"From just £4 a month" - Even in its death throes the Guardian continues to obfuscate the truth
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (22)
sorted by:
So it's only $4/month unless you choose one of their default options which are $5 or $12/month.
I'd also bet that the 48,530/50,000 goal chart is a lie as well. People are more likely to donate if they think they're close to the goal and if they think that others have donated. It's probably a completely made-up number that has been optimized for psychological impact.
That number, 48530, is extremely unlikely. "0"s as ending numbers don't happen all that often, but humans love seeing them.
But to be fair to them, I went to their website, and saw 48699 as the number, which is higher than in the screenshot. But 99 is the LEAST likely number from 1-100, numbers-audit-speaking (math is fascinating, how natural courses of things make certain numbers more or less likely to occur in nature).
On the OTHER side of fairness, that screenshot asked for the same amount of money, but in a different denomination. If they "need" money to keep going, why would they be tracking people donating 4USD the same as people donating 15GBP, instead of a running currency total in USD?
This sounds a lot like that crazy election denialism talk.
Benford's law is now double plus untrue.
Deeeeebooooonked!
It's now 49,495 and the wording is changed, and a new $1 option was added to replace the 'custom amount'. Also the hilighted part is an image, not text. weird.
Now they're desperate lmfao
99 is also one of the psychologically appealing numbers. It makes you feel like you're right there if it's a price it makes you think it's not as expensive as just 100.
And the third checker got a final number 5. Three different numbers! Also the three biggest human-incentivised numbers.
I have a feeling their numbers go up in line with the deadline, and are meant to pass the deadline at just before the end of it, going up onto key psychology numbers, and is completely unrelated to the actual number of donors. Could be wrong, but seems on-schedule for a "just barely".
Wouldn't be surprised. It's like a store front loading some money in the tip jar so it makes the customer feel more "guilty" for not tipping
Nothing about The Guardian, with the exception of the Edward Snowden interviews of 2013, has been ethical since the Scott Trust dissolvement into Scott Trust Limited of 2008.
It was always Left leaning, but not to the criminal extent that it has been since then.
It is now profit driven without shareholders. Guess who is at the top?
If you guessed disabled, woman of colour from a vulnerable community I'm afraid you are wrong.
Ol' Chad McChadface of the Tinius Trust is at the helm of the Sea Dolphin II and is guiding us into a new tomrrow.
You mean unethical, not ethical right?
I look forward to the coverage of their "liar-y, but mostly profitable, bankruptcy"
Independent of what? They don't think we'll believe that the MSM is independent of their governments?
I thought the Guardian had gigantic endowments from pro-feminist donors? What happened to that?
USAID money dried up.
If I join and then immediately do a chargeback - do they get hit with fees?
So if I cuck out and pay £12/month, I'll get "far fewer" asks for support? What a bargain!
With Labour in power I don't think they would let the Guardian go under, I think they would come up with some kind of underhanded bailout. I know a few years ago the BBC was actually buying half their print circulation every day.
Naw, I could use that £4 to help keep a native British family well-supplied with food.
Oh bloimey, learn to code, guv’nah!