11–20 of 72 posts
So Facebook's revenues are approx $80b, and they're going to pay $1b over 3 years, for all of the real news content they rely on to drive traffic on their platform. 0.4% of revenue sounds way too cheap for that. If FB lost legitimate content, they'd have to make do with just their bubble-fuelling crackpot user-generated fake news, and that would surely drive away many of the less rabid FB users. They need legitimate…
RIP Fourth Estate
$1 billion doesn't sound like a lot, considering the way Facebook user doom scroll. How much is that per headline+summary viewed? Maybe $0.00001?
So Facebook's revenues are approx $80b, and they're going to pay $1b over 3 years, for all of the real news content they rely on to drive traffic on their platform. 0.4% of revenue sounds way too cheap for that. If FB lost legitimate content, they'd have to make do with just their bubble-fuelling crackpot user-generated fake news, and that would surely drive away many of the less rabid FB users. They need legitimate…
FB doesn't make 80bn in Australia
Although I can see why they've folded, starting to see a trend where my FB friends are posting more infrequently so FB needs to something to fill up content to keep people's feeds current and them a reason to return.
Would've thought it would be cheaper for them to fund their own "News organization" reporting news from outside of Australia, which if successful I'd expect to would dissuade other countries from following suit.
Does Facebook host news content or just provide links to it?
If I were to stand on a corner and tell people what was on the menu and the daily special of a cafe down the block, I cannot think of a situation where that cafe would think they were owed money for my doing this.
I understand that Facebook and Google have a powerful market position, but I don’t see that as part of the argument.