6 ms·

> No, it will basically make a newsmedia site unprofitable. I think it is the EU that has not fully thought this through. Most of the news industry is already s

• Eyas 9y ago
  > News outlets existed before the web, so they're not going to be threatened by breaking the ad-supported website model. If anything, the traditional newspapers will be saved by this, because if free online news disappears, people will start buying newspaper subscriptions again. We're also seeing very concerning trends in the readerships and profitability of print media (because of the Web, many think). So I don't think you can use the "News outlets existed before the web" line, without much more justification.
  • ozim 9y ago
    I do not think it is bad, I think that is evolution. Ads only content is total crap. We have to teach people to pay for content. Second part is we have to teach publishers not to be greedy. Just like iTunes with music, easy small payments, not subscribtions no one wants. Maybe they could make actually some use of crypto currencies but there would have to be strong player like apple to press for consensus. Otherwise each one would like to have its own payment system and charge others for using it.
    • beojan 9y ago
      > Maybe they could make actually some use of crypto currencies but there would have to be strong player like apple to press for consensus. I doubt it. Cryptocurrencies seem to be terrible for micropayments.
  • beojan 9y ago
    That's my point. Get rid of the free “news" sites and people will start paying for print media (and digital subscriptions) again.
    • dragonwriter 9y ago
      Print news media was dying for decades before online media came online, and was almost entirely paid for by ads (many local publications were and are free of charge, and many of the paid ones charged primarily to have paid circulation numbers and shape the socioeconomic demographics of their audience, both of which were and are mechanisms to boost advertising revenue.)
      • distances 9y ago
        > Print news media was dying for decades before online media came online Any sources for this? I don't think this was the case at all at least in my part of Europe.
        • dragonwriter 9y ago
          It may not have been the case in Europe; the decline in circulation in the print media in the US was widely discussed as long trend in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and attributed to a number of factors, most notably (but not exclusively) the wave of mergers and associated cuts in local newsrooms and non-wire-service content in the preceding couple of decades.
  • manjushri 9y ago
    >We're also seeing very concerning trends in the readerships and profitability of print media Why is it "very concerning" (assuming no financial interests) that a legacy form of media is struggly to dominate in terms of profitability?
    • Eyas 9y ago
      It's concerning in relation to the gp's post. Online media is having existential problems. The gp's response to this (in part) is that we have had print media for a while. My response is that it is unclear we'll have print media for much longer, so we should still be concerned about online media (otherwise we might end up with no media).
• krotton 9y ago
  Publically funded TV is prone to become a propaganda tube of the government. In some cases it already has (in Poland for example). Relying on it as the only news source would be silly (relying on a single news source in general is usually silly, but even more if the government directly handles the staffing).
  • lossolo 9y ago
    BBC is counterargument to what you wrote. It shows that publicly founded news outlets can work without being government propaganda tube.
    • filoleg 9y ago
      His argument wasn't that all state-funded news media is a propaganda machine. His argument was that it easily can become one, and you won't have a better option, since all the other news media would be choked out of existence.
      • lossolo 9y ago
        > since all the other news media would be choked out of existence. There are other private TV outlets in those countries in EU and this legislation will not change it. Lets stop being paranoid and portraying legislation that should protect our privacy as something that will destroy democracy.
        • andromeduck 9y ago
          That's just going to fuel nationalism.
  • tormeh 9y ago
    You should never rely exclusively on domestic media. There's always too much conflict of interest. In state media this is obvious, but it's there for private media as well.
• davidcbc 9y ago
  You don't see the potential problem if the only media that is able to exist is that which is state sponsored? You may be happy with the state sponsored options now, but will that always be the case? Would you feel the same if you living in the Soviet Union or Germany circa 1940?
  • adventured 9y ago
    How about Hungary 2020? Poland 2022? Strong emphasis that I'm not equating those to your examples. Rather, pointing out that even a subtle version of undesirable or extreme politics can lead to a similar concern. Given the wild political swing going on in about half of Europe, it's a legitimate concern today, no need to look back 80 years. Not to mention persistently growing censorship and criminalization of speech in more liberal countries such as France.
  • martin_bech 9y ago
    How is CNN, Fox News and the sinclair group, working out for you guys? I trust state paid media in the EU, way more than any US news media. The reason why most EU countries have state paid media, is so that its non commercial, non partisan, and cant be bought. There are different principles in place, so government has no say, in what is broadcast/not broadcast. This also means that all political parties get the same amount of exposure etc.
    • home_boi 9y ago
      I don't read news but I'm sure that GDPR would hurt the smaller, independent news websites or aggregators that people find reputable more than CNN, Fox News and sinclair group. The latter at least have TV advertising. Their website is just horizontal integration for them.
    • davidcbc 9y ago
      CNN isn't great journalism, but it isn't the only source of information. The problems with Fox News and Sinclair aren't based on advertising, they are based on ownership. State sponsored media isn't going to be any better under an autocrat and will in fact be worse than the situation in the US because there may not be any other options.
• return0 9y ago
  > We have publicly funded broadcasters in most EU countries. That would be a terrible dependency for eastern europe, you wouldn't want putin-friendly government media teaching people what to vote next.
  • lossolo 9y ago
    There is only one "eastern europe" country that is really Putin friendly and it's Hungary, the rest is anti Putin.
    • bklaasen 9y ago
      Many urban, educated folks in Serbia see Putin as a better ally than any European leader.
      • lossolo 9y ago
        I think you could find a lot of pro Putin people in EU. Some of my family members are pro Putin while I live in probably the most anti-Putin country in EU. I could elaborate more about reasons for that but I don't want to digress too much from original discussion.
      • distances 9y ago
        That's probably due to the rather unusual recent history of Serbia I assume
• tomaskafka 9y ago
  Let me tell you how it works in central/eastern europe - ad-supported sites are financially sick, but more and more 'info' is spread out by well funded russian propaganda sites (imo they carry the ads only to seem 'legit'). They will thrive even more :(.
  • tormeh 9y ago
    Is there anything that can be done about this? The whole situation is surreal. Surely it must be possible to decrease these sites impact without having to resort to censorship. It's just 21st century propaganda. Fun fact: oligarchs in Greece have been doing this to their own country for financial gain for decades. Most Greek newspapers are mouthpieces for the interests of the great families.
• Bizarro 9y ago
  We have publicly funded broadcasters in most EU countries. The ad-supported news sites, on the other hand, are generally doing more harm than good. Why am I not surprised that a European is saying that the government-backed "broadcaster" are all so good, and evil private American new sites are bad. this pretty much sums up the real agenda behind GDPR. It would be better to call the bluff of these EUrocrats and see what they'll really do. Other countries can retaliate.
  • ItsMe000001 9y ago
    > Why am I not surprised that a European is saying that the government-backed "broadcaster" are all so good, and evil private American new sites are bad. You are not surprised because you have a gigantic filter in your head that turns everything into exactly what you already expect regardless of what it is. The second part of that sentence makes it quite clear what your mindset is.
  • ionised 9y ago
    Why am I not surprised that an American is crying over potential harm to unethical business practices of some of its most darling corporations by an EU rule to protect its citiziens. Every time the EU implements some law or regulation regarding control of personal data and privacy, someone (an American) has to dismiss all the problems those laws are intended to address entirely, and go on to post some defensive, nationalist spiel about it being an attack on US companies. Perhaps the problem is that these companies make their money in an incredibly unethical way that an increasing number of people are very uncomfortable with? Stop turning this into something it isn't. All you are doing is poisoning the debate.
  • elaus 9y ago
    Why am I not surprised that a European is saying that the government-backed "broadcaster" are all so good, and evil private American new sites are bad. Nowhere in that comment I can find a reference to American (evil) news sites. There are more than enough private news sites based in Europe, so I wonder why you are so hell-bent on making this an EU vs US thing. Most EU residents will read news in their own language (which in most cases isn't English).