3 ms·
It's only been 2 days. People need time to adapt to other methods of sharing news. The article mentions this: > If this shutoff continues, I’d imagine that the
by srcreigh 6y ago
It's only been 2 days. People need time to adapt to other methods of sharing news. The article mentions this:
> If this shutoff continues, I’d imagine that the more dedicated news consumers might adapt in ways that are, on net, positive for publishers. Maybe they go to a newspaper’s website more often, or they sign up for a daily newsletter to get their fix.
It does go on though.
> But the casual reader of news on Facebook — and that’s most users, given that news stories make up only about 4 percent of the typical News Feed — might just skip out on news entirely.
Time will tell whether this ends up a net win for publishers. Not only in terms of traffic/revenue but quality of journalism, ie freedom to post non-clickbait articles.
- mullingitover 6y agoMy prediction is that this will just send publishers deeper into a death spiral if it continues. People won't stop sharing information, the publishers will just become even less relevant and they'll be replaced by alternatives which, even if Australia walks back this rule, will do long-term damage to the current publishers.
- justapassenger 6y agoWhen I made an active effort to reduce my Facebook news consumption I’ve narrowed down on about 2 sources I’d visit daily. It was win for the big guys, and loss for smaller publishers that I’d get exposed to occasionally via FB algorithms. And given the polarization of the press overall, I think that it also made me more polarized, just due to limited sources I utilize, that are doing same clickbaity and outrage fueling stories on their webpages, as clicks matter everywhere, not only on social media.