4 ms·

Facebook and Google control close to 85% of the digital ad market. The rest 15% goes to the content creators and to the journalism. If Google and FB would not b

by mudil 9y ago

Facebook and Google control close to 85% of the digital ad market. The rest 15% goes to the content creators and to the journalism. If Google and FB would not be able to invade everyone's privacy, that would create a level playing field for national, regional, and specialized media to prosper. But because they know who you are, they can display an ad for you on any platform, say Candy Crush Saga. If you are from Denver, here's an ad for a Denver event on your stupid game. So who needs journalism if an article in Denver Post is on par to Candy Crush? Who needs quality content on the internet? There is a reason why there is no VC investment in the content whatsoever. For this miserable situation thank Google and FB. And say goodbye to your privacy and to ad-supported quality content. PS Number of countries are looking into the destruction of the news media by Google and FB. The most notable is Australian ACCC efforts. https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-seeking-views-on-news-and-digital-platforms-inquiry https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-seeking-views-on-...

mudil 9y ago
Newspapers had a double whammy. One was Craigslist. But Craigslist at least was a new technology compared to the newspaper classified pages. People could post ads on the spot for free. Better technology, fair competition. But what Google and FB have done is to learn about people based on their interests, based on what pages they visited, what newspapers they read, and so forth. And then GoogleFacebook NSA-type duopoly weaponized that knowledge against the content creators, and it's now killing the journalism.
- pravda 9y ago
  >the content creators, and it's now killing journalism. Nah. What has happened is that newspapers have lost their monopoly. In most markets, there was one newspaper and that newspaper could charge advertisers far in excess of their costs. Might as well been printing money with the presses. Now, their monopoly rents have gone away. Now, they have to earn their money! Earning money is hard compared to having a monopoly.
  - username223 9y ago
    So what's the future of how we keep up with goings-on near where we live, after local news dies? Random yapping bloggers with Google AdSense? (Talk about monopoly rents...)

by mudil 9y ago

mudil 9y ago

Newspapers had a double whammy. One was Craigslist. But Craigslist at least was a new technology compared to the newspaper classified pages. People could post ads on the spot for free. Better technology, fair competition. But what Google and FB have done is to learn about people based on their interests, based on what pages they visited, what newspapers they read, and so forth. And then GoogleFacebook NSA-type duopoly weaponized that knowledge against the content creators, and it's now killing the journalism.

pravda 9y ago
>the content creators, and it's now killing journalism. Nah. What has happened is that newspapers have lost their monopoly. In most markets, there was one newspaper and that newspaper could charge advertisers far in excess of their costs. Might as well been printing money with the presses. Now, their monopoly rents have gone away. Now, they have to earn their money! Earning money is hard compared to having a monopoly.
- username223 9y ago
  So what's the future of how we keep up with goings-on near where we live, after local news dies? Random yapping bloggers with Google AdSense? (Talk about monopoly rents...)