I can't back any of this up, but I think this is the logic. Facebook is essentially a link distribution platform. It only continues to get visitors because med

I can't back any of this up, but I think this is the logic. Facebook is essentially a link distribution platform. It only continues to get visitors because media companies keep providing, like spooky magic, new links to be shared on there every day. Many of their visitors would drop away immediately without news. The news is the basis for a ton of engagement once the visitors arrive (39.2K likes, etc.). If that were all true you'd think it would be enough to get Facebook to pay to keep news companies afloat, but it isn't: they don't care which news organisations survive, only that there are still new links every day. Importantly, because nobody reads articles, only headlines, news orgs get nothing without the click. So "link aggregation" without ad revenue or subscription revenue is worth zero in the usual case. Fb doesn't have a problem letting good journalism die out as long as there are enough Breitbarts going around producing engagement on Fb. It takes a lot less $ per link to produce fake news than real news with facts in it, and those headlines are pretty damn engaging, so those places will die out last or more likely never die out because the margins are still fine and their competitors have died out. I think that means they have to pay fake news places as well, otherwise promoting quality news (Fb can control how much attention a link gets) costs more tax and is disincentivised.