91–100 of 101 posts
If Meta refuses to back down and removes news from the feed, could that actually be a net positive? It might push people to visit newspaper sites or apps deliberately, rather than stumbling across news passively and mistaking that for being informed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's the demographics that have changed, but the state of the internet, and the awareness that big tech's stranglehold over our media is a problem. Of course the likely end result is going to be that legitimate news will disappear from Facebook and there will only be misinformation left. I'd rather see them address the spread of misinformation instead of the spread of quality news.
> awareness that big tech's stranglehold over our media is a problem. The legacy consolidated news organizations getting a sweet free new revenue stream are glad that they've been able to convince so many people that big tech linking to them is actually a "stranglehold" and a problem!
And the stranglehold is not big tech over the newspapers, but big tech over the internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not just build affordable housing instead of luxury condos, you're creating a weird false equivalence.
Because in practice that just means nothing gets built at all. It's like having a food shortage but not wanting to buy/grow more food unless it's fair trade, organic, permaculture certified, non-gmo, certified kosher/halal, and cruelty free. All of those are laudable goals, but if the combined effect is that nothing gets done, that's counterproductive.
The demographics of this site have changed so much that people here are applauding… that it is now illegal to embed opengraph information on Facebook? This is deranged. And it only happens because the government is in bed with legacy media. The government being in bed with the media is awful for the common person. Embedding opengraph data is a clear case of fair use, and it’s sad to see all of this coming from a comm…
yeah somehow it is a minority opinion to shout “this is obviously stupid” from the rooftops… i guess meta has gone from startup to … utility(?) over the course of the last decade, but i have yet to see anything in this equivalence class of decision that isn’t just obviously idiotic… gl to italy, i guess. wish them all the best.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do they show Italian news before? Because it makes them money.
No, ads make them money. Users see the ads because they view their feeds. It’s been proven in other markets that removing News from the feed doesn’t decrease engagement. Meta will continue to make money, and Italian news sites will see their traffic vanish. Turns out they’re simply not valuable in the way they used to be, and country after country is learning this
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While you might not like the legacy media, the fact is they're still doing some work. That work needs to be reimbursed? If Meta and co create their own content, they're free to do with it what the like. I need to pay google maps for a certain amount of useage etc. Why should Meta and co get an exception on content ?
Why don't you just subscribe to these newspapers and give them a read instead of demanding other tax payers subsidize their business?
The demographics of this site have changed so much that people here are applauding… that it is now illegal to embed opengraph information on Facebook? This is deranged. And it only happens because the government is in bed with legacy media. The government being in bed with the media is awful for the common person. Embedding opengraph data is a clear case of fair use, and it’s sad to see all of this coming from a comm…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but then proper monopoly laws would ban most of what meta does.
In what sense is Meta a monopoly? It seems like they have a huge amount of competition in the form of Google (YouTube), Microsoft (LinkedIn), Reddit, X, Snapchat, Telegram, TikTok, Signal, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meta doesn't have to pay for the links. It's the summaries. I suspect the publishers would welcome the links, as they'd drive traffic and ad revenue. Instead, Meta is siphoning the revenue by summarizing the content.
While they cite the summaries as copyright infringement, news organizations have previously rejected removing them as a way to resolve things. They ultimately want money. Meta's fix has been to try to walk away from the news. They removed the news tab in some regions.
The best thing, imo would be that Meta has enough dev talent that they could just post the link and not the summary. It isn't for the publishers to decide what information a Meta user's post contains.
In other words (IMO): rev share for summaries seems reasonable; a tax on links does not. It's like the way music handles sampling: there were many lawsuits that resulted in there being a clearing requirement for the cost of using a sample of a song in your music, e.g., Biz Markie vs. Gilbert O'Sullivan (1991).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In what sense is Meta a monopoly? It seems like they have a huge amount of competition in the form of Google (YouTube), Microsoft (LinkedIn), Reddit, X, Snapchat, Telegram, TikTok, Signal, etc.
A lot of often valuable content is only accessible through Facebook. If you want to see the opening hours of some businesses or photos from some event, you often need a Facebook account.
You can create a Facebook account for free so that part isn't a problem. There's no consumer harm.