3 ms·
That's a fair perspective. The part of it though that is nefarious is that the main segment they have angered is the media. Simply put, the advertising dollars
by wakiza33 5y ago
That's a fair perspective. The part of it though that is nefarious is that the main segment they have angered is the media. Simply put, the advertising dollars that used to go to newspapers now go to Facebook and Google (because you can reach the same audience far more efficiently).
Unfortunately, it's pretty clear the media 'has it out for' facebook, ultimately, for monetary reasons. Particularly the big institutions believe that if Facebook were out that a lot of those dollars would flow back.
It's the heart of all of the facebook attacks.
- pfraze 5y agoI think that's true to an extent; angering all of the media at once is sure to have some bad consequences. But I think the other grievances I mentioned are fairly specific and not just engineered via repeated bad press. Again, the core of their problem is that they inserted themselves into the middle layer of everything. In doing so, they adopted all the negatives along with the positives. It seems like an untenable position in the long run; you just can't monopolize computing like this.
- wnissen 5y agoGiven that the newspapers watched Facebook first co-opt their content, and then their revenue, and continually jerked them around with misleading or even fraudulent metrics ("pivot to video!"), I think they have been remarkably restrained. And that's leaving aside the damage of email, community forums, and democracy that don't directly affect the media.