Because of the two, 2 girls 1 cup has less shit in it.
Bravo, sir…bravo.
Because journalism is an ongoing profession where people regularly receive money for their work, producing a publication has a lot of costs, and 2g1c is a single fake scat porn clip filmed ages ago.
Fake?!?!? :o
Sorry to break your heart, but I heard years ago that it was really just chocolate or something. No, I’m not looking any further into it. :)
what about the puke?
I’m just gonna say the world doesn’t have enough mystery in it anymore, and leave it at that.
Let’s rephrase the question: “is it cheaper to find and view that popular video from 20 years ago than a single news article the NY Times released 20 years ago?”
Otherwise, you’re comparing a current events media platform to a once-popular video hosted everywhere.
The girls in that video certainly do not get royalty checks
I sometimes wonder what became of them. I like to think they finally bought a second cup so they didn’t have to share anymore.
🥂
Neither do the reporters who write for the Times or any other newspaper.
It’s still expensive to run an ongoing news organisation, unlike a janky old video from decades ago.
So what you’re saying is, we need new 2G1C content regularly, and with a higher production quality
takes notes
Because the infamous 2 girls 1 cup video is just a trailer. It was always meant to be free.
