industry wouldn't you rather have a union in that case?

I don't think a union offers you any protections when they don't have any real leverage.

effective solidarity is built from all the fights you lose together until you start to win

or you can give up in advance and sneer at any fightback as deluded i guess

*points, laughs*

G/O spokesperson on Deadspin resignations: "They resigned and we're sorry that they couldn't work within this incredibly broad coverage mandate. We're excited about Deadspin's future and we'll have some important updates in the coming days."

— Max Tani (@maxwelltani) October 30, 2019

to support iatee's thought, i'm represented by a union that mixes ft/pt staff and while the pt staff do benefit from the arrangement they hardly seem to enjoy what you would call 'protections' because of it, other than various nice-sounding ones that never become relevant to the actual churn of low-wage precarious employment. it's the ft staff who have whatever leverage there is. so i could see how a union starting out with only workers without leverage would be in a tough spot.

many xps and prior to the sudden ship jumping but for anyone unclear as to why maura would actually be a really knowledgeable point of reference on this whole "make your own magazine thing": http://www.maura.com/12/hello

Maura, if you had it to do over again in 2019: a) would you? b) what would you do differently?

A statement about the resignations at Deadspin. pic.twitter.com/NrUmtHzZbq

— GMG Union (@gmgunion) October 30, 2019

The Gawker union has been effective at protecting writers up to the point where the ownership is willing to go nuclear and shut the whole thing down.

That doesn't make the union pointless or even losing - it worked for its members as far as it possibly could.
Without the union, G/O media could have done all this unilaterally months ago with zero repercussions.

Quite right.

i'm sure they've seen the writing on the wall for months now, but it's pretty gutsy to resign a media job that actually pays money. they can't *all* join the athletic

the whole drive to unionization at these places felt like a willful denial of reality - they're in an industry with real struggles right now and an even bleaker projected future, working at sites that could go under or be sold at any moment, and producing content in an world where there's just too much and too many talented writers. an industry wide strike would be impossible to organize, easy to scab and barely noticeable by the public at large. unions make more sense when workers can expect a lasting relationship with your employer - they can't here, for reasons even beyond their employer's control.

― iatee, Wednesday, October 30, 2019 6:08 PM (twenty-six minutes ago) bookmark flaglink

it was not a denial of reality, it was an acceptance of it. it was people saying, we're all probably going to lose our jobs eventually anyway so let's lock our benefits in and make sure we get money on the way out. even for people who got nothing out of a media union except a pay bump upon the contract being signed and a check on the way out, it was worth it. there are ways to structure a union contract to ensure people's jobs... in the early meetings for the gawker union we decided we didn't want to go down that path, and instead attempted to find something that allowed for "flexibility" owing to the nature of the industry... anything beyond that was not really realistic on a number of levels and we knew that. as more and more media unions have been formed, the rhetoric has gone to different places, but i can say that at the beginning it was simply an attempt to claw back some rights and slices of the pie for the workers, and i find it impossible to say that wasn't accomplished. last year deadspin's previous owners bought out 40+ people, and they were forced to give them all 4+ months of severance. i can promise you that never would've happened in a million billion years at a digital media company had there not been a contract that forced them to come to the table in that manner.

what happened at deadspin today could've been prevented -- or at least held off -- if the staff's union comrades at g/o had walked out or enacted some other form of protest on their sites in solidarity. why that didn't happen i don't know, but it is a far more logical first step than an industry wide strike, and would have been effective. no one running a digital media company -- including the VC backed ones -- has the liquidity to hire hundreds of people before there is irreparable damage done to their business. oh well. to me, the digital union movement will end up being something like occupy wall st. everyone was already too under the thumb for it to change the world by a long stretch, but just as occupy wall st presaged the current political moment, i don't think we will look back at digital unions in in ~10 years and think "haha! what was that about??"

I always got the impression that Deadspin and Splinter (and Gawker, once upon a time) were off in their own clique compared to the rest of the the sites, I would guess that has something to do with the lack of solidarity action.

also, if by setting an example you can improve conditions for everyone at the sites that aren't being actively fucked with by Spanfeller, it's a good vibe to not imperil those people as well

Burneko's out:

I've resigned from Deadspin.

— Dracubert Nosferatko (@AlbertBurneko) October 30, 2019

Chris Thompson too:

i have quit my job at Deadspin.

— Prince Perspiro (@MadBastardsAll) October 30, 2019

Wow.

Magary's been RTing a lot of these. As of yet, he's not said anything about himself...though he did post this earlier:

Hello it's me the not-repentant-enough capitalist. https://t.co/X4eMaw0pi7

— Drew Magary (@drewmagary) October 30, 2019

Which...I can't get a read on.

it was not a denial of reality, it was an acceptance of it. it was people saying, we're all probably going to lose our jobs eventually anyway so let's lock our benefits in and make sure we get money on the way out. even for people who got nothing out of a media union except a pay bump upon the contract being signed and a check on the way out, it was worth it. there are ways to structure a union contract to ensure people's jobs... in the early meetings for the gawker union we decided we didn't want to go down that path, and instead attempted to find something that allowed for "flexibility" owing to the nature of the industry... anything beyond that was not really realistic on a number of levels and we knew that. as more and more media unions have been formed, the rhetoric has gone to different places, but i can say that at the beginning it was simply an attempt to claw back some rights and slices of the pie for the workers, and i find it impossible to say that wasn't accomplished. last year deadspin's previous owners bought out 40+ people, and they were forced to give them all 4+ months of severance. i can promise you that never would've happened in a million billion years at a digital media company had there not been a contract that forced them to come to the table in that manner.

what happened at deadspin today could've been prevented -- or at least held off -- if the staff's union comrades at g/o had walked out or enacted some other form of protest on their sites in solidarity. why that didn't happen i don't know, but it is a far more logical first step than an industry wide strike, and would have been effective. no one running a digital media company -- including the VC backed ones -- has the liquidity to hire hundreds of people before there is irreparable damage done to their business. oh well. to me, the digital union movement will end up being something like occupy wall st. everyone was already too under the thumb for it to change the world by a long stretch, but just as occupy wall st presaged the current political moment, i don't think we will look back at digital unions in in ~10 years and think "haha! what was that about??"

I mean the question is whether these gains are worth it if it also helps lead to sites imploding more often when the business people don't find it worth the trouble to deal with the union + try to expedite the shift towards more freelance labor and crowdsourced content.

and as far as presaging the future - I just can't really see a future, heavily unionized or no, where people who write online are better off 10 years from now than they are today + there are more jobs - the driving forces here come from outside of the digital media companies not within them. mark zuckerberg doesn't care if deadspin has a union.

Sure, but why are you posting this defeatist twaddle now?

Asking the legitimate question, "What's your strategy?" is not the same as "Are your gains worth it, and what kind of bleak future do you foresee?"

I mean the question is whether these gains are worth it if it also helps lead to sites imploding more often when the business people don't find it worth the trouble to deal with the union

This is the counter argument to every union ever, for fuck's sake. GM employees better not strike, or else they'll just move all the production to Tennessee and Mexico.

I think there's a pretty big gap between moving a car factory with thousands of workers to another country and finding some other online people to produce content.

but anyway this is not my fight, I don't have anything invested this it beyond 'I think it's good that people get paid to be writers' and lots of people here do. I just never saw the endgame in the unionization drive. if it really is mostly just to soup up the severance package you see coming, that at least makes sense.

if it really is mostly just to soup up

given all the reporting about everything G/O did immediately on taking over, it seems they got six months of a) employment and b) publishing great writing out of it

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/media/deadspin-staffers-quit/index.html

there was no endgame in the union drive as much as there is no endgame in the profession

there has to be a tipping point eventually, surely. like if the level of content online continues to decline as media organizations are purchased by private equity and converted into click farms, eventually the readers will leave.

there has to be a tipping point eventually, surely. like if the level of content online continues to decline as media organizations are purchased by private equity and converted into click farms, eventually the readers will leave.

the clickers, you mean

The clickers will clack