41–50 of 193 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you realy think the value they give to communities is less than have 100$ job post
My local newspaper is a notoriously worthless rag that has probably done more to harm humanity than to benefit it, including starting a major war.
First, there's no mention of the legal theory under which they're claiming damages. Is this something to do with caching, aggregation, AMP, or what? The only thing the article touches on is Google being a monopoly for ads, but that would seem to be a very small part of how Google contributed to undermining the news industry. Also even if these newspapers are successful, does anyone foresee any of the damages actually…
But my understanding of anti trust law is it's always running into new situations that need to be adapted to.
Even anti trust law itself was new/controversial at one point, and the concept of forcing or breaking apart private businesses was novel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is right. It's not Facebook that ate the media's lunch, it was craigslist, ebay, and any marketplace that allows free listings. They've been trying to make up that revenue ever since. Subscriptions were always a pittance. That's not to say Facebook didn't make things worse. They make everything worse; They even ruined wishing friends happy birthday. But the news vs the internet is a much older story than middle-…
> Subscriptions were always a pittance. It's not that they were a pittance, it's that they were eaten by the cost of printing and distribution. But the internet doesn't have that. The problem was the chronology of how this happened. Newspapers had paid print subscribers and advertisers and were profitable. Then the advertisers were eaten by eBay and Craigslist, so they went into the red. But their paid subscribers we…
> Without that need, you end up with individuals doing reporting on substack.
Content that is produced on substack is opinion, not news. It is produced from a comfort of a chair, not from a war zone or a hurricane zone. Nothing wrong with that (if opinion is what you are after), but you actually need to have a news organization to produce news coverage. A single person can not do it in a professional and repeatable way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is Google supposed to know if you have access or not? (because if you have, and it doesn't show you the relevant result, it is doing a disservice to you)
I don't think they are blaming Google. It's the news org's fault in that case, for showing the Google bot a full article while actual people get a paywall.
I HATE clicking on a Google link and discovering that it's paywalled. It's a massive waste of time.
Why is this even allowed by google? It’s a bait and switch similar to serving visitors and search engines different content.
Newspapers allowed Google and Facebook to drag them to their territory of online ad-monetized business models in which they have no way of competing (because of tech discrepancy). This then led to deterioration of journalism and its inevitable transformation into sensationalism and entertainment, again driven by the incentives of the ad-monetized business model, because clickbait makes more ad money. It is a sad stat…
>"This then led to deterioration of journalism and its inevitable transformation into sensationalism and entertainment, again driven by the incentives of the ad-monetized business model, because clickbait makes more ad money." People have this notion that the media used to be way more honest and impartial before the digital age but I doubt that was ever the case. Papers were playing fast and loose with the truth long…
Similarly with claims of censorship over covid. Yes it is a cause for concern, but no, it probably won't lead to the Ministry of Information, as some people claim. But crucially, even if it does, that isn't in itself dystopia, our governments created propoganda ministries during WW2, and they don't continue to exist today. Military censorship has always existed but the propoganda ministry of WW2 was much more active than just censoring military information.
Add to that the fact that classified ads have been taken over by likes of ebay, LinkedIn, craigslist, etc. Basically the business model of the old newspapers have been disrupted and trying to blame it on popular targets like Google and FB is pointless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My local newspaper is a notoriously worthless rag that has probably done more to harm humanity than to benefit it, including starting a major war.
Your local newspaper has started a major war?
The newspapers have missed the opportunity to monetize for themselves and now need to roll out everything anew. As they should, today's google amp links are much worse content wise than daily mail articles, and that's one hell of a low bar.
>The newspapers have missed the opportunity to monetize for themselves What do you think that opportunity was for most even decent-size city newspapers? A few national/international brands have done OK but that's because the NYT, say, has subscribers all over the world. Even something like the San Francisco Chronicle never had that same opportunity. Maybe if everyone had pushed back harder on making content available…
Maybe something like free access without ads to paper subscribers.
I just tried to run a search query with explicit "without google" and am returned the full spectrum of google marketing tools:-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your local newspaper has started a major war?
Yes. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/yellow-journa...