3 ms·

We really have to fix the incentives for media companies. Engagement-based revenue models, aka Clickbait, are killing people at this point. This is why people d

by rzz3 6y ago

We really have to fix the incentives for media companies. Engagement-based revenue models, aka Clickbait, are killing people at this point. This is why people don’t wear masks and believe in ridiculous conspiracy theories—of course, not BuzzFeed or HuffPo directly on those particular issues, but this engagement model for “news” completely undermines trust in news on all sides of the political spectrum. Anything you happen to loosely believe, you can find some clickbait article which plays to all of your confirmation biases. Share it on social media to your like-minded friends, have a few of them disagree with you and cite other clickbait “articles” supporting their disagreement, and you end up with the majority of America having no idea what’s real anymore.

kilroy123 6y ago
I agree, but what's the solution? Does anyone know of people at least trying to come up with a better solution? I know there are the economist and New York Times type of subscriptions, but I think we need more than that.
- rzz3 6y ago
  Not sure about the economist, but I’m not a fan of the NYT model. I find some click-baitey feeling stuff there too. I get so frustrated every time someone links a NYT article on HN that gets paywalled, and I either decide it’s not worth reading or I find a way around it. I like what Substack is doing, personally, and have subscribed to a couple of journalists I like there. But it’s still missing something... like, editors. It also doesn’t make it easy for me to find new journalists I’d like to follow, and if I was only using substack, I’d have a very incomplete picture of what’s going on in the world.
gwbrooks 6y ago
I don't know about fixing it in other countries, but in the U.S. the First Amendment doesn't allow for a regulatory fix. Doesn't mean it's unfixable, but it means that any fix would have to come from the private sector and be embraced organically rather than via regulatory fiat.
- rzz3 6y ago
  I don’t think regulations are the answer, personally. We need to think of better revenue models for journalists that incentivize trust. That’s on us, the consumers of media, to demand it and be willing to pay for it, and for the market to provide. I’d gladly pay 50 bucks a month for non-clickbait, unbiased news I can trust.
- paxys 6y ago
  It is fixable by attacking the root of the problem – online advertising. Pass strong user privacy laws, ban fingerprinting/tracking across the board, make advertiser disclosures/"paid news" labels mandatory, significantly increase (and enforce) penalties for data breaches. Now sites are still allowed to generate as much click-bait as they want, but the incentive to do so is greatly reduced.
- runamok 6y ago
  Libel exists so I'd imagine some sort of legal consequence could be supported if you are spouting lies you know to be lies. It is a slippery slope though. I was just reading something recently about how the espionage act was used to jail people protesting war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 It feels like we are getting close to "shouting fire in a crowded theater" but at the same time this could be another weapon to squash dissent.

by rzz3 6y ago

kilroy123 6y ago

I agree, but what's the solution? Does anyone know of people at least trying to come up with a better solution? I know there are the economist and New York Times type of subscriptions, but I think we need more than that.

rzz3 6y ago
Not sure about the economist, but I’m not a fan of the NYT model. I find some click-baitey feeling stuff there too. I get so frustrated every time someone links a NYT article on HN that gets paywalled, and I either decide it’s not worth reading or I find a way around it. I like what Substack is doing, personally, and have subscribed to a couple of journalists I like there. But it’s still missing something... like, editors. It also doesn’t make it easy for me to find new journalists I’d like to follow, and if I was only using substack, I’d have a very incomplete picture of what’s going on in the world.

gwbrooks 6y ago

I don't know about fixing it in other countries, but in the U.S. the First Amendment doesn't allow for a regulatory fix. Doesn't mean it's unfixable, but it means that any fix would have to come from the private sector and be embraced organically rather than via regulatory fiat.

rzz3 6y ago
I don’t think regulations are the answer, personally. We need to think of better revenue models for journalists that incentivize trust. That’s on us, the consumers of media, to demand it and be willing to pay for it, and for the market to provide. I’d gladly pay 50 bucks a month for non-clickbait, unbiased news I can trust.
paxys 6y ago
It is fixable by attacking the root of the problem – online advertising. Pass strong user privacy laws, ban fingerprinting/tracking across the board, make advertiser disclosures/"paid news" labels mandatory, significantly increase (and enforce) penalties for data breaches. Now sites are still allowed to generate as much click-bait as they want, but the incentive to do so is greatly reduced.
runamok 6y ago
Libel exists so I'd imagine some sort of legal consequence could be supported if you are spouting lies you know to be lies. It is a slippery slope though. I was just reading something recently about how the espionage act was used to jail people protesting war. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 It feels like we are getting close to "shouting fire in a crowded theater" but at the same time this could be another weapon to squash dissent.