4 ms·

> Which is also what's behind journalists, bloggers, etc. all hating on Facebook too, but nobody ever wants to hear that. Yeah, no. Generalisations are stupid.

> Which is also what's behind journalists, bloggers, etc. all hating on Facebook too, but nobody ever wants to hear that. Yeah, no. Generalisations are stupid. Doctorow's a perfect example of why what you're saying isn't true, for example.

notacoward 8y ago
One counterexample doesn't prove anything, and Doctorow is barely even a relevant example. It's journalists who feel most threatened by Facebook, as they see their subscriber base - and thus their own income opportunities - dwindling. Pseudo-journalist commentators even more so. Once they might have looked to Facebook as a possible ally, a channel through which they could ply their profession, but increasingly (to answer another respondent) they see Facebook purely as a threat. Whether consciously or not, they're highly motivated to magnify everything negative about a rival and never ever write about anything positive. The incentives for bloggers are similar, though lesser. The more income they derive from ads on their site, the more they see that ad revenue decreasing, the more similar their motivations become to those of the professional media. I'm sure Doctorow makes a bit from pushing products on Boing Boing, but most of his (and other contributors') income comes from other sources and the audience there was always rather Facebook-averse since forever so Facebook's (or Google's) increasing dominance of the ad space has probably not made a dent for them overall. The real point, though, is that one can't point to self interest as a reason for criticizing Google and pretend that it plays no part in why people criticize Facebook. That's just favoring the devil you're in bed with over the one you're not.
- orbitur 8y ago
  Just want to add: journalists still hold moral high ground. FB wants to/already has sucked away money and locked in content providers by making themselves the de facto platform, when previously the platform was just "the Internet". People like to accuse MS and Apple for "embrace, extend, extinguish" tactics, but FB straight up did it for real, it's just they did it to content providers instead of developers and end-users. Media companies now see the error in their ways and I'm honestly happy for them to attack FB.
- Mononokay 8y ago
  He said "All"
  - notacoward 8y ago
    Yes, I said "all" but it was clearly hyperbole. Most people would interpret "journalists who are all..." the same way as "all journalists who are..." or treat "all" as an intensifier rather than a qualifier. "He was all up in my face" doesn't mean he put his entire body in my face. But hey, if you want to be super-literal for the sake of being contrary I guess that's your problem. The fact remains that what's true for Boing Boing is not necessarily true for CNN, and that there's adequate reason to believe self-interest affects CNN's coverage here.

notacoward 8y ago

One counterexample doesn't prove anything, and Doctorow is barely even a relevant example. It's journalists who feel most threatened by Facebook, as they see their subscriber base - and thus their own income opportunities - dwindling. Pseudo-journalist commentators even more so. Once they might have looked to Facebook as a possible ally, a channel through which they could ply their profession, but increasingly (to answer another respondent) they see Facebook purely as a threat. Whether consciously or not, they're highly motivated to magnify everything negative about a rival and never ever write about anything positive. The incentives for bloggers are similar, though lesser. The more income they derive from ads on their site, the more they see that ad revenue decreasing, the more similar their motivations become to those of the professional media. I'm sure Doctorow makes a bit from pushing products on Boing Boing, but most of his (and other contributors') income comes from other sources and the audience there was always rather Facebook-averse since forever so Facebook's (or Google's) increasing dominance of the ad space has probably not made a dent for them overall. The real point, though, is that one can't point to self interest as a reason for criticizing Google and pretend that it plays no part in why people criticize Facebook. That's just favoring the devil you're in bed with over the one you're not.

orbitur 8y ago
Just want to add: journalists still hold moral high ground. FB wants to/already has sucked away money and locked in content providers by making themselves the de facto platform, when previously the platform was just "the Internet". People like to accuse MS and Apple for "embrace, extend, extinguish" tactics, but FB straight up did it for real, it's just they did it to content providers instead of developers and end-users. Media companies now see the error in their ways and I'm honestly happy for them to attack FB.
Mononokay 8y ago
He said "All"
- notacoward 8y ago
  Yes, I said "all" but it was clearly hyperbole. Most people would interpret "journalists who are all..." the same way as "all journalists who are..." or treat "all" as an intensifier rather than a qualifier. "He was all up in my face" doesn't mean he put his entire body in my face. But hey, if you want to be super-literal for the sake of being contrary I guess that's your problem. The fact remains that what's true for Boing Boing is not necessarily true for CNN, and that there's adequate reason to believe self-interest affects CNN's coverage here.