Great! Though nothing on how the Facebook click-bait business model is at odds with good journalism, which has led to the decline of reputable newspapers and rise of Buzzfeed.
Facebook to Invest $300m in Supporting Local News
21–30 of 100 posts
Re: Facebook to Invest $300m in Supporting Local News
#22Ah yes the bastion of journalistic quality that is local news...wait...what? FB gets a lot of flak for fake news and then decides to invest in local news? Why not in institutions that set the standard for journalism and bring accountability such as Pro Publica?
Seriously. Last night St. Louis local news aired a story about an elderly woman who walks around her apartment. Good for the woman but I couldn't believe what I was seeing.
https://www.ksdk.com/article/news/health/no-gym-no-problem-s...
Re: Facebook to Invest $300m in Supporting Local News
#23Anyone else not want local news support coming from FB of all places?
Re: Facebook to Invest $300m in Supporting Local News
#24Interesting timing, the day after Newspack was announced.[1] I know which one I'm going to support, but it's going to be tough to take on a $300mm commitment with a $3mm commitment. 1. https://en.blog.wordpress.com/2019/01/14/newspack-by-wordpre...
With Google Reader Gone, Facebook and Twitter essentially have taken the place of feed readers. It makes a lot of sense for Facebook, it's not merely a social network anymore. It's acting like a social 'OS' for the users now.
Google Reader and RSS has outsize importance in tech and blogging circles, but as someone who was in college in the late-2000s, I count on one hand the number of people who knew what RSS even was. I'd say FB and Twitter killed forums and website comment sections.
Re: Facebook to Invest $300m in Supporting Local News
#25> Last year, we worked to better understand what kind of news people want to see on Facebook.
This opening line is just all wrong. News isn't about 'what you want to see', writing news to garner clicks is basically another way of saying 'our news reporting is fundamentally biased'.
Real journalism isn't entertainment. But, I get it, real journalism doesn't sell, people don't have time to understand world problems, don't care much about corruption unless it's dramatic, don't care about plain boring facts.
Facebook understands that in order to own a market they have to spoon-feed it what it wants. Curate an audience of idle minds and feed them what they measurably want.
This play to 'local news' is simply a tool to advance their own agenda, they want to own local news and help you feel that FB is all warm and 'local' to your needs.
Your 'local' world-view, sponsored by Facebook. It's kind of sick really.
Re: Facebook to Invest $300m in Supporting Local News
#26Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Not sure if I got that, did you mean "Do not want." perhaps?
Re: Facebook to Invest $300m in Supporting Local News
#27Ah yes the bastion of journalistic quality that is local news...wait...what? FB gets a lot of flak for fake news and then decides to invest in local news? Why not in institutions that set the standard for journalism and bring accountability such as Pro Publica?
The decline in local news likely plays a big part in the decline in American civic life and social capital. That said, $300M isn't nearly enough to even mitigate the damage Facebook does to American civic life simply by virtue of being a data-mining, misinformation spreading behemoth. Their business model is at cross purposes with the ideal of having an informed citizenry. The entire point of marketing and advertisin…
Name me a war the US entered that isn't World War II that wasn't coincident with a misinformation campaign published on dead tree legacy media. The truth is that mass media IS edutainment at best and completely misleading fiction most of the time.
You get to pick two: fast, cheap, and good/true. If it is fast and cheap it is fake. If it is cheap and true it will take time to attain. If it is true and fast, it won't be cheap to get the information.
Re: Facebook to Invest $300m in Supporting Local News
#28> Last year, we worked to better understand what kind of news people want to see on Facebook. This opening line is just all wrong. News isn't about 'what you want to see', writing news to garner clicks is basically another way of saying 'our news reporting is fundamentally biased'. Real journalism isn't entertainment. But, I get it, real journalism doesn't sell, people don't have time to understand world problems, do…
Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with nor endorse Facebook. I actually deleted mine for 6 months before making a new one to keep in touch with friends.
But, I will not knock a company for wanting to maximize profits. They want their users to want to use their platform. If I owned a social media, or any product really, I would want to do everything I can to keep them coming back. I feel like as long as it isn't illegal, and done with best practices (ethically and morally) then that is what a free market is about. Should a competitor arise and do it better then That would be fantastic! Markets thrive through competition and freedom of choice. But as it stands there is not a whole lot of competition state side.
I don't agree with a lot that Facebook, or Mark, does. But I have respect for them from strictly a business point of view for staying above water as long as they have. I just wish there was a viable competitor.
Re: Facebook to Invest $300m in Supporting Local News
#29Best win-win outcome IMO would be for Facebook to pay itself this $300M as an incentive to stay completely out of news, local and otherwise.
Re: Facebook to Invest $300m in Supporting Local News
#30Ah yes the bastion of journalistic quality that is local news...wait...what? FB gets a lot of flak for fake news and then decides to invest in local news? Why not in institutions that set the standard for journalism and bring accountability such as Pro Publica?
Pro Publica was created by billionaire bankers a little more than 10 years ago. They aren't in need of any funding. Also, it's a bit of a stretch to say that pro publica is the standard of journalism or accountability. Pro Publica is an advocacy institution.
You may not intend it, but when you write, "created by billionaire bankers" it doesn't add to the conversation much (specific behavior influenced by that funding would be more useful, if it exists) and is recalls some kind of unpalatable language/imagery used by far right groups - which I'm definitely not accusing you of, to be clear.
One thing you may not know is that they publish their full financials, in accordance with the mission statement around transparency. You can see their full 2017 finances here: https://assets.propublica.org/2017-Financial-Statements-for-... (and you can see they are financially conservative, but are very much in need of funding to support their operations).
I have no connection to them other than admiration for how they are operated and their mission.