This outcome was inevitable given the incentives of an advertising-based internet economy.
Perhaps it's time to start talking about a ban on online advertising altogether?
When customers pay for things, capitalism works.
Confessions of a Fake News Writer
31–40 of 69 posts
Re: Confessions of a Fake News Writer
#32This outcome was inevitable given the incentives of an advertising-based internet economy. Perhaps it's time to start talking about a ban on online advertising altogether? When customers pay for things, capitalism works.
> When customers pay for things, capitalism works.
For some definition of works that probably not everybody will share -- for instance, people living in 3rd world countries or customers who paid for an "eco-friendly" diesel car.
Re: Confessions of a Fake News Writer
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d start with sites that don’t rely on advertising revenue to stay afloat. So probably subscription sites like the Economist and Wall Street Journal, and public news sources like NPR and PBS. Though for the latter there is the pressure of government to consider.
Both of the subscription sites you mention have ads in both their paper and electronic editions. They receive a significant proportion of their revenues from advertisers. They don't have high net profit margins. What makes you think they don't rely on advertising revenue to stay afloat?
I was curious about the details, so I looked up The Economist's 2018 annual report. They get 17% of revenue from advertisements, while 60% of revenue comes from subscriptions. Their operating profit is 13% of revenue.
Re: Confessions of a Fake News Writer
#34This whole fake news thing is interesting for me, the author mentioned that real honest news just don’t get as many clicks. At the end of the day I think we’re tuned to sensationalist things that trigger our emotion in some ways much like the feeling we get when we watch movies or read fictitious writings. Because of social media and being driven my vanity metrics all the time have we as a collective lost the ability…
> real honest news just don’t get as many clicks.
Both the number clicks and their "velocity" are an important metrics, though velocity is even more important. You don't want a lot of clicks spread out within 2 weeks, you want a story that is a hit within a single day. That's why editors double down on sensationalism and click-bait. The mindset is one can always correct a story a week after. What matters is the immediate viral impact. A huge amount of click fast = more money/engagement.
Re: Confessions of a Fake News Writer
#35The article is by “Winston Wordsworth” and to see (or write) comments on Medium you have to be a paid member of Medium.
Hummmmm
Re: Confessions of a Fake News Writer
#36It's no wonder that single person shows are popular on YouTube and the alternative media. An individual can be trusted in a way an institution never can be.
Re: Confessions of a Fake News Writer
#37> We wrote about weed day in and day out, extolling both real and exaggerated virtues of cannabis. The company told us to describe it as a miracle plant that could do all sorts of extraordinary things, including halting migraines, resolving insomnia, and, um, curing cancer.
Assuming the linked article is not itself fake, it sounds like their employer was involved in some strong astroturfing.
Re: Confessions of a Fake News Writer
#38If you want to see the true cost of an ad-based internet economy, this is it.
Re: Confessions of a Fake News Writer
#39This is mostly why I have come to hate most social media: too many people around me share this crap, most of the time, without even reading it I guess. I open Facebook and within seconds, I'm hit with mixed feelings of sadness, anger, despair and anxiety (something I'm actively working on).
I recently installed my own Mattermost instance where I invited close friends and some family who I trust won't share all this crap.
Fantastic article! Thanks for sharing!
Re: Confessions of a Fake News Writer
#40I may sound too jaded, but how do I know this piece (or book, the one reviewed here?) is not fake? Maybe I've gone way meta on this, but isn't kind of oxymoronic to write about how one fakes what one wrote and then expect the reader to take that particular writing seriously? The Kantian in me is particularly bothered with this. ;) Edit: typos.
It's one of those self-referential problems like "This sentence is false".
Regardless of whether it is fake or not, at the very least, you know it has an agenda behind it. It's advocacy. It's trying to sell you something.