That doesn't make sense because that would be a really stupid and dangerous line of argument for them. It's even cheaper for the BBC to close, if that's the logic they want to pretend they're using.
The argument should be that the cost of broadcasting is worth the benefit of viewer privacy.
Companies hate broadcasts because they can't track viewers as easily and gather data on them to use or sell.
It's the one where I clicked "No AI" and the results page thanked me for voting yes!
… the fact DDG is not doing AI.
They are, unless you opt out.
Also, lots have apps have the main duckduckgo as a search option. I've not seen any have the noai as an option.
Now, now. It's not like the USA has a super-embassy on the Thames and has a government restricting academic freedom(!) /s
Almost as bad is plastic packaging labelled as "recyclable" and when you look, it's Terracycle, which is a private recycling provider that is almost a scam, with few recycling points on its map and most I've tried not existing in reality. Terracycle is short for "terrible recycling".
Well, why did you think they forced bytedance to sell the US arm to a joint venture controlled by his chums?
More seriously how it s twisted ?
Well, someone descended from migrants hating later migrants is pretty twisted and a bit self-loathing, don't you think? There's got to be something wrong to want to change the rules so you wouldn't have existed if those rules had been in place years earlier.
Also how britain is an immigrant nation ? It s a 2000 year old country. Immigration wasnt even possible in scale 100 year ago because transportation wasnt good enough.
The country of Great Britain is only just over 300 years old, but let's pretend you meant England, which is just under 1100 years old. Boats have existed for a long time, but you're right that they weren't readily available to everyone, so early mass immigration events were often linked to invasions, such as the famous Normans or less famous Dutch (most recently in 1688), or expulsions and exoduses from nearby countries, such as France (Huguenots, who were about 5% of London's population around 1700 = 30,000, with about as many in Kent) or Flanders (the Strangers). Before England was unified, there were Angles an Vikings from across the North Sea, Saxons and Romans from mainland Europe, Celts from Central Europe before them, and farmers from Spain and Turkey before that. Before that, it gets pretty hazy, but pretty much all "Brits" are descended from a mix of these immigrants.
Proceeds to list zero policies 😀
I listed three. You might like to pretend they're not policies or something, but Reform put them in their manifesto.
We’re using gas for the next 50 years whether it’s Reform or the Greens. That curries more favour with the US or Qatar than it does Russia. You’re reaching for that to be a “Putin policy”
Really? Are you seriously claiming that Putin doesn't want the UK buying gas for longer? As that's the difference between Reform and the others: Reform would build more new gas power stations, prolonging the dependency mistake, while most of the other parties will phase it out more or less quickly.
Scrapping the licence fee…
Not only, but also scrapping the BBC because they believe on-demand TV has replaced it. That's what they wrote.
And I notice you don't disagree that Putin would want the UK out of the European Defence Fund.
What would Putin oppose? Let’s see… the top three from Reform’s site:
- stopping the boats (I know, I know)
- defend our borders
- deport illegal migrants
Don't make me laugh! Why would Putin oppose those? Putin would love all of them, along with anything else that makes the UK more isolated and causes squabbles with its neighbours or diverts funds from NATO-level defence to petty little border patrols. That's why he's paid Reform politicians like Nathan Gill so much.
Encroaching crypto-fascism. A perverse desire for control,
Or sometimes it is a real desire to be seen as tough on crime without noticing that the people who want age-verification/identity-document-duplication include some of the biggest criminals.
They might not be violating it, in the sense that they operate within the law, but they do invade your privacy if you use iPlayer by collecting "your name and contact details, your date of birth or financial details [...] your email address and age. Device information [...] Location information [..] Information on your activities outside the BBC [...] the articles you read and the programmes you watch." They use it, among other things "to check if you're using BBC iPlayer and to keep the licensing database accurate [...] to personalise services and give you things more tailored to your tastes [...] to show you relevant advertising on another company's site [...] to help us understand what kind of services you might use And sometimes how you might share things with other people g. to recommend things we think might interest you [..] to show you advertising when you access a BBC service from outside the UK". They share it with other companies "When we use other companies to power our services [...] When you use another company's service that connects to us [...] When we do collaborative research" (all quotes from the BBC Privacy and Cookies Policy).
I don't think most viewers realise the broad consent that the BBC demands before it will let you watch iPlayer. Just the privacy section of their terms is 20 screenfuls on my laptop: it'll be more than that on a smart TV, so it's obviously going to be "too long: didn't read" for most people. It's not an informed choice. Once upon a time, the BBC would have been educating the public about these privacy drawbacks with streaming, not only marketing its own streaming services.
The BBC would say that some broadcast costs are worth more viewer privacy if they cared about public benefit.
No, close the BBC. If the BBC want to say that cost is the main problem with broadcasting, then the next step is to say we close BBC TV entirely (or maybe except for one or two news channels) and save even more. Saying it's cheaper to close things that deliver public benefit is an absurd argument for them to use.
The proportion of video content being watched by streaming is increasing because even the BBC is advertising and marketing streaming over all else. There are numerous adverts/trailers for its programmes shown on its broadcast services which don't give a time or date of broadcast, but simply say "watch on BBC iPlayer" at the end. Unsurprisingly, if you have something the size of the BBC saying repeatedly to do something, the number of people doing it will increase.
Broadcasts still have value and should be the core of the BBC. It's not the BSC, after all.