4 ms·

because most people dont consume news, they consume headlines and if you only read the headline, whoever created the content does not get the ad revenue , cust

because most people dont consume news, they consume headlines and if you only read the headline, whoever created the content does not get the ad revenue , customer engagement or any other benefit for having created the content

h0nd 6y ago
Well then let's start talking about headlines, not news. What is the value of a headline?
Silhouette 6y ago
This seems to be the crux of the issue to me. Merely linking to another site is clearly not something that should incur any responsibility or financial liability. Breaking this breaks the Web. If most of the value in news reporting is truly in the headline/lede/photo, then there is an argument that linking to a news site but also scraping that content from them to display a much more detailed preview with the link is something that should be compensated. However, there are a couple of problems with this argument. The first problem is that lots of news publishers voluntarily choose to serve their content with open graph metadata that was designed by Facebook for this exact purpose. If that isn't an acknowledgement that those news publishers are inviting sites linking to them to show those more detailed previews, what is? The second problem is that the usual justification given for protecting established news media organisations through government intervention in the market is that they provide deep reporting and original investigative journalism that are valuable to society. If this is true, and if a headline attached to a link really is announcing an important news story backed by substantial research and deep analysis, then surely someone reading that preview is more likely to click through the original source and read further? On the other hand, if the problem is that people aren't clicking through clickbait headlines to tabloid fluff pieces as much as the tabloids would like and it's hurting their business model, is that really the type of journalism we should be intervening to protect? I suspect both Facebook and the Australian and other watching governments will have learned a valuable lesson from this incident. Facebook has been reminded that there is a price to pay for arrogance and that governments around the world are still in charge if they want to be. At the same time, governments have been reminded that if a business is providing a useful service, you can't just impose unreasonable restrictions on it that create a hostile environment and expect no consequences to follow, and that includes transparent cash grabs that are suspiciously well aligned with the interests of your political sponsors.
sullyj3 6y ago
Exactly. This is why, when someone sees the front page of a physical newspaper in a store, we detain then until they've paid 10 cents for the privilege.
- thaeli 6y ago
  Ah, I remember when newsstands were a thing and they would get MAD if you read the above-the-fold front page of a paper without buying it. So I guess unreasonable expectations in this regard are hardly a new thing..

h0nd 6y ago

Well then let's start talking about headlines, not news. What is the value of a headline?

Silhouette 6y ago

This seems to be the crux of the issue to me. Merely linking to another site is clearly not something that should incur any responsibility or financial liability. Breaking this breaks the Web. If most of the value in news reporting is truly in the headline/lede/photo, then there is an argument that linking to a news site but also scraping that content from them to display a much more detailed preview with the link is something that should be compensated. However, there are a couple of problems with this argument. The first problem is that lots of news publishers voluntarily choose to serve their content with open graph metadata that was designed by Facebook for this exact purpose. If that isn't an acknowledgement that those news publishers are inviting sites linking to them to show those more detailed previews, what is? The second problem is that the usual justification given for protecting established news media organisations through government intervention in the market is that they provide deep reporting and original investigative journalism that are valuable to society. If this is true, and if a headline attached to a link really is announcing an important news story backed by substantial research and deep analysis, then surely someone reading that preview is more likely to click through the original source and read further? On the other hand, if the problem is that people aren't clicking through clickbait headlines to tabloid fluff pieces as much as the tabloids would like and it's hurting their business model, is that really the type of journalism we should be intervening to protect? I suspect both Facebook and the Australian and other watching governments will have learned a valuable lesson from this incident. Facebook has been reminded that there is a price to pay for arrogance and that governments around the world are still in charge if they want to be. At the same time, governments have been reminded that if a business is providing a useful service, you can't just impose unreasonable restrictions on it that create a hostile environment and expect no consequences to follow, and that includes transparent cash grabs that are suspiciously well aligned with the interests of your political sponsors.

sullyj3 6y ago

Exactly. This is why, when someone sees the front page of a physical newspaper in a store, we detain then until they've paid 10 cents for the privilege.

thaeli 6y ago
Ah, I remember when newsstands were a thing and they would get MAD if you read the above-the-fold front page of a paper without buying it. So I guess unreasonable expectations in this regard are hardly a new thing..