Attention #journalists. Facebook's blocking of #news adding to dangerous situations in Canada's north.
Saw this post elsewhere. A radio host in Yellowknife "said that most people in #NWT use #Facebook to access information. But Facebook now denies# Canadians the chance to share the news. This lowers the chance for people to learn about about emergencies and evacuation orders, such as the one that’s just come into place for #Yellowknife."
@AskPippa It's worth noting that Facebook only blocked news in response to Canada's government and traditional media extorting them.
It's also worth noting how depressing it is that some folks turn to Facebook for information... but that also seems to be mostly traditional-media-hyped bullshit too.
@LouisIngenthron
The traditional model is that if you have a story in a magazine, and another publication that makes money through advertising wants to use that story, they pay a fee (royalty if you like). Facebook is full of ads. Facebook gets a lot of use from people sharing news stories -- something FB's advertisers like to see. Following the traditional model, FB should be paying something to the media outlets where the stories come from.
Most mainstream media are in trouble financially, margins are very slim. The writers, editors, producers and publishers of news all need to get paid. The work is not done for free.
@AskPippa Facebook doesn't post the news to their platform. The media companies do.
Ask yourself why.
@LouisIngenthron Sure, media companies have accounts as well as users finding and sharing stories. They need readers -- or the publications die.
@AskPippa Right. So, it's not the social media companies that are profiting from the traditional media. It's the other way around. Traditional media was already getting free advertising from social media, and now they want social media to pay them for that privilege? Ludicrous.
The fact that they had to get a law in place instead of just making a deal, and the fact that Facebook chose to shut them out both clearly demonstrate which side was benefiting more from the relationship.
Traditional media don't get to cry "share on Facebook" for two decades only to demand that Facebook cough up every time someone shares.
@LouisIngenthron
This explains how Facebook makes money from the presence of news media. https://theconversation.com/facebook-profits-from-canadian-media-content-but-gives-little-in-return-146385
@AskPippa So what? The traditional media still ends up getting the better side of the deal.
They know that social media drives way more traffic to them than vice-versa. If the traditional media companies think they're not getting their money's worth, they're free to pull out of social media.
Instead, they lobbied the government to force the social media companies to pay them. That's not fair play; it's legalized extortion. The social media companies don't owe the traditional newspapers a dime. If anything, they should be charging for all the free advertising they gave those companies that drove click which drove ads which drove revenue.
I'd say GTFO too if I were in the social media companies' shoes.
@AskPippa I don't disagree that that's a problem. What I disagree with is forcing an unrelated third party to foot the bill.
Unfortunately, so much of the problem is self-inflicted.
@LouisIngenthron Subscription rates have plummeted over the past 10 years, ads have plummeted. Hundreds of newspapers have had to close, including many that had been around 50, 60 or more years. Many publications are barely hanging on. They can't survive the Internet and people expecting to read everything for free. So, say goodbye to even more news outlets, including those that do good investigative reporting.