3 ms·

While I wouldn't call Facebook content benign, I definitely try to be mindful when I see articles like these that news sites like Bloomberg are so eager to atta

by idrios 8y ago

While I wouldn't call Facebook content benign, I definitely try to be mindful when I see articles like these that news sites like Bloomberg are so eager to attack Facebook because Facebook is the biggest and most direct threat to their business model. There's certainly a lot of irony in this article lambasting Facebook for spreading outrage culture, itself written in such a vitriolic tone

dhimes 8y ago
While I wouldn't call Facebook content benign, I definitely try to be mindful when I see articles like these that news sites like Bloomberg are so eager to attack Facebook because Facebook is the biggest and most direct threat to their business model. This is an excellent point, and I'm a little embarrassed that I didn't catch it myself.
supernovae 8y ago
Google is the biggest and most direct threat to the publisher model. Publishers don't earn (good) money off social traffic, it's just not what advertisers pay for so if you're an add driven business you want Google or Pinterest (search) traffic.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  The biggest and most direct threat to the publisher model is other publishers. Publishing used to be hugely profitable because you needed a printing press or a big radio tower, which cost a million dollars, which made it rare and therefore valuable. If you wanted to advertise there weren't that many publishers to choose from in a given market, so they got to charge high rates. Then the internet smashed the economics of that to smithereens. The New York Times now has to compete with your blog. And your blog doesn't have that much traffic, but the sum total of all blogs and social media actually does, so the number of ad dollars going to traditional publishers has gone way down. People always point to Google because they sell advertising and get their cut when they do. But the thing Google replaced isn't publishers, it's ad sales reps, and nobody weeps for them. The "loss" isn't the commission going to Google instead of some ad rep, it's the tiny amounts each going to millions of bloggers which used to get summed up and pay the salaries of thousands of reporters. Which is why the publishers are willing to resort to underhanded dirty tricks as they did to get the EU copyright directive -- because their goal is to shut down all of this user generated content which competes with them for lucrative eyeballs.
petre 8y ago
Bloomberg's business is mainly its subscription based financial analytics platform. How exactly is Facebook attacking that? With the new EU Copyright Directive they can't even redistribute news content without a license from the publishers. Facebook has little to no content of its own, the vast majority of it is user generated. Now its obnoxious CEO talks about rules and regulation - mainly for others. Because if Facebook ever wanted to self regulate its content it would all be in their TOS just like their no nudity policy.

by idrios 8y ago

dhimes 8y ago

While I wouldn't call Facebook content benign, I definitely try to be mindful when I see articles like these that news sites like Bloomberg are so eager to attack Facebook because Facebook is the biggest and most direct threat to their business model. This is an excellent point, and I'm a little embarrassed that I didn't catch it myself.

supernovae 8y ago

Google is the biggest and most direct threat to the publisher model. Publishers don't earn (good) money off social traffic, it's just not what advertisers pay for so if you're an add driven business you want Google or Pinterest (search) traffic.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago
The biggest and most direct threat to the publisher model is other publishers. Publishing used to be hugely profitable because you needed a printing press or a big radio tower, which cost a million dollars, which made it rare and therefore valuable. If you wanted to advertise there weren't that many publishers to choose from in a given market, so they got to charge high rates. Then the internet smashed the economics of that to smithereens. The New York Times now has to compete with your blog. And your blog doesn't have that much traffic, but the sum total of all blogs and social media actually does, so the number of ad dollars going to traditional publishers has gone way down. People always point to Google because they sell advertising and get their cut when they do. But the thing Google replaced isn't publishers, it's ad sales reps, and nobody weeps for them. The "loss" isn't the commission going to Google instead of some ad rep, it's the tiny amounts each going to millions of bloggers which used to get summed up and pay the salaries of thousands of reporters. Which is why the publishers are willing to resort to underhanded dirty tricks as they did to get the EU copyright directive -- because their goal is to shut down all of this user generated content which competes with them for lucrative eyeballs.

petre 8y ago

Bloomberg's business is mainly its subscription based financial analytics platform. How exactly is Facebook attacking that? With the new EU Copyright Directive they can't even redistribute news content without a license from the publishers. Facebook has little to no content of its own, the vast majority of it is user generated. Now its obnoxious CEO talks about rules and regulation - mainly for others. Because if Facebook ever wanted to self regulate its content it would all be in their TOS just like their no nudity policy.