3 ms·

We really just need a good aggregator. Because with legislative arrangements like Australias, thats what Facebook and Twitter have become, just with advertisin

We really just need a good aggregator. Because with legislative arrangements like Australias, thats what Facebook and Twitter have become, just with advertising money paying the newsies instead. Pay some middle man in CASH MONEY to view 100 articles per month.

re-thc 1y ago
> Because with legislative arrangements like Australias, thats what Facebook and Twitter have become No, in this example users using Facebook and Twitter are indirectly paying for this regardless of if they read the news there.
- protocolture 1y ago
  They were forced to make private arrangements to pay various media companies what they thought their content was making on their platform. In aggregate its roughly the same.
  - re-thc 1y ago
    > In aggregate its roughly the same. That's like saying if you pay tax you already pay for everything since your tax dollars is always involved in some part of it. There's no separate section on Twitter or Facebook with said "news" with a separate charge. If I e.g. pay for a Twitter account I pay for it all. Unless there's an opt-out, as a user I'm paying for it. Whether I use it or not.
    - protocolture 1y ago
      >Unless there's an opt-out, as a user I'm paying for it. Whether I use it or not. I mean you would be "paying" just as much to facey even if the scheme wasn't in place.
jeroenhd 1y ago
Blendle tried that here. It didn't work out for them; publishers wanted more money, competition disappeared because news publishers all congregated into three giant blobs. People registered, tried the app once, and then never put any money into the app again. Now they sell Netflix-style aggregate subscriptions. It's mostly gossip rags and magazines these days.
- protocolture 1y ago
  Yeah all implementations thus far have sucked I am well aware. My read is thats because the aggregators wanted to be blind middle men. These days you need to curate. I would almost pay just to remove the bottomless pit of pseudoscience from my feed.
ben_w 1y ago
> We really just need a good aggregator. Right, all those different writers can band together, perhaps get an editor to curate the best and make sure there's no major blunders… But isn't that just a news organisation?
- protocolture 1y ago
  A news organisation tends to have a single editorial opinion. Heck. the consistency between all the murdoch papers is frequently a source of jokes. Give me 5 or 6 sources of news, maybe in packages, curated for the best reporting on a day to day basis and I would pay 5 bucks a month for that. That sort of emulates my current pattern which is Guardian for the bulk of my input, but flitting back and forth between BBC, Al Jazeera, ABC and others to pick up highlights or specific stories not carried, or carried briefly by guardian. Throw it on a scrollable feed and I might even drop facey and masto.

re-thc 1y ago

> Because with legislative arrangements like Australias, thats what Facebook and Twitter have become No, in this example users using Facebook and Twitter are indirectly paying for this regardless of if they read the news there.

protocolture 1y ago
They were forced to make private arrangements to pay various media companies what they thought their content was making on their platform. In aggregate its roughly the same.
- re-thc 1y ago
  > In aggregate its roughly the same. That's like saying if you pay tax you already pay for everything since your tax dollars is always involved in some part of it. There's no separate section on Twitter or Facebook with said "news" with a separate charge. If I e.g. pay for a Twitter account I pay for it all. Unless there's an opt-out, as a user I'm paying for it. Whether I use it or not.
  - protocolture 1y ago
    >Unless there's an opt-out, as a user I'm paying for it. Whether I use it or not. I mean you would be "paying" just as much to facey even if the scheme wasn't in place.

jeroenhd 1y ago

Blendle tried that here. It didn't work out for them; publishers wanted more money, competition disappeared because news publishers all congregated into three giant blobs. People registered, tried the app once, and then never put any money into the app again. Now they sell Netflix-style aggregate subscriptions. It's mostly gossip rags and magazines these days.

protocolture 1y ago
Yeah all implementations thus far have sucked I am well aware. My read is thats because the aggregators wanted to be blind middle men. These days you need to curate. I would almost pay just to remove the bottomless pit of pseudoscience from my feed.

ben_w 1y ago

> We really just need a good aggregator. Right, all those different writers can band together, perhaps get an editor to curate the best and make sure there's no major blunders… But isn't that just a news organisation?

protocolture 1y ago
A news organisation tends to have a single editorial opinion. Heck. the consistency between all the murdoch papers is frequently a source of jokes. Give me 5 or 6 sources of news, maybe in packages, curated for the best reporting on a day to day basis and I would pay 5 bucks a month for that. That sort of emulates my current pattern which is Guardian for the bulk of my input, but flitting back and forth between BBC, Al Jazeera, ABC and others to pick up highlights or specific stories not carried, or carried briefly by guardian. Throw it on a scrollable feed and I might even drop facey and masto.