Vice Media to Reorganize, Lay Off 10 Percent of Staff

They were all "darlings" of a free and open internet and social media. They either started in the mid 2000s or had their growth in that era ( vice started in the 90s but their major growth occurred in the mid 2000s ). Without an open and free internet and social media, they would never have been created let alone thrived.

Unfortunately for them, big media companies ( nytimes, cnn, wapo, etc ) that they compete against have won preferential status within social media and the wider internet. So they are now struggling to grow and even stay afloat.

They only have themselves to blame so I have no sympathy for them. They are the ones who demanded that "authoritative sources" get preferential treatment on google news, google search, youtube, facebook, etc.

If search results or the news feed aren't based on merit but human moderated "authoritative sources", then there is no room for buzzfeed, vice, huffpo. Whereas the nytimes, cnn, wapo, etc have structural advantages, name recognition and other broadcast avenues, these small companies are entirely internet/social media driven.

You would have thought that they would have protected their turf rather than cheerleading nytimes, cnn, wapo, etc taking over their turf. But oddly enough, buzzfeed, vice, huffo, etc have been the greatest champions of a closed and moderated internet.

Whereas I used to see buzzfeed, vice, huffpo articles/videos on youtube and google search on a regular basis. Now I hardly ever seen them. Instead, I see a lot of cnn, wapo, nytimes, etc results and recommends. I've never used facebook, but I'm guessing the same thing has happened there, just as happened with google news years back.

Also, these layoffs are just a tip of the iceberg. They are laying off during a major economic growth, low unemployment and tons of easy cash floating around. Imagine the pain they are going to feel when the recession comes and money gets tight. But as I said, they only have themselves to blame. And it's only going to get worse as tech companies ( at their request ) only allow "authoritative sources".

>And that's assuming this money was allowed to be used as direct subsidy to non-government news outlets.

That is not an assumption, that is what the text of the bill explicitly states:

>There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of State for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 $20,000,000 to support the Center and provide grants or contracts of financial support to civil society groups, journalists, nongovernmental organizations, federally funded research and development centers, private companies, or academic institutions for the following purposes: 17 (A) To support local independent media 18 who are best placed to refute foreign 19 disinformation and manipulation in their own 20 communities. 21 (B) To collect and store examples in print, 22 online, and social media, disinformation, misin23 formation, and propaganda directed at the 24 United States and its allies and partners.

1 (C) To analyze tactics, techniques, and 2 procedures of foreign government information 3 warfare with respect to disinformation, misin4 formation, and propaganda. 5 (D) To support efforts by the Center to 6 counter efforts by foreign governments to use 7 disinformation, misinformation, and propa8 ganda to influence the policies and social and 9 political stability of the United States and 10 United States allies and partners.

It specifically specifies nongovernmental and private organizations in the text of the bill. And it's coincidental that these organizations just started laying off employees in bulk at the start of 2019.

Then it was acquired and it pivoted sharply into being a media and news portal, with a presence on nigh every platform. The content quickly expanded in quantity, and critically overloaded itself in trying to dominate online discussion in every space.

And that last statement is a lot of conjecture. Unless you have proof of some conspiracy to dominate online discussion in every space. They do cover a wide variety of subjects, only a couple of which I've read—and they seem generally good, with the odd very good piece.

Most media companies run a small gamut of niche categories: lifestyle, fashion, news, business, tech, finance, etc.