5 ms·

There's gradations of good. I'd argue that we're at bad now, and specifically worse than even 20 years ago, itself worse than 20 years before that. The pillag

by ethbr1 3y ago

There's gradations of good. I'd argue that we're at bad now, and specifically worse than even 20 years ago, itself worse than 20 years before that. The pillaging of journalism funding, by Google and Facebook for ad revenue, substituted with "I dunno, the Internet will figure something out" isn't one of our better moments as a culture.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
Everybody is always quick to blame the internet for everything, but I think we can actually pin this one on housing scarcity. Journalism was funded by advertising because ad space was rare and journalistic outlets got a big chunk of it. Then the internet made ad space common -- it's on every web page full of lolcats -- and it was this reality rather than anything specific done by Facebook or Google that took the ad money. But the internet also made it so you don't need a printing press to publish. That should have brought the cost down to what would still be sustainable after the drop in ad revenue. Until you have to make rent, because housing costs are out of control. This is the same thing destroying our communities. You and some neighbors want to get a community lodge for local events? Forget about it, the cost is prohibitive. Stay home and don't even know your neighbors' names. And then where do you learn who to trust? The Internet?
- ethbr1 3y ago
  I lay it at Google and Facebook's feet by the property of 'To whom the wealth is redistributed, also inherits the responsibility.' They've raked in a huge percentage of the ad spend that moved digital (from print). And they've done what with it? They fundamentally don't want to be in the business of journalism, because it's a terrible business. So they don't create content, which now means no one does. (And that's not even getting started on the recommendation algorithm choices they've made that have incentivized low quality content. See: YouTube)
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    Most of the revenue from AdSense etc. goes to the site, i.e. if there are Google ads on a newspaper's website, the newspaper is getting more of the advertiser's money than Google. The problem is this is less money than they used to get, and a lot of the sites aren't journalistic outlets, so the money gets spread pretty thin. In theory Google and Facebook could use their cut to fund journalism, but is that really what we want? The vast majority of journalism funded (and therefore controlled) by a small handful of megacorps? Far better to make it sustainable for individual independent journalists to make living.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      Do you have a breakdown in terms of ad host vs ad platform? We know ad host revenue generated from e.g. Google Ads. We know CPC to advertisers. We know Google's top line ad revenue. But I haven't seen the margin Google et al. take out of the transaction. (CPC - host revenue) / CPC > In theory Google and Facebook could use their cut to fund journalism, but is that really what we want? The vast majority of journalism funded (and therefore controlled) by a small handful of megacorps? I'd prefer that? It isn't that different than the historical funding model (plus loose regulation of what a newsroom meant). > Far better to make it sustainable for individual independent journalists to make living. I think that's apples and oranges. The "we have a news budget that can afford to pay a stringer or correspondent to do first-party reporting and/or investigative journalism" type organization is disappearing. Citizen journalism is important too, but I don't think it's a replacement for the above. As I heard quipped, "Nobody goes to every local council meeting and takes written notes, so they can catch the 1-2 agenda items a year that should be big local stories." And absent that (or similar on an international stage), we lose transparency. We've seen how citizen coding in open source has blind spots where security/cryptography is concerned, and I'd argue we run similar risks relying solely on citizen journalists.

by ethbr1 3y ago

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

Everybody is always quick to blame the internet for everything, but I think we can actually pin this one on housing scarcity. Journalism was funded by advertising because ad space was rare and journalistic outlets got a big chunk of it. Then the internet made ad space common -- it's on every web page full of lolcats -- and it was this reality rather than anything specific done by Facebook or Google that took the ad money. But the internet also made it so you don't need a printing press to publish. That should have brought the cost down to what would still be sustainable after the drop in ad revenue. Until you have to make rent, because housing costs are out of control. This is the same thing destroying our communities. You and some neighbors want to get a community lodge for local events? Forget about it, the cost is prohibitive. Stay home and don't even know your neighbors' names. And then where do you learn who to trust? The Internet?

ethbr1 3y ago
I lay it at Google and Facebook's feet by the property of 'To whom the wealth is redistributed, also inherits the responsibility.' They've raked in a huge percentage of the ad spend that moved digital (from print). And they've done what with it? They fundamentally don't want to be in the business of journalism, because it's a terrible business. So they don't create content, which now means no one does. (And that's not even getting started on the recommendation algorithm choices they've made that have incentivized low quality content. See: YouTube)
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  Most of the revenue from AdSense etc. goes to the site, i.e. if there are Google ads on a newspaper's website, the newspaper is getting more of the advertiser's money than Google. The problem is this is less money than they used to get, and a lot of the sites aren't journalistic outlets, so the money gets spread pretty thin. In theory Google and Facebook could use their cut to fund journalism, but is that really what we want? The vast majority of journalism funded (and therefore controlled) by a small handful of megacorps? Far better to make it sustainable for individual independent journalists to make living.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    Do you have a breakdown in terms of ad host vs ad platform? We know ad host revenue generated from e.g. Google Ads. We know CPC to advertisers. We know Google's top line ad revenue. But I haven't seen the margin Google et al. take out of the transaction. (CPC - host revenue) / CPC > In theory Google and Facebook could use their cut to fund journalism, but is that really what we want? The vast majority of journalism funded (and therefore controlled) by a small handful of megacorps? I'd prefer that? It isn't that different than the historical funding model (plus loose regulation of what a newsroom meant). > Far better to make it sustainable for individual independent journalists to make living. I think that's apples and oranges. The "we have a news budget that can afford to pay a stringer or correspondent to do first-party reporting and/or investigative journalism" type organization is disappearing. Citizen journalism is important too, but I don't think it's a replacement for the above. As I heard quipped, "Nobody goes to every local council meeting and takes written notes, so they can catch the 1-2 agenda items a year that should be big local stories." And absent that (or similar on an international stage), we lose transparency. We've seen how citizen coding in open source has blind spots where security/cryptography is concerned, and I'd argue we run similar risks relying solely on citizen journalists.