5 ms·

What you don’t consider is that FB is heavily profiting from professionally created content that takes a lot of money to create, with many users just skimming t

What you don’t consider is that FB is heavily profiting from professionally created content that takes a lot of money to create, with many users just skimming the headlines without ever clicking through. In short, just another billionaire profiting off of other people’s work without ever paying for it. Those new AI companies, which are also conducting large-scale theft, are no different and should either seize operation or also start paying their fair share.

robertlagrant 2y ago
> In short, just another billionaire profiting off of other people’s work without ever paying for it. Why are the news orgs unhappy after Facebook stopped doing it?
- hackerbeat 2y ago
  How do you know they’re unhappy?
  - seryoiupfurds 2y ago
    Because they're constantly posting articles whining that "Meta's news ban" is killing the media.
    - hackerbeat 2y ago
      Yeah, but Meta wasn’t willing to pay for it. Why should power-hungry Zuck get everything for free when YouTube, for example, is giving everyone a cut?
      - EQYV 2y ago
        Well, maybe he shouldn’t but it seems he’d rather not deal with this problem at all and now we have the status quo. That has to be a situation you’re willing to accept, unless you’re saying Facebook should be forced to allow news, and be forced to pay for it.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        > Yeah, but Meta wasn’t willing to pay for it. Sorry, I don't see how this contradicts the idea that the media don't like the current situation.
mardifoufs 2y ago
Well then this is great no? The billionaires and Facebook don't get to profit from the media. Since the law was passed on the premise that Facebook was basically stealing money from local media corporations, surely our national media industry is doing better now by not getting exploited like that. Yet I keep seeing sob stories after sob stories from the exact same media organizations that were vehemently pushing for this. Something about leopards and faces getting eaten comes to mind (Also, media corporations here are -in typical Canadian fashion- a handful of giants controlling basically most outlets. A part from the state sponsored/funded CBC. So there's basically no little guys in this fight, and Canadian corporations always try to pull this type of stuff to protect their little corporatist fiefdoms through the federal government)
- hackerbeat 2y ago
  But why should FB get this content for free (including the images used)?
  - seryoiupfurds 2y ago
    They don't any more! This whole article is about how they go out of their way to prevent users from even posting links to it!
  - jsnell 2y ago
    Because the news organizations are giving it to FB, with the intent of FB using it in a way that gets users to click on the link, and all of this is disproportionately to the benefit of the news organizations.
    - hackerbeat 2y ago
      FB should give back more than just clicks. See YouTube.
      - mardifoufs 2y ago
        That's fine. Now it doesn't use their content. So there's nothing for them to give. Yet we have seen articles after articles of media corporations complaining about how this is still unfair to them. Clearly then Facebook did provide more value for them than it took, otherwise why wouldn't they just be happy by the current situation now that their links are protected from the big man? Also YouTube isn't just a link aggregator. News media usually have their own platforms with their own ads and monetization. And they still have them! So they are completely free to monetize their assets/content. Canadian media isn't entitled to getting services from Facebook and also demanding payment while doing so.
jsnell 2y ago
Yes, it would not make sense for the GP to consider that statement, since it was just made up for political purposes. There is no evidence of it being true, and some circumstantial evidence of it not being true: namely, that FB was willing to block news from their site, and there was no obvious impact to e.g. their financials.
- hackerbeat 2y ago
  I’m not following. What’s been made up for political purposes?
  - jsnell 2y ago
    That "FB is heavily profiting from professionally created content that takes a lot of money to create". Sorry, I thought this was obvious from context, since it is what you accused the GP of not considering.
    - hackerbeat 2y ago
      But they are profiting quite heavily from it. Look at all the engagement it drives, especially political content.
      - jsnell 2y ago
        Yes, you keep asserting that with no evidence. Just saying it more often doesn't make it any more true.
        hackerbeat 2y ago
        Where's your evidence?
        jsnell 2y ago
        First, you're the one making an affirmative statement about what FB should be doing. The burden of proof is on you. Second, I've posted the (admittedly circumstantial) evidence in direct reply to you multiple times. You've not engaged with it in any way, but just repeated your talking point. You don't appear to be acting in good faith in this discussion. Your need to put some effort into this, and actually reply to what people write.

robertlagrant 2y ago

> In short, just another billionaire profiting off of other people’s work without ever paying for it. Why are the news orgs unhappy after Facebook stopped doing it?

hackerbeat 2y ago
How do you know they’re unhappy?
- seryoiupfurds 2y ago
  Because they're constantly posting articles whining that "Meta's news ban" is killing the media.
  - hackerbeat 2y ago
    Yeah, but Meta wasn’t willing to pay for it. Why should power-hungry Zuck get everything for free when YouTube, for example, is giving everyone a cut?
    - EQYV 2y ago
      Well, maybe he shouldn’t but it seems he’d rather not deal with this problem at all and now we have the status quo. That has to be a situation you’re willing to accept, unless you’re saying Facebook should be forced to allow news, and be forced to pay for it.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      > Yeah, but Meta wasn’t willing to pay for it. Sorry, I don't see how this contradicts the idea that the media don't like the current situation.

mardifoufs 2y ago

Well then this is great no? The billionaires and Facebook don't get to profit from the media. Since the law was passed on the premise that Facebook was basically stealing money from local media corporations, surely our national media industry is doing better now by not getting exploited like that. Yet I keep seeing sob stories after sob stories from the exact same media organizations that were vehemently pushing for this. Something about leopards and faces getting eaten comes to mind (Also, media corporations here are -in typical Canadian fashion- a handful of giants controlling basically most outlets. A part from the state sponsored/funded CBC. So there's basically no little guys in this fight, and Canadian corporations always try to pull this type of stuff to protect their little corporatist fiefdoms through the federal government)

hackerbeat 2y ago
But why should FB get this content for free (including the images used)?
- seryoiupfurds 2y ago
  They don't any more! This whole article is about how they go out of their way to prevent users from even posting links to it!
- jsnell 2y ago
  Because the news organizations are giving it to FB, with the intent of FB using it in a way that gets users to click on the link, and all of this is disproportionately to the benefit of the news organizations.
  - hackerbeat 2y ago
    FB should give back more than just clicks. See YouTube.
    - mardifoufs 2y ago
      That's fine. Now it doesn't use their content. So there's nothing for them to give. Yet we have seen articles after articles of media corporations complaining about how this is still unfair to them. Clearly then Facebook did provide more value for them than it took, otherwise why wouldn't they just be happy by the current situation now that their links are protected from the big man? Also YouTube isn't just a link aggregator. News media usually have their own platforms with their own ads and monetization. And they still have them! So they are completely free to monetize their assets/content. Canadian media isn't entitled to getting services from Facebook and also demanding payment while doing so.

jsnell 2y ago

Yes, it would not make sense for the GP to consider that statement, since it was just made up for political purposes. There is no evidence of it being true, and some circumstantial evidence of it not being true: namely, that FB was willing to block news from their site, and there was no obvious impact to e.g. their financials.

hackerbeat 2y ago
I’m not following. What’s been made up for political purposes?
- jsnell 2y ago
  That "FB is heavily profiting from professionally created content that takes a lot of money to create". Sorry, I thought this was obvious from context, since it is what you accused the GP of not considering.
  - hackerbeat 2y ago
    But they are profiting quite heavily from it. Look at all the engagement it drives, especially political content.
    - jsnell 2y ago
      Yes, you keep asserting that with no evidence. Just saying it more often doesn't make it any more true.
      - hackerbeat 2y ago
        Where's your evidence?
        jsnell 2y ago
        First, you're the one making an affirmative statement about what FB should be doing. The burden of proof is on you. Second, I've posted the (admittedly circumstantial) evidence in direct reply to you multiple times. You've not engaged with it in any way, but just repeated your talking point. You don't appear to be acting in good faith in this discussion. Your need to put some effort into this, and actually reply to what people write.