Paid content, an interesting dilemma

HMS_Dave

Über Member
Location
Midlands
Im not sure what the major dilemma is. Facebook pay for news here in the UK... Facebook are the ones electing not to display the news in upside down world, not the Government... They are essentially "stealing" news and making profits from it as far as i can tell. Parasitic Facebook may well claim they have driven traffic and revenue to publishers, it still doesn't make it right...
 

Moodyman

Guru
I think this is part of a wider battle between big tech and governments.

Whilst Apple and Alphabet have made small concessions following government scrutiny, Facebook has taken a more combative approach. Ultimately, governments are answerable to the public and if Facebook can spin this as government bad, Facebook good, it will put public pressure on governments. It's similar to the strategy used by Tiktok to turn 100m US users against Trump when he wanted to ban them.
 
Good morning,

I have the feeling that Facebook may be very close to making a company ending mistake.

Despite all the negative press Facebook does provide a useful tool for many people and most of its users don't see it as an editor/restrictor of their content. They accept that the cost of using the platform is advertising and data mining and that's a fair price for getting an expensive service for free.

But if Facebook get into the position of saying to their user's we won't host this content you have to use other services or sites then this carries the risk that users will reconsider their relationship.

Facebook can no longer be their choice for filtering Internet content into a usable size because Facebook wants to restrict what you can see and do on its platform. This could result in a big change in the user's perception of the platform, it is no longer neutral it is telling me what I can and can not do or read.

Changing user's routines is dangerous, they might realise that there are alternatives that suit them better.

A significant user exit wouldn't end the company immediately, after all many businesses use it successfully as free web hosting so these businesses won't want to leave, but Facebook has massive operating costs which probably can't be covered under that sort of model.

If you had to pay for your Facebook page then I suspect that many businesses would opt for a web site.

Facebook's advantage isn't that it has special technology, it's simply market dominance and as MySpace, Friends Reunited etc have shown this can disappear very rapidly.

Bye

Ian
 
Last edited:

AuroraSaab

Über Member
I am confused, who would go to Facebook for news in the first place, surely people go directly to proper news aggregators or just pick their favourite traditional source?
I think it's more that some people only have time, or the inclination, to visit one site. They aren't that interested in current affairs as such and FB gives them the basics. Whilst also seeing how many likes the cat meme or photo in the pub toilets got them etc.

I don't understand it myself as I like to get info from a wide range of sources and views.
 

Pale Rider

Legendary Member
I think it's more that some people only have time, or the inclination, to visit one site.
I think that's spot on, and whether by luck or design, facebook has managed to become that single site.

Thus bona fide news publishers cannot afford not to be in bed with facebook, and to a lesser extent twitter, in one way or another.

At one time, facebook algorithims were burying news publishers' content because they had to pay for it, as opposed to what became known as fake news which was posted freely by ordinary members of the public, or so-called citizen journalists.

I am one of those who prefer to go direct to a publisher's website, but sites such as facebook which effectively aggregate news from many sources are preferred by many.
 
I am confused, who would go to Facebook for news in the first place, surely people go directly to proper news aggregators or just pick their favourite traditional source?
Facebook is used locally for local news and information where I live and I think in many other places. During the present crisis it is the only way to keep people informed of information of use to them.
 

matticus

Über Member
Personally I use Google News, but also use Press Reader to get digital versions of my favourite and also non-favourite newspapers.
Thanks. Do you trust them to be unbiased (and uncensored) in their aggregating? (Genuine question.)

I use the MSN home screen quite a bit, cos our PCs are setup to display it several times a day and I'm easily distracted from actual work. Always handy to keep up with the activities of La Holden :smile:
 

Milkfloat

An Peanut
Location
Midlands
Thanks. Do you trust them to be unbiased (and uncensored) in their aggregating? (Genuine question.)

I use the MSN home screen quite a bit, cos our PCs are setup to display it several times a day and I'm easily distracted from actual work. Always handy to keep up with the activities of La Holden :smile:
For Press Reader yes as I am fully in control of which paper/magazine I open from across the globe. However, that just means I get to set my own bias :smile:

For Google it is interesting, I have two views one is the vanilla 'main news' section that gives me what Google wants everyone to see. It will group different sources together for the same story, so you get to see the different takes on it by those sources together. For example the same story about Covid with one paper saying that we are unlocking and everything is wonderful with another source saying it is all doom and gloom all based on the same government press conference. This more than anything highlights how different sources spin the same information, it really is eye opening.

The other view is based on my reading habits and a few forced topics that I set (cycling, tech, finance, automotive etc). This section really is self fulfilling, if you were ever stupid enough to click on a Daily Mail story about what the latest celebrity is doing then be prepared for a few weeks of being bombarded with similar guff unless you tell it to show you less of those types of stories.
 

johnblack

Über Member
Facebook have been very clumsy in their implementation but the media have been demanding that FB pay for media content that FB publish, so FB have switched them off, now they are indignant that they are not on FB.

I don't have FB, it seems awful, but I have a grudging respect for their stance, however, I'm sure they'll be some kind of truce.
 
Top Bottom