Ottawa pulls advertising, escalating showdown with Facebook and Instagram • Hacker News Board

Re: Ottawa pulls advertising, escalating showdown with Facebook and Instagram

#101

Post by delfinom » Wed, Jul 05, 2023, 8:31 PM UTC

mcpackieh wrote: post #92

grf27 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but if you're a government seeing your media industry shrinking because they can't make a profit to sustain themselves, meanwhile others are profiting off their work, then you want to try something, and I guess this is their attempt. One of the other solutions proposed was taxes on media aggregators. This is similar to the taxes on entertainment aggregators currently in place that pay into a fund that supports do…

The real threat to local news is national/international news. An organization selling a story to the entire anglosphere has an advantage over an organization trying to sell a story to just one town or country. Both stories cost about the same to write and distribute, but the story with [manufactured] international appeal has massively more earning potential. So newspapers with a focus on national news (NYTimes, WaPo)…

I would argue many local papers could just be a monthly town newsletter. Lol.

Re: Ottawa pulls advertising, escalating showdown with Facebook and Instagram

#102

Post by EatingWithForks » Wed, Jul 05, 2023, 8:33 PM UTC

wvenable wrote: post #95

grf27 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but if you're a government seeing your media industry shrinking because they can't make a profit to sustain themselves, meanwhile others are profiting off their work, then you want to try something, and I guess this is their attempt. One of the other solutions proposed was taxes on media aggregators. This is similar to the taxes on entertainment aggregators currently in place that pay into a fund that supports do…

The real threat to local news is Craigslist and Facebook marketplace. Local newspapers were mostly funded by their classifieds section. The news is merely to bring eyeballs to those ads. When the market for classifieds disappeared, there was no longer any financial support for local news. You could even argue that newspapers were only viable businesses because they had a monopoly over the local distribution of inform…

I actually don't think the Internet has been a good substitute for a local distribution of information. It's too global and too big. There's people who aren't from a neighborhood talking about it and skewing information about that neighborhood. Portland's supposed to be literally a BLM-flagged wasteland or something, y'know?

I'd really love for there to be a local newspaper that tells me a new bakery opened in town, or that the elementary school passed a new measure for students, or that there's going to be an art exhibit presented by some local artists. I want to know when there are some foster kitties looking for temporary homes, and a little articles about people who go all-out on halloween decor. The internet doesn't give this to me, not without a load of muck.

Re: Ottawa pulls advertising, escalating showdown with Facebook and Instagram

#103

Post by wvenable » Wed, Jul 05, 2023, 8:35 PM UTC

delfinom wrote: post #100

wvenable wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real threat to local news is Craigslist and Facebook marketplace. Local newspapers were mostly funded by their classifieds section. The news is merely to bring eyeballs to those ads. When the market for classifieds disappeared, there was no longer any financial support for local news. You could even argue that newspapers were only viable businesses because they had a monopoly over the local distribution of inform…

> because they had a monopoly over the local distribution of information Not to worry, several US states still have draconian laws to keep the local newspaper in business. In NYS, when you start a LLC or corp, you have to publish an announcement in 2 papers in the state announcing it and get certificates from the paper proving it. Of course there are ever so convenient "business papers" to leech off it. Some law make…

Governments pick winners and losers. For all these laws, like this Canadian law and the one you mention, there are plenty of business models that disappear without anyone doing anything about it.

I feel that if there is still a market for news then the market will figure it out. We should make laws encourage smaller players and avoid monopolies. Instead of making laws that transfer money from one giant corporation to another giant corporation. But that'll never happen because giant corporations have all the influence.

Re: Ottawa pulls advertising, escalating showdown with Facebook and Instagram

#104

Post by crop_rotation » Wed, Jul 05, 2023, 8:40 PM UTC

qqcqq wrote: post #84

There was another post that was on the front page earlier today that pretty much asked: if the [Canadian] government hates [Facebook] social media platform so much, why don't they just build their own? https://loeber.substack.com/p/10-why-is-there-no-government-... And I agree with the author that it's sort of weird that for all the handwringing and grandstanding these governments are doing, none of them are willing…

Network effects aside, Governments can not build social media or any website competing with private markets (Even google with unlimited pockets gave up on G+). Government just trying to create a barebones micro-twitter straight from the rails tutorial will easily cost millions of dollars to the taxpayer.

Re: Ottawa pulls advertising, escalating showdown with Facebook and Instagram

#105

Post by arrosenberg » Wed, Jul 05, 2023, 8:42 PM UTC

wvenable wrote: post #91

arrosenberg wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your example the cafe isn't monetizing the fact that you view the headline and comment, which inherently increases the advertising value of the cafe (i.e. more people won't come to the cafe because of the headlines and their need to comment on it) and which captures significantly more value than everyone else involved. You just read the headline, a few people buy the paper and everyone is equitable and happy. If M…

This theoretical cafe is monetizing the fact that people come and hang out and have discussions and order some coffee. The place is filled with games and magazines and newspapers that anyone can open a view the advertising within. But I never bother, I just read the headlines and discuss those without ever looking inside.

> This theoretical cafe is monetizing the fact that people come and hang out and have discussions and order some coffee.

Therein lies the difference.

1. People come and hang out - can't effectively do this on Meta sites, though their VR push seems aimed at trying to fulfill this need. I would also put "read the newspaper" under this category.

2. Have discussions - for varying definitions of "discussion", this is where Facebook is heavily monetized.

3. Order some coffee - again, can't effectively do that on any Meta sites.

Given that parks exist without coffee shops, we can infer that 3 is what coffee shops are monetizing, while 1 and 2 act as an additional enticement.

The newspapers suffer because, even though YOU may only comment on the headlines, there are plenty of people who go to the coffee shop and don't think twice about buying the paper to read or do the crossword puzzle. The newspaper is able to monetize 1 and 2 and the coffeeshop monetizes 3 - everyone is equitable and happy. On Facebook, Facebook monetizes 2 and claims (without much proof) that they are providing 1 as a service to customers. No coffee is ever served - everyone but Meta is unhappy.

Re: Ottawa pulls advertising, escalating showdown with Facebook and Instagram

#106

Post by wvenable » Wed, Jul 05, 2023, 8:44 PM UTC

EatingWithForks wrote: post #102

wvenable wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real threat to local news is Craigslist and Facebook marketplace. Local newspapers were mostly funded by their classifieds section. The news is merely to bring eyeballs to those ads. When the market for classifieds disappeared, there was no longer any financial support for local news. You could even argue that newspapers were only viable businesses because they had a monopoly over the local distribution of inform…

I actually don't think the Internet has been a good substitute for a local distribution of information. It's too global and too big. There's people who aren't from a neighborhood talking about it and skewing information about that neighborhood. Portland's supposed to be literally a BLM-flagged wasteland or something, y'know? I'd really love for there to be a local newspaper that tells me a new bakery opened in town,…

My go to solution for that was reddit.com/r/somecommunity which was local enough to have posts about lost cats and dogs.

More than once local media near me has literally just published a story that was first posted as text to Reddit.

Re: Ottawa pulls advertising, escalating showdown with Facebook and Instagram

#107

Post by PhasmaFelis » Wed, Jul 05, 2023, 8:48 PM UTC

wvenable wrote: post #59

halifaxbeard wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding of the core issue is people aren’t clicking through to read the article, but they’re commenting on Facebook based on the headline. Facebook gets ad views and user-generated content/comments, and the organization doing the reporting sees nothing of the economic value generated in this scenario. (Hacker News is specialized in audience and news orgs generally aren’t posting all their stories here) CBC t…

My issue with this, is this a problem that needs to be solved? Do we need to guarantee monetization of every human interaction? If my friend and I go a cafe, see a newspaper headline, and have a discussion about that headline without ever opening that newspaper should the cafe have to pay for that discussion? Why should any media adjacent interaction anywhere happen without payment? If the cafe is playing music, they…

> My issue with this, is this a problem that needs to be solved? Do we need to guarantee monetization of every human interaction?

The failure of traditional news funding models, and their replacement with clickbait, has already caused devastating damage to...well, to society in general, honestly, but certainly to anyone trying to produce a balanced, informative news service. I can't blame publishers for trying to find something to keep them out of the Buzzfeed gutter.

I don't think this idea actually helps at all. But I get why they're desperate.

Re: Ottawa pulls advertising, escalating showdown with Facebook and Instagram

#108

Post by stubybubs » Wed, Jul 05, 2023, 8:49 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #37

The funniest part: > But the Liberal government’s decision does not extend to the party. Liberal Party of Canada spokesperson Parker Lund said in a statement that the party would continue to advertise on Meta-owned platforms. According to the company’s ad library, the party spent nearly $15,000 on over 1,000 ads in the past month. So: we would not deal with FB because it's evil, unless of course it could help us pers…

Honestly, it's pretty reasonable. This is what it looks like when you really treat your party as separate from governance. They are not using public funds for their advertising.

Contrast this with the last Conservative government, which made all of its publicly funded announcements from "The Harper Government" instead of "The Government of Canada."

https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2012/06/harper-governm...

Re: Ottawa pulls advertising, escalating showdown with Facebook and Instagram

#109

Post by wvenable » Wed, Jul 05, 2023, 8:51 PM UTC

arrosenberg wrote: post #105

wvenable wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This theoretical cafe is monetizing the fact that people come and hang out and have discussions and order some coffee. The place is filled with games and magazines and newspapers that anyone can open a view the advertising within. But I never bother, I just read the headlines and discuss those without ever looking inside.

> This theoretical cafe is monetizing the fact that people come and hang out and have discussions and order some coffee. Therein lies the difference. 1. People come and hang out - can't effectively do this on Meta sites, though their VR push seems aimed at trying to fulfill this need. I would also put "read the newspaper" under this category. 2. Have discussions - for varying definitions of "discussion", this is wher…

A newspaper doesn't monetize #1 (People come and hang out). Facebook is, first and foremost, a social media platform. People go there to learn about what other people they know are doing. So the cafe and Facebook have the most in common there. The cafe monetizes that hang out by selling you coffee and Facebook monetizes that by showing you ads.

Newspapers are very much secondary to both businesses. They enhance the experience but are not fundamental to it. They also both provide a service to those newspapers by providing a point of distribution. People might, as part of their experience in the cafe/Facebook, read the newspaper.

Re: Ottawa pulls advertising, escalating showdown with Facebook and Instagram

#110

Post by jsnell » Wed, Jul 05, 2023, 8:52 PM UTC

grf27 wrote: post #45

Isn't the issue that Google/Facebook sell ads and make money from linking to news sources? And those news sources have their costs but don't see any income? I think about this often when I read a story on some small-town newspaper, and know that the newspaper is making nothing off of me and millions of others reading their story. Didn't Australia implement a similar law and get Google/Facebook to pay something? There…

> Isn't the issue that Google/Facebook sell ads and make money from linking to news sources?

No. The law would apply even if Google and Facebook showed no ads on a same page as a link to a news article, and made no money from them. (And in fact, e.g. Google News does not show any ads.)

> Didn't Australia implement a similar law and get Google/Facebook to pay something?

Not really, no. Australia passed a law but didn't actually make it apply to anyone. (Yes, seriously, the law is defined to apply to a set of companies that the government designates at their whim, and they've so far not designated any companies). The deals that Google/Meta made with Australian news companies are the same kinds of deals they've made in countries all over the world without such a law, including Canada.

Those Australian deals will reportedly terminate if Google/Meta are designated as being in scope of the law, so now any news company with a deal has an incentive to argue against their designation while a company without a deal will argue for. In a similar vein, the deals in Canada are apparently going to be terminated due to this law.