3 ms·

I see lots of articles get posted which are worth reading in full, but the comments under them make it clear few if any people actually read them. I don't real

I see lots of articles get posted which are worth reading in full, but the comments under them make it clear few if any people actually read them. I don't really see how you change that behavior. People are drawn to the path of least resistance, and that path is often just reading the headline and brief summary before making your comment and moving on to the next thing in your social media feed. The value social media companies add is creating a space where users feel like they get all their news (and other things), and can converse about it either with friends and family or like-minded strangers. I don't see how news outlets themselves can compete with that without essentially seeking to replace Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, etc. I think it's fair to say that social media companies profiting off other people's labor should share that financial liability.

bdw5204 4y ago
Facebook can just replace corporate media with alternative media outlets that provide the same news. In fact, the alternative media was doing extremely well on social media until around 2017 or so when they changed the algorithms to favor corporate media content. From the perspective of Facebook, Reddit and Twitter, they can just replace CNN and Fox News with Jacobin and Breitbart and nobody will care that much except people who work for those outlets. In fact, most people will probably be happier to have sources that care less about pretending to be "objective" and just support their party's agenda (such outlets were successfully outcompeting corporate media on the social platforms before the circa 2017 algorithm changes). In other words, the corporate media should be careful what they wish for because they might lose the fantastic gift horse they got from "big tech" 6 years ago. The value of a media outlet is in its influence over public opinion not its profitability and this greed driven proposal is a good way for corporate media to burn down their own influence.
- babypuncher 4y ago
  I understand people's grievances with "mainstream media", but the fact that Jacobin and Breitbart get propped up as "better" alternatives is kind of terrifying.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    At least they are more honest about providing a particular editorial lens to the type of news and content they produce. Edit: that said, having them as primary sources for consumption is obviously much worse than actual journalism built on journalistic principals. We simply don't have much of that at all anymore (if we really ever did, which I think an argument could be made it was somewhat better previously).
    - ericmay 4y ago
      Are they honest about it? What do you mean? Like does Breitbart come out and list it in the site “we are far right blah blah blah”? If not I don’t see how you couldn’t also say that CNN, Fox, and Bloomberg aren’t also honest about their slant.
      - CydeWeys 4y ago
        Jacobin at least is honest and unapologetic: https://jacobin.com/about https://jacobin.com/about
JohnFen 4y ago
> I see lots of articles get posted which are worth reading in full, but the comments under them make it clear few if any people actually read them. This is how people have always read the news. In the old days, there was TV and radio news, which are really just headlines and a brief summary of stories, and newspapers. Most people didn't read the majority of the stories in the newspapers -- they'd skim the headlines, maybe read the first paragraph of a few, and read one or two of the stories that particularly interested them. That's what's hard to monetize online. I have no answers for this problem, but it's certainly a problem.
- Ntrails 4y ago
  > they'd skim the headlines, maybe read the first paragraph of a few... Yeah, we have newspapers at work. I still read them that way, not needing to read a whole segment unless it is obviously interesting beyond the core story.
- babypuncher 4y ago
  Yep, and I don't mean to imply that this is necessarily bad, just pointing out how shifting the place where that headline and summary are consumed from radio and TV where the news source makes money to a third party social media site where they don't is a problem. Good journalism follows an inverted pyramid writing structure, where the most important information is at the top (the headline) and the information becomes less critical the further down the article you move. This has conditioned people to think they can rely on the headline and the first few sentences to get a rough but accurate idea of what's going on. Getting them to actually go to the news website after they've gotten the most important bits from Facebook or Twitter is an incredibly tall order.

bdw5204 4y ago

Facebook can just replace corporate media with alternative media outlets that provide the same news. In fact, the alternative media was doing extremely well on social media until around 2017 or so when they changed the algorithms to favor corporate media content. From the perspective of Facebook, Reddit and Twitter, they can just replace CNN and Fox News with Jacobin and Breitbart and nobody will care that much except people who work for those outlets. In fact, most people will probably be happier to have sources that care less about pretending to be "objective" and just support their party's agenda (such outlets were successfully outcompeting corporate media on the social platforms before the circa 2017 algorithm changes). In other words, the corporate media should be careful what they wish for because they might lose the fantastic gift horse they got from "big tech" 6 years ago. The value of a media outlet is in its influence over public opinion not its profitability and this greed driven proposal is a good way for corporate media to burn down their own influence.

babypuncher 4y ago
I understand people's grievances with "mainstream media", but the fact that Jacobin and Breitbart get propped up as "better" alternatives is kind of terrifying.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  At least they are more honest about providing a particular editorial lens to the type of news and content they produce. Edit: that said, having them as primary sources for consumption is obviously much worse than actual journalism built on journalistic principals. We simply don't have much of that at all anymore (if we really ever did, which I think an argument could be made it was somewhat better previously).
  - ericmay 4y ago
    Are they honest about it? What do you mean? Like does Breitbart come out and list it in the site “we are far right blah blah blah”? If not I don’t see how you couldn’t also say that CNN, Fox, and Bloomberg aren’t also honest about their slant.
    - CydeWeys 4y ago
      Jacobin at least is honest and unapologetic: https://jacobin.com/about https://jacobin.com/about

JohnFen 4y ago

> I see lots of articles get posted which are worth reading in full, but the comments under them make it clear few if any people actually read them. This is how people have always read the news. In the old days, there was TV and radio news, which are really just headlines and a brief summary of stories, and newspapers. Most people didn't read the majority of the stories in the newspapers -- they'd skim the headlines, maybe read the first paragraph of a few, and read one or two of the stories that particularly interested them. That's what's hard to monetize online. I have no answers for this problem, but it's certainly a problem.

Ntrails 4y ago
> they'd skim the headlines, maybe read the first paragraph of a few... Yeah, we have newspapers at work. I still read them that way, not needing to read a whole segment unless it is obviously interesting beyond the core story.
babypuncher 4y ago
Yep, and I don't mean to imply that this is necessarily bad, just pointing out how shifting the place where that headline and summary are consumed from radio and TV where the news source makes money to a third party social media site where they don't is a problem. Good journalism follows an inverted pyramid writing structure, where the most important information is at the top (the headline) and the information becomes less critical the further down the article you move. This has conditioned people to think they can rely on the headline and the first few sentences to get a rough but accurate idea of what's going on. Getting them to actually go to the news website after they've gotten the most important bits from Facebook or Twitter is an incredibly tall order.