4 ms·
What you said is pretty much what I thought too. So i tried to validate if that is possible. From a customers side: yes. From a publishers side: No. I went an
by BrandiATMuhkuh 10y ago
What you said is pretty much what I thought too. So i tried to validate if that is possible.
From a customers side: yes.
From a publishers side: No.
I went and talked to quite a lot CEOs in the news business. What i found is: the publishers don't care about their users. All they care about is not to cooperating with other publishers. That means, if you have a service that automatically gives each publisher a bit of money when you read their article. No publisher will join.
- kelnos 10y agoWow, that is insanely broken. The publishers don't actually care about the people who read their articles. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but that's incredibly depressing.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- josh2600 10y agoIsn't this true of any industry that isn't "commodified"? That is to say, if there's still a narrative where a publisher can outperform other publishers, why would a publisher bind their future to other publishers? IE, isn't this the same reason facebook doesn't partner with Google+ et al?
- smsm42 10y agoThat makes me feel even less guilty about using adblockers and news aggregators primarily. They are stuck in the past, and the less we validate them in that and reinforce them in the opinion that this works, the better. We do need publishers, but we don't need publishers that are stuck on hating their users and each other. So maybe if enough people won't cooperate with their business model, somebody with money will get the message and disrupt them. I feel somewhat bad about it because innocent people may lose jobs on the way, but change is obviously needed, and it doesn't look like it will happen without disruption.