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
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
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.
🥂
Because the infamous 2 girls 1 cup video is just a trailer. It was always meant to be free.
