Just stop these social/tech giants from including anything more than a headline and a link from their platforms. If they don't want to include that either, even better.
Facebook rejects calls to share advertising revenue with Australian media
91–100 of 100 posts
Re: Facebook rejects calls to share advertising revenue with Australian media
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
I sometimes thought I was a singleton set of people who believed this. I'd add that the old media is also in a vicious cycle wherein they can only attempt to gain dwindling share of attention by reducing their credibility. At the micro level, (e.g. on Twitter, where a pan-outlet collection of journalists "mutually discover" the preferred narrative) this sometimes looks a bit like fixed point iteration about a circula…
While I will celebrate the fall of NewsCorp, old media does include a swath of local television and print media that are doing good work for the communities they're part of. I often hear that concern met with unsympathetic calls to get with the times, but making a media company purely out of social media isn't profitable either. We'll be left with nothing but social media if we're not careful.
I somewhat agree (though I do think local TV news often makes Anchorman look more like a documentary than a farce), but some of the local papers really are more of a community institution. In my experience, most of their problems involve inability to have reliable operations, e.g. setting up billing accurately or delivering the paper accurately and on time, which angers subscribers.
Re: Facebook rejects calls to share advertising revenue with Australian media
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please, don't use RT to support your point, since it may create an impression they're a trustworthy source of information.
They are as trustworthy as any other. You've an axe to grind.
>They are as trustworthy as any other.
This is incorrect. Their "reporting" on certain events like Russia's downing of MH17 give this away. Is there any specific points of reporting on MH17 done by RT or associate agencies like Sputnik you view as trustworthy?
I'd love to hear you out fully.
Re: Facebook rejects calls to share advertising revenue with Australian media
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether you choose to trust them or not, they have a history of publishing content that is false and serves to advance and protect Russia's interests. One such example on the Skripal poisoning: https://www.rt.com/news/452946-skripal-anniversary-truth-nov... If you want you can read more about RT and Sputnik here: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/research-analysis/wea...
I don't trust them, in very much the same way I don't trust any other media outlet, since you'll find similar stories for any other online newspaper. But by singling them out, you make it sound like they are the worst, when they are basically average
>trustworthy as any other
>are basically average
These two claims you made are incorrect. Honestly this is a bit bizarre.
Re: Facebook rejects calls to share advertising revenue with Australian media
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is posting a link considered stealing content?
Some say that copyright infringement is stealing, and some say that the decline of the news media could be reversed by extending copyright to prohibit the unauthorised posting of links to, or snippets of, news content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_...
Posting a link is not copyright infringement.
Re: Facebook rejects calls to share advertising revenue with Australian media
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not why China bans Facebook. China bans Facebook because it has a policy of internet censorship and government control of information.
Why not both?
Because that's an overdetermined explanation. Their primary motivation is control of information, and that by itself is the only reason they need to ban Facebook. It's also why they ban a number of other sites that don't compete with Chinese companies.
Protecting Chinese social media companies from competition is at best a secondary motivation and it probably isn't even necessary -- Chinese internet users prefer Chinese social media for a variety of reasons, and I don't think Facebook is a significant competitive threat. Neither is Twitter.
On the other hand, China allowed Google to operate even though it might have been a strong competitor to Baidu. Google was only blocked when it refused to comply with censorship policies -- again demonstrating that control over information is the government's main concern.
Re: Facebook rejects calls to share advertising revenue with Australian media
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that the old media is worried about losing control of the narrative. However, i think that sweeping all negative coverage of Facebook under this rug is not helpful either. There is a real loss to the community if newspapers don’t have the money to pay journalists to do real, investigative journalism - and it’s tough to argue that Facebook has not accelerated the decline of newspapers.
Unfortunately it seems like the vast majority of content churned out by newspapers is not "real, investigative journalism", but rather clickbait that seeks to heighten anxiety and inflame tribal relations within a population. I love and want more real, solid pieces of reporting. But it's not there enough to make it worth defending the whole lot of them.
The issue is that this clickbait anxiety is what Facebook et al. are good at anyway.
But investigative reporting has mostly been done by established news orgs. So by losing the news media, we would still have more than enough crappy clickbait articles, but lose the good parts.
Re: Facebook rejects calls to share advertising revenue with Australian media
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a consequence of three things: 1. Facts can't be copyrighted. 2. Continuous publishing. 3. Google and Facebook cause a large preference for free content. If you do great journalistic work and try to charge for it, moments later (no longer a full day) someone else will change a few words around and offer it for free. And Google and Facebook will lead everyone to their story. Those who create value are unable to c…
> 3. Google and Facebook cause a large preference for free content. And hackernews. I think the most frequent kind of post on this site is a complaint about a paywall. The second most frequent kind of post is a workaround or alternative source sidestepping a paywall. edit: That's not to say the scale is anywhere near the same. HN is a not going to show up on any news site's radar. But the problem is the same.
Couldn't it be argued that people just have a large preference for free content regardless of how they find it?
With such a focus on money, having it, and keeping it (especially in the West), it seems only natural that people would naturally gravitate towards free content of all kinds. If not through HN/Google/wherever, it seems they'd spend the time figuring out a way to find it elsewhere.
Re: Facebook rejects calls to share advertising revenue with Australian media
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
These newspapers aren't getting outcompeted. They are having their content stolen. If Facebook would prevent people from posting links from these newspapers and instead show an error message that says that it isn't allowed because Facebook doesn't want to pay for it, how do you think people would react?
How is posting a link considered stealing content?
The link is not the problem. The headline, text snippet, and image used in the box to illustrate the link, they are.
Because let's be honest, most people only look at the image and read the headline. So for them, the preview on facebook is "good enough".
Re: Facebook rejects calls to share advertising revenue with Australian media
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
On mobile, for example, some news sites are hosted via Google's AMP service. I think that's at least one of the avenues for this supposed 'misuse'.
That makes no sense. The news sites implement AMP themselves. There's no way your site can become AMP'd automatically or accidentally.
Which is why this is merely a political stunt in order to save the revenues of failing Australian conservative press organisations (News Corp, etc.)