Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

washingtonmonthly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 233 posts

Re: Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

#121

Post by imwillofficial »

slg wrote: post #112
afavour wrote: post #32

> There’s no evidence that the deal directly affects coverage in either the news or editorial departments. Before the Facebook News deal, the Times famously published an op-ed titled “It’s Time to Break Up Facebook,” by Chris Hughes, a cofounder of Facebook turned critic. And since the deal, columns from Tim Wu and Kara Swisher, among others, have been similarly critical. In December, the editorial board welcomed a l…

>The core conflict here isn't new, surely. Newspapers have taken advertising money from news-making companies since time immaterial. And if you can find a viable alternative to this, your company will be worth hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars[1]. The internet has killed the classifieds business and commoditized news to the point that most people won't pay for it. Accepting advertising from potentially…

“If you don’t take money from companies you have a conflict of interest with, it’s dangerous! Think of the children!” I’m sorry but I may have exaggerated for humorous effect, but your line of reasoning I reject outright.

There are ways to do this effectually. This is not that way.

Re: Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

#122

Post by phpnode »

tome wrote: post #29
KMnO4 wrote: post #4

[flagged]

tome's law strikes again! "In any discussion about an article whose title is a question, Betteridge's law is mentioned with probability 1." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24545238

I'm so sorry tome, but this is actually the Fourth Law of Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4722251

This predates tome's law by 3 years.

Re: Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

#123

Post by slg »

imwillofficial wrote: post #121
slg wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The core conflict here isn't new, surely. Newspapers have taken advertising money from news-making companies since time immaterial. And if you can find a viable alternative to this, your company will be worth hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars[1]. The internet has killed the classifieds business and commoditized news to the point that most people won't pay for it. Accepting advertising from potentially…

“If you don’t take money from companies you have a conflict of interest with, it’s dangerous! Think of the children!” I’m sorry but I may have exaggerated for humorous effect, but your line of reasoning I reject outright. There are ways to do this effectually. This is not that way.

This is the New York Times we are talking about. Literally everything is within their reporting purview. Who can they possibly accept money from that won't present a potential conflict of interest?

Re: Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

#124

Post by CivBase »

slg wrote: post #112
afavour wrote: post #32

> There’s no evidence that the deal directly affects coverage in either the news or editorial departments. Before the Facebook News deal, the Times famously published an op-ed titled “It’s Time to Break Up Facebook,” by Chris Hughes, a cofounder of Facebook turned critic. And since the deal, columns from Tim Wu and Kara Swisher, among others, have been similarly critical. In December, the editorial board welcomed a l…

>The core conflict here isn't new, surely. Newspapers have taken advertising money from news-making companies since time immaterial. And if you can find a viable alternative to this, your company will be worth hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars[1]. The internet has killed the classifieds business and commoditized news to the point that most people won't pay for it. Accepting advertising from potentially…

I've re-read your post a few times and I'm sure it wasn't your intention, but it keeps reading to me like "bad things have become the normal and people should stop pointing it out". Whether or not there is a better solution, I think there are clearly dangers inherent to monetizing news with ad revenue and I think there is value in keeping a careful eye on them.

Re: Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

#125

Post by ipaddr »

slg wrote: post #112
afavour wrote: post #32

> There’s no evidence that the deal directly affects coverage in either the news or editorial departments. Before the Facebook News deal, the Times famously published an op-ed titled “It’s Time to Break Up Facebook,” by Chris Hughes, a cofounder of Facebook turned critic. And since the deal, columns from Tim Wu and Kara Swisher, among others, have been similarly critical. In December, the editorial board welcomed a l…

>The core conflict here isn't new, surely. Newspapers have taken advertising money from news-making companies since time immaterial. And if you can find a viable alternative to this, your company will be worth hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars[1]. The internet has killed the classifieds business and commoditized news to the point that most people won't pay for it. Accepting advertising from potentially…

The internet destroyed newspapers ability to milk classified ads so we should look the other way when journals get in bed with the newsmakers? Wait until we have overwhelming proof because the system isn't working?

But things are working for the Times not so much for regional players. How does this help us?

Re: Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

#126

Post by arrosenberg »

WORMS_EAT_WORMS wrote: post #113
arrosenberg wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cold hard truth? We caused this problem, Facebook is a great scapegoat, and most here likely contributed to bigger issues with information distribution in one way or another through their employment. Yeah, yeah. We should all recycle more and drive less too; smokers should stop smoking, and the anxious should stop having anxiety. Users didn't create the system that exploits them, and it's very weird any time I see…

Fair point. But, what do you really want right now, blood ? Say we disappeared Facebook off the planet, do you really think — boom! — problem solved?

I obviously don't subscribe to a straw man position. My comment was about systems exploiting people, because it's a system that needs to be fixed. Facebook is the 800 pound gorilla protecting the system from change.

Re: Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

#127

Post by imwillofficial »

slg wrote: post #123
imwillofficial wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“If you don’t take money from companies you have a conflict of interest with, it’s dangerous! Think of the children!” I’m sorry but I may have exaggerated for humorous effect, but your line of reasoning I reject outright. There are ways to do this effectually. This is not that way.

This is the New York Times we are talking about. Literally everything is within their reporting purview. Who can they possibly accept money from that won't present a potential conflict of interest?

Not freaking the Evil Empire of companies would be a great start.

Re: Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

#128

Post by bogwog »

Spivak wrote: post #59
ErikVandeWater wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-tracking is harmful to all businesses who advertise, is it not?

It absolutely is. I detest Facebook's level of tracking and invasion of people's privacy but I'll be damned if it doesn't enable businesses of any size to market with the same power previously reserved for supermassive brands for pennies. I feel like there's basically no allowable nuance in this discussion because holding any opinion than "tracking is 100% bad with literally no upsides for anyone other than ad networ…

> but I'll be damned if it doesn't enable businesses of any size to market with the same power previously reserved for supermassive brands for pennies

You forgot to add this part:

> At the expense of the consumer, and usually without their consent or knowledge.

Facebook is the particular bad guy here, because we usually need to rally around one target to get anything done (and they are by far the worst offender). But the goal is not to take down Facebook, it's to limit or eliminate tracking and other practices that violate and exploit the privacy of people.

Of course small businesses can benefit from doing what Facebook does, just like a homeless person can benefit by robbing a bank. That doesn't mean it's right.

Stronger privacy laws might kill small businesses that engage in that type of behavior, but it's not going to kill the economy. New business will be born, and the free market will fix itself.

Re: Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

#129

Post by jhickok »

corpMaverick wrote: post #63
WORMS_EAT_WORMS wrote: post #44

Let us be real, folks: - You are reading this comment. - You are likely highly or fairly paid. - You don’t pay for your news (to a partisan substack doesn’t count) Edit: Added likely to comment. Icing on the cake is if you consume almost all your news through Twitter / social media. Maybe stop clicking and reacting and instead stop and reflect your role in all this? Cold hard truth? We caused this problem, Facebook i…

Right. I would like to have Netflix for news. Pay $10 a month. And have access to NYT, NPR, The Economist et al. I want it to be easy to sign in and out.

In theory that's like Apple News+, but unfortunately all the major news providers (e.g. newspapers) do not make their content available with an Apple News+ subscription.

Re: Facebook gives money to America’s biggest news organizations

#130

Post by [deleted] »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #42
afavour wrote: post #32

> There’s no evidence that the deal directly affects coverage in either the news or editorial departments. Before the Facebook News deal, the Times famously published an op-ed titled “It’s Time to Break Up Facebook,” by Chris Hughes, a cofounder of Facebook turned critic. And since the deal, columns from Tim Wu and Kara Swisher, among others, have been similarly critical. In December, the editorial board welcomed a l…

Tech blogs are regularly bribed for good coverage, and tech companies are known for doing it. Nobody bloody cares about integrity of journalism. The Verge has historically been very favorable to Apple and Google. Why? They get exclusive interviews with Google and Apple executives. An interview with Sundar Pichai is worth millions in ad revenue, and if a blog is too critical of a company, they won't get interviews. Of…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN