3 ms·

In your example the cafe isn't monetizing the fact that you view the headline and comment, which inherently increases the advertising value of the cafe (i.e. mo

In your example the cafe isn't monetizing the fact that you view the headline and comment, which inherently increases the advertising value of the cafe (i.e. more people won't come to the cafe because of the headlines and their need to comment on it) and which captures significantly more value than everyone else involved. You just read the headline, a few people buy the paper and everyone is equitable and happy. If Meta wants to pay 100% tax on their ad revenues to fund journalism, all they have to do is say so.

wvenable 3y ago
This theoretical cafe is monetizing the fact that people come and hang out and have discussions and order some coffee. The place is filled with games and magazines and newspapers that anyone can open a view the advertising within. But I never bother, I just read the headlines and discuss those without ever looking inside.
- arrosenberg 3y ago
  > This theoretical cafe is monetizing the fact that people come and hang out and have discussions and order some coffee. Therein lies the difference. 1. People come and hang out - can't effectively do this on Meta sites, though their VR push seems aimed at trying to fulfill this need. I would also put "read the newspaper" under this category. 2. Have discussions - for varying definitions of "discussion", this is where Facebook is heavily monetized. 3. Order some coffee - again, can't effectively do that on any Meta sites. Given that parks exist without coffee shops, we can infer that 3 is what coffee shops are monetizing, while 1 and 2 act as an additional enticement. The newspapers suffer because, even though YOU may only comment on the headlines, there are plenty of people who go to the coffee shop and don't think twice about buying the paper to read or do the crossword puzzle. The newspaper is able to monetize 1 and 2 and the coffeeshop monetizes 3 - everyone is equitable and happy. On Facebook, Facebook monetizes 2 and claims (without much proof) that they are providing 1 as a service to customers. No coffee is ever served - everyone but Meta is unhappy.
  - wvenable 3y ago
    A newspaper doesn't monetize #1 (People come and hang out). Facebook is, first and foremost, a social media platform. People go there to learn about what other people they know are doing. So the cafe and Facebook have the most in common there. The cafe monetizes that hang out by selling you coffee and Facebook monetizes that by showing you ads. Newspapers are very much secondary to both businesses. They enhance the experience but are not fundamental to it. They also both provide a service to those newspapers by providing a point of distribution. People might, as part of their experience in the cafe/Facebook, read the newspaper.
  - brightlancer 3y ago
    > People come and hang out - can't effectively do this on Meta sites, Why not? There isn't a physical table but folks came and hung out on USENET, BBSes, etc. before Facebook came along. And folks appear to hang out on Social Media sites the same today.

wvenable 3y ago

This theoretical cafe is monetizing the fact that people come and hang out and have discussions and order some coffee. The place is filled with games and magazines and newspapers that anyone can open a view the advertising within. But I never bother, I just read the headlines and discuss those without ever looking inside.

arrosenberg 3y ago
> This theoretical cafe is monetizing the fact that people come and hang out and have discussions and order some coffee. Therein lies the difference. 1. People come and hang out - can't effectively do this on Meta sites, though their VR push seems aimed at trying to fulfill this need. I would also put "read the newspaper" under this category. 2. Have discussions - for varying definitions of "discussion", this is where Facebook is heavily monetized. 3. Order some coffee - again, can't effectively do that on any Meta sites. Given that parks exist without coffee shops, we can infer that 3 is what coffee shops are monetizing, while 1 and 2 act as an additional enticement. The newspapers suffer because, even though YOU may only comment on the headlines, there are plenty of people who go to the coffee shop and don't think twice about buying the paper to read or do the crossword puzzle. The newspaper is able to monetize 1 and 2 and the coffeeshop monetizes 3 - everyone is equitable and happy. On Facebook, Facebook monetizes 2 and claims (without much proof) that they are providing 1 as a service to customers. No coffee is ever served - everyone but Meta is unhappy.
- wvenable 3y ago
  A newspaper doesn't monetize #1 (People come and hang out). Facebook is, first and foremost, a social media platform. People go there to learn about what other people they know are doing. So the cafe and Facebook have the most in common there. The cafe monetizes that hang out by selling you coffee and Facebook monetizes that by showing you ads. Newspapers are very much secondary to both businesses. They enhance the experience but are not fundamental to it. They also both provide a service to those newspapers by providing a point of distribution. People might, as part of their experience in the cafe/Facebook, read the newspaper.
- brightlancer 3y ago
  > People come and hang out - can't effectively do this on Meta sites, Why not? There isn't a physical table but folks came and hung out on USENET, BBSes, etc. before Facebook came along. And folks appear to hang out on Social Media sites the same today.