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

Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 63 posts

Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”

#31

Post by FilterSweep »

cirgue wrote: post #29
SandersAK wrote: post #17

This idea that "truth" and "facts" was ever a profitable business comes from a very naive place. With the exception of encyclopedias (and even then...), newspapers (owned by robber barons since day one, and then later mega-corps), text books (read "lies my teacher told me") etc have always been about profit. Newspapers historically were not driven by facts but by classified ads and cartoons. TV, even in its golden ag…

> With the exception of encyclopedias (and even then...), newspapers (owned by robber barons since day one, and then later mega-corps), text books (read "lies my teacher told me") etc have always been about profit. This is a profoundly naive view of how media works. In the past, advertisers made ad buying decisions based in part on the reputation of the outlet, and circulation of media was dependent on public consens…

> It is possible to make enormous amounts of money even when most people think your content is complete bullshit.

most people is far more anecdotal than you might imagine.

Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”

#32

Post by djshgakdfdh »

cirgue wrote: post #29
SandersAK wrote: post #17

This idea that "truth" and "facts" was ever a profitable business comes from a very naive place. With the exception of encyclopedias (and even then...), newspapers (owned by robber barons since day one, and then later mega-corps), text books (read "lies my teacher told me") etc have always been about profit. Newspapers historically were not driven by facts but by classified ads and cartoons. TV, even in its golden ag…

> With the exception of encyclopedias (and even then...), newspapers (owned by robber barons since day one, and then later mega-corps), text books (read "lies my teacher told me") etc have always been about profit. This is a profoundly naive view of how media works. In the past, advertisers made ad buying decisions based in part on the reputation of the outlet, and circulation of media was dependent on public consens…

> based in part on the reputation of the outlet

The reputation is where the bias lies. Consider the new york times: you probably respect it if you agree with it. If you don’t, it’s crappy narrative journalism. This certainly aligns with the parent comment’s claim that “facts” have never been the forte of any media; they simply need to agree with their readers. There’s simply little need to get 100% accuracy when 70% suffices to continue subscriptions.

Also, note that you can only see the issues in reporting if you’re closer to the story than the reporter is.

Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”

#33

Post by baq »

willvarfar wrote: post #30
SandersAK wrote: post #17

This idea that "truth" and "facts" was ever a profitable business comes from a very naive place. With the exception of encyclopedias (and even then...), newspapers (owned by robber barons since day one, and then later mega-corps), text books (read "lies my teacher told me") etc have always been about profit. Newspapers historically were not driven by facts but by classified ads and cartoons. TV, even in its golden ag…

(Tangent: many countries have national tv channels that are paid by license fees or taxation. These channels strive to be independent, neutral and objective. And although it's quite in fashion to be negative about eg the bbc, I think they succeed really very well.)

> These channels strive to be independent, neutral and objective.

yeah, maybe, in some countries. in others, they're exactly where the money leads: propaganda channels of the currently ruling party.

Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”

#34

Post by SandersAK »

cirgue wrote: post #29
SandersAK wrote: post #17

This idea that "truth" and "facts" was ever a profitable business comes from a very naive place. With the exception of encyclopedias (and even then...), newspapers (owned by robber barons since day one, and then later mega-corps), text books (read "lies my teacher told me") etc have always been about profit. Newspapers historically were not driven by facts but by classified ads and cartoons. TV, even in its golden ag…

> With the exception of encyclopedias (and even then...), newspapers (owned by robber barons since day one, and then later mega-corps), text books (read "lies my teacher told me") etc have always been about profit. This is a profoundly naive view of how media works. In the past, advertisers made ad buying decisions based in part on the reputation of the outlet, and circulation of media was dependent on public consens…

What you're describing is the narrative that most media barons pushed from the 50's onwards - the notion of "quality journalism" - it's the reason the Pulitzer prize exists at all (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/2015-pulitzer...). It was built to legitimize newspapers.

Media barons didn't hire journalists because they were ethical and factually accurate. They created that narrative because otherwise those people wouldn't churn out relevant and timely content to suit their readership. When the readership changes, media follows it. There is no intrinsic value in serving up the truth as it pertains to stock price.

Now you may argue that places like the NYT are the exception. But even here, this high falutin branding is there only to justify the power of ads for a different (read: intellectual) audience. If the NYT was forced to focus on one of their verticals today, would it be news? No. It would be food, fashion, and lifestyle because that's what drives all their traffic.

Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”

#36

Post by crpatino »

djshgakdfdh wrote: post #32
cirgue wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With the exception of encyclopedias (and even then...), newspapers (owned by robber barons since day one, and then later mega-corps), text books (read "lies my teacher told me") etc have always been about profit. This is a profoundly naive view of how media works. In the past, advertisers made ad buying decisions based in part on the reputation of the outlet, and circulation of media was dependent on public consens…

> based in part on the reputation of the outlet The reputation is where the bias lies. Consider the new york times: you probably respect it if you agree with it. If you don’t, it’s crappy narrative journalism. This certainly aligns with the parent comment’s claim that “facts” have never been the forte of any media; they simply need to agree with their readers. There’s simply little need to get 100% accuracy when 70%…

Not disagreeing with you on the narrative side, but the newspapers of yesteryear held themselves to higher standards.

Maybe in a world where the public was better educated (in general, people had less years of schooliing, but they learned a little less technical facts and much more critical thinking skills, IMHO) the newspapers could not get away with telling lies people wanted to hear. They needed to bend the truth subtly into a narrative that was aligned with the reader biases. This would inform the average reader of the real facts without challenging their world view too much; and a truly informed reader could approach the actual truth by picking up two or three reputable newspapers of different political affiliation and interpolating the middle ground in the nuances between stories.

Today, average reading comprehension and attention span has dropped like a rock; and there are no real negative consequences from outright lying. It is much harder to figure out what's actually going on if your three (or ten, or twenty) sources cannot even agree on the basic facts.

Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”

#37

Post by rjbwork »

willvarfar wrote: post #30
SandersAK wrote: post #17

This idea that "truth" and "facts" was ever a profitable business comes from a very naive place. With the exception of encyclopedias (and even then...), newspapers (owned by robber barons since day one, and then later mega-corps), text books (read "lies my teacher told me") etc have always been about profit. Newspapers historically were not driven by facts but by classified ads and cartoons. TV, even in its golden ag…

(Tangent: many countries have national tv channels that are paid by license fees or taxation. These channels strive to be independent, neutral and objective. And although it's quite in fashion to be negative about eg the bbc, I think they succeed really very well.)

I dunno man, the BBC from what I hear/read is really biased towards the left.

Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”

#39

Post by [deleted] »

rjbwork wrote: post #37
willvarfar wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Tangent: many countries have national tv channels that are paid by license fees or taxation. These channels strive to be independent, neutral and objective. And although it's quite in fashion to be negative about eg the bbc, I think they succeed really very well.)

I dunno man, the BBC from what I hear/read is really biased towards the left.

[deleted]

Re: Naval Ravikant: “The Internet lowers the returns to distributing facts”

#40

Post by panarky »

cirgue wrote: post #29
SandersAK wrote: post #17

This idea that "truth" and "facts" was ever a profitable business comes from a very naive place. With the exception of encyclopedias (and even then...), newspapers (owned by robber barons since day one, and then later mega-corps), text books (read "lies my teacher told me") etc have always been about profit. Newspapers historically were not driven by facts but by classified ads and cartoons. TV, even in its golden ag…

> With the exception of encyclopedias (and even then...), newspapers (owned by robber barons since day one, and then later mega-corps), text books (read "lies my teacher told me") etc have always been about profit. This is a profoundly naive view of how media works. In the past, advertisers made ad buying decisions based in part on the reputation of the outlet, and circulation of media was dependent on public consens…

The author missed the biggest economic difference between fact-driven businesses and signal-driven businesses.

Today, to make money in a fact-driven business, you must restrict access to information.

For example, those who originate high-quality news have large payrolls of journalists in the field, layers of editors and fact-checkers, etc. They typically fund the business by restricting access with subscriptions, paywalls, premium content, and the like.

Fact-based businesses have small audiences with high cost per customer.

But signal-based businesses that sell opinion, tribal identification, status and emotion thrive through broad distribution. They need to maximize social sharing and generate large audiences.

Signal-based businesses are typically free or have very low per-user costs. They selectively remix content from fact-based businesses for their audiences, and add commentary, outrage, emotion and tribal identity.

Post reply on HN