4 ms·
Is "fake" the right word? I was under the impression that the generic "news"/"information" on many sites is purchased (or otherwise obtained through some kind
by jmull 2y ago
Is "fake" the right word?
I was under the impression that the generic "news"/"information" on many sites is purchased (or otherwise obtained through some kind of business relationship) from some other organization.
And I just don't get this perspective from the article:
"For some unfathomable reason, CNN agreed to a deal. What the fuck CNN? You’re CN fucking N. What in god’s name convinced you this was a good idea? And you already had a ramped up affiliate program. I say again: what the fuck CNN?"
I guess I can't figure out what the problem is supposed to be here. I don't think there's necessarily a problem with fleshing out a site with generic content. I would guess CNN has an agreement with the content provider on the general character of content, and can surely opt out of things they don't want to be associated with.
FWIW, I opened "CNN underscored money" and at the top of the page it says:
"Content is created by CNN Underscored’s team of editors who work independently from the CNN Newsroom. CNN earns a commission from partner links on the site but the reporting here is always independent and objective." (plus there's an "advertiser disclosure" link but I didn't click on it).
I just don't get what the problem is here.
- RobRivera 2y ago>"For some unfathomable reason, CNN agreed to a deal. What the fuck CNN? You’re CN fucking N. What in god’s name convinced you this was a good idea? And you already had a ramped up affiliate program. I say again: what the fuck CNN?" Anytime I hear outrage rhetoric i lose all interest in the author's words. Its like they have completely forgotten what relativity is.
- yriehhdjf 2y agoWhat would you consider the relative element in this scenario that explains the decision then? Or was your point simply that emotive language automatically discredits a speaker's point?
- hindsightbias 2y agoMy eyes read it as reality. I think it fits too.
- ndiddy 2y agoThe problem is that Google defines what these sites are doing as spam: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies#site-reputation https://developers.google.com/search/docs/essentials/spam-po... > Site reputation abuse is when third-party pages are published with little or no first-party oversight or involvement, where the purpose is to manipulate search rankings by taking advantage of the first-party site's ranking signals. Such third-party pages include sponsored, advertising, partner, or other third-party pages that are typically independent of a host site's main purpose or produced without close oversight or involvement of the host site. It means that consumers will be shown reviews written by affiliate marketers rather than real people because the affiliate marketers get to leech off of Forbes's, CNN's, or USA Today's domain reputation. Despite this, Google is either unwilling or unable to derank major sites over this issue.
- jmull 2y agoRE "...with little or no first-party oversight or involvement..." and "...without close oversight or involvement of the host site..." Why do you think there isn't oversight or involvement from CNN?
- magic-michael 2y agoAbsolutely, spot on. These publishers aren't just letting anyone post. If you actually check, the writers are legit experts in their fields. Take a look at the authors and their LinkedIn profiles—they’ve been covering these topics for years
- dfc 2y agoWhich of these authors have LinkedIn profiles documenting their employment history?
- ndiddy 2y agoFor the CNN Underscored Money example, none of the writers or editors on the site work for CNN. They're all contractors who work for Marketplace, an affiliate marketing company. The site is hosted on completely separate infrastructure from CNN Underscored, just skinned to look similar to it. They even have a different privacy policy just for CNN Underscored Money. If CNN had major oversight or control of the content on CNN Underscored Money, you would think they would host it themselves rather than allowing an affiliate marketing company to independently operate the category.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- pie_flavor 2y ago> FWIW, I opened "CNN underscored money" and at the top of the page it says: "Content is created by CNN Underscored’s team of editors who work independently from the CNN Newsroom. You are effectively saying 'what's the big deal if they admit it'. The big deal is that that's not what they're admitting. CNN Underscored is a separate team within CNN, running an in-house content farm, and that's what they're admitting to. CNN Underscored Money is an entirely separate company, running a third-party content farm, which they are going to lengths to hide the separation from CNN Underscored. Google's TOS permits you to run terrible content farms. It even permits you to rehost third-party terrible content farms with zero oversight. But it does not allow you to claim this content as your own and hide its third-party origin, if you rehost it with zero oversight.