Now that Glenn Greenwald has pretty much only himself to answer to, it'll be interesting to see what he publishes that he might not have, had he stayed at The Guardian. I'm a little concerned that his domain name firstlook.org is hosted through GoDaddy. Anything particularly damning could have authorities asking GoDaddy to take his domain from him, and the fact that his servers are hosted in California provides a second potential point of government interference.
Greenwald's been asked, given how things seem to be, whether he would set things up outside the US. ISTR he stated that the Constitution (and First Amendment) still exist and the US is the most appropriate place for the NewCo. I think it was in an interview with Kirsty Wark for Newsnight.
The US might be a good place for the servers, but GoDaddy has proven to be an unreliable registrar in the past. They should at least be using a provider that supports a free internet.
The domain doesn't matter, the content does. If a server or domain gets seized the site can be up within minutes at another URL on different hardware. If it's not already, I wouldn't be surprised if it was also accessible on a .onion URL like their dropbox is.
Having one of the richest men in the world writing your checks means that the domain is very unlikely to be seized. They play those games with people who can't fight back. Pierre Omidyar can fight back.
If a server or domain gets seized the site can be up within minutes at another URL
If a tree falls in the forest...
The fact that some server, somewhere, is available to service requests doesn't do very much, if your readers don't know where that is. The DNS system is the normal way of doing so.
I think people who care would find out pretty quick what happened and where to go next. Popularity on DNS is not the only way to be popular ;)
This isn't the first time Glenn has moved, he had his own blog for awhile, moved to salon, then to the Guardian. It doesn't seemed to have stopped people from finding him.
It doesn't help with that, but it does help with continuity of operations. If his domain is taken and his operations are otherwise interfered with, he can then move operations elsewhere, under a different domain. I'm sure 90+% of anyone reading his site would learn of the new domain within days.
Not to be too cynical, but I'm guessing Glenn would be delighted for the government to try to interfere with his publishing.
They managed to get to him via his Brazilian partner while he was in the UK. So what is there to lose at this point?
If the US government does want to mess with Glenn some more, he'll have the benefit of the fact that US courts do recognize some additional rights to being on US soil. And for PR purposes, being fully on US soil is also advantageous.
Not to say that he's fishing for it, but the US can screw with your Internet hosting no matter where it is, and he'll get more protection, more attention, and more sympathy if it's all located in the US.
He doesn't have to be fishing for it. He's conducting the business of journalism in good faith and in accordance with US laws governing freedom of the press. If they're stupid enough to mess with him, it will blow up in their faces. Nothing ensures the publicity of something online like trying to take it down. Streisand affect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
> I'm a little concerned that his domain name firstlook.org is hosted through GoDaddy. Anything particularly damning could have authorities asking GoDaddy to take his domain from him (...)
Part of me hopes he did this on purpose, so that whe GoDaddy makes a move, it will unleash unseen amounts of Internet rage that maybe, finally, will take GoDaddy down for good.
HTTPS by default with a good score from SSLLabs[1], a SecureDrop implementation, and public keys posted for all of their staff. They clearly are taking this seriously. Good for them.
I would love to see more serious news sites use tipping with cryptocurrencies. I think it would benefit their bottom lines and help them become sustainable.
FirstLook plans to earn money by selling technology solutions rather than through its journalism (which is not for profit). With that in mind, one would have expected something a little more 'innovative' on the technology side for their first publication.
> The editorial independence of our journalists will be guaranteed. They will be encouraged to pursue their passions, cultivate a unique voice, and publish stories without regard to whom they might anger or alienate.
When we speak about guarantees here it usually has a stronger meaning, but even so, how could one guarantee anything like this?
I was really hoping for something... more. This looks like a mediocre blog template, not "the future of journalism on the web". (I don't think anyone's actually claimed it will be, but given Greenwald's track record -- even before Snowden -- I was hoping it would be.)
I am glad that they are focusing on the content itself instead of fancy stuff. Websites like The Verge or Polygon were exciting at first, but all that flair and gradients got old really soon. I'd like to concentrate on words instead. Sprinkle couple of images related to the text and i'll be very happy.
P.S.: I do think that Intercept could be a little bit more solid, less generic design-wise with its own style.
I can't even read the Verge except for their mobile site. The desktop experience is so heavy and bloated, that I just leave before finding the article I want to read.
Adding to the chorus of people who disagree with you, I'd like to also say that this was put up very quickly. I'm sure when time permits they'll build out the front end further.
I do think that the appearance of this new media matters. If not, why using a template at all? Or even pictures? Only the words matters, thats why the presentation should not be distracting and using a random template is.
The comments also threaten to derail the project. Conspiracy theorists abound and not really any filtering system to bring good comments above the fray. I'm not really sure why these articles even need user comments. They make the site feel like Infowars.
I'm more disappointed by the apparent lack of a business model, beyond the usual Mecenate/sugar-daddy relationship with Omidyar. He's starting from scratch, in 2014, with a talented group of young guns, a huge trove of stories and a lot of publicity... he has a chance at really defining something innovative for the industry, beyond fancy graphics and hard-hitting content in the same old package. I hope they have better plans for the near future.
The revenue model is currently "we don't care, Omidyar has committed to spending at least the $250M he didn't spend on the Washington Post". At their current staffing, that probably goes quite a ways.
