Vice Magazine Will Cease Publishing, Laying Off Hundreds

Vice declared bankruptcy months ago. Its remaining assets were bought for pennies on the pound* by some financial fregans digging through the corporate media garbage dumpster.

While Vice's layabout perverts had hopes they would continue being paid for their phoney-baloney jobs, they've been told they should plan to spend more time with their Portland polycules.

Vice Media Group is making drastic changes in the face of financial difficulties.

In a memo to Vice employees Thursday, CEO Bruce Dixon said the company will be cutting "several hundred" jobs in the next week.

As part of its major restructuring, Vice will discontinue publishing content on its own website, Vice.com, and will instead put "more emphasis on our social channels as we accelerate our discussions with partners to take our content to where it will be viewed most broadly," Dixon wrote in the memo.

What does that mean? To be honest I think it just means they will spam out advertisements on their Twitter feed.

They say they want to "partner with established media." Of course. Bankrupt basket-case companies always want to "partner" with healthier ones, the same way leeches wish to "partner with" a human leg.

They also say they're going "full studio." But this "pivot to video" hasn't worked out for any of these companies.

"We create and produce outstanding original content true to the Vice brand. However, it is no longer cost-effective for us to distribute our digital content the way we have done previously. Moving forward, we will look to partner with established media companies to distribute our digital content, including news, on their global platforms, as we fully transition to a studio model," the CEO continued.

Vice had been evaluated, absurdly, at $5.7 billion at Peak Stupid. Before it declared bankruptcy it was still evaluated at $350 million.

And now? Who knows. I guess Vice media is still on some cable channels, somewhere.

Vice has long been one of the biggest jokes in Fake Media, as this old video demonstrates.

I wrote a Bye-ku for Vice:

Tranny sewing circles
in Lagos
Vice go boom

I guess even Meta -- FaceBook/Instagram -- isn't making as much profit as they want, because they're allowing people to post and sell sexualized photos of children.

David Strom, first quoting from, I think, the Wall Street Journal:

Meta Platforms safety staff warned last year that new paid subscription tools on Facebook and Instagram were being misused by adults seeking to profit from exploiting their own children.

Two teams inside Meta raised alarms in internal reports, after finding that hundreds of what the company calls "parent-managed minor accounts" were using the subscription feature to sell exclusive content not available to nonpaying followers. The content, often featuring young girls in bikinis and leotards, was sold to an audience that was overwhelmingly male and often overt about sexual interest in the children in comments on posts or when they communicated with the parents, according to people familiar with the investigations, which determined that the payments feature was launched without basic child-safety protections.

This wasn't nudity and it wasn't fully sexual, but it was obviously sexualized.

While the images of the girls didn't involve nudity or other illegal content, Meta's staffers found evidence that some parents understood they were producing content for other adults' sexual gratification. Sometimes parents engaged in sexual banter about their own children or had their daughters interact with subscribers' sexual messages.

And more from the NYT:

Thousands of accounts examined by The Times offer disturbing insights into how social media is reshaping childhood, especially for girls, with direct parental encouragement and involvement. Some parents are the driving force behind the sale of photos, exclusive chat sessions and even the girls' worn leotards and cheer outfits to mostly unknown followers. The most devoted customers spend thousands of dollars nurturing the underage relationships.

The large audiences boosted by men can benefit the families, The Times found. The bigger followings look impressive to brands and bolster chances of getting discounts, products and other financial incentives, and the accounts themselves are rewarded by Instagram's algorithm with greater visibility on the platform, which in turn attracts more followers.

More at the link.

Parents are exploiting their children, making them available to pedophiles, and Instagram just takes its cut of the revenue.

Meanwhile, it's hardly any better in the (LOL) "Prestige" media. The editor who edited the Tom Cotton op-ed calling for National Guard troops to quell the insurrection of BLM and Antifa Arsonists in 2020 now reveals how toxic and insane the New York Times is.

He was shamed at a silly get-to-know-eachother orientation meeting.

On one of my first days at The New York Times, I went to an orientation with more than a dozen other new hires. We had to do an icebreaker: Pick a Starburst out of a jar and then answer a question. My Starburst was pink, I believe, and so I had to answer the pink prompt, which had me respond with my favorite sandwich.

Russ & Daughters' Super Heebster came to mind, but I figured mentioning a $19 sandwich wasn't a great way to win new friends. So I blurted out, "The spicy chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A," and considered the ice broken.

The HR representative leading the orientation chided me: "We don't do that here. They hate gay people." People started snapping their fingers in acclamation.

Uptwinkles!!!

I hadn't been thinking about the fact that Chick-fil-A was transgressive in liberal circles for its chairman's opposition to gay marriage. "Not the politics, the chicken," I quickly said, but it was too late. I sat down, ashamed.

But it's Mostly Peaceful Chicken!!!

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 03:26 PM

| Access Comments