3 ms·
I think they’ll go for news that they can access through an overseas Google portal - instead of going to Google.com.au to get news, they’ll go to another Englis
by docdeek 6y ago
I think they’ll go for news that they can access through an overseas Google portal - instead of going to Google.com.au to get news, they’ll go to another English language portal (.com, .co.uk, .ca) and grab the news there.
I guess my thinking is that it is easier for someone to replace Google News Australia with Google News or Google News UK to get a range of stories than it is to go to a (mostly paywalled) local news site.
With regards to Facebook, I think that the media companies will miss the traffic from FB/Instagram alot more than FB and Instagram will miss Australian news sources on their Platform.
- Natfan 6y agoYou're running on the assumption that a regular person knows what a URL is, or what a ccTLD is. Most people don't know or care, which is why Google's AMP project has never really made waves in mainstream media. People just click on links, they don't go to URLs. Personally, I blame smartphones for this, however I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing. Provided that sites such as Google, Facebook and even HackerNews don't have dynamic content, that is. Why remember a URL when you can just click on a link? On websites that aren't content aggregators (like this one), one can assume that the position of links won't change too much over time. With an aggregation website, however, that simply isn't true. Content on the front page changes over time, which is why noting down URLs or at least bookmarking stuff is important so that one can cite one's sources and re-read articles/information. If one just relies on clicking things on an aggregation website, one can't always be sure that the link you click will be there tomorrow.