9 ms·
I think the issue that the article points out is valid. But it expands to a bigger face than just Facebook. Namely, any content on the Internet, by virtue of be
by personjerry 11y ago
I think the issue that the article points out is valid. But it expands to a bigger face than just Facebook. Namely, any content on the Internet, by virtue of being easily accessed, is easily duplicated. Sites like 9gag and Buzzfeed are full of reposts from Reddit and 4chan. "But wait!" you say, "those aren't the same. Those aren't making money like videos!" But the value of any content is to drive views and growth, and in that sense the text or image posts are worth just as much as video. We don't generally make the same big deal out of these as music or video because it is more difficult for creators of small content to complain.
- personjerry 11y agoIf there were some sort of verification for each "content" post (i.e. music, video, image, text) forcing others to link to the original content rather than duplicate it, then the creator gets the benefit, while sites linking to them might be viewed as curators.
- spuz 11y agoThe difference is that text and images do not have a native platform on which a context creator can publish AND monetise their work. For video there exists YouTube and music Spotify and YouTube again. The opportunities for monetising text and images are miniscule in comparison.