I’d really like to understand this in a different light than I currently see it in…
People post stuff made by other sites on facebook, sometimes even the creators of the stuff. Facebook never posts these things on their own. Facebook makes money on ads on it’s site, this covers hosting, employees, coding…
People read stuff on Facebook, instead of creator’s site, and don’t view creator’s ads.
Creators want compensation, legislation forces it from Facebook.
Facebook disallows OTHERS from posting the stuff, so that they aren’t liable to creators for what those people (who are sometimes the same creators complaining) are doing. (Duh?)
The creators, now unpaid and standing to earn, posts this negatively everywhere and amplifies it on their platforms.
Canada is pissed?
Obviously if clicking through is desired, legislate that they can only show the link and title. Forcing companies to pay for what users post… Very obviously would end up with disallowed posting.
That’s kind of right although I somewhat disagree with #2. It’s not so much that Facebook is causing people to not visit news organizations websites that’s hurting news organizations, but more so that there are so many ways to advertise to consumers now (largely through Facebook & Google) that the news organizations are struggling to get advertisers to pay them top $ to advertise with them like they used to. Basically, even if Facebook had banned news from day 1 of its existence and consumers had never expected to find it on Facebook, the fact that advertising has become cheaper would itself hurt news organizations that relied on advertising revenue.
I’d really like to understand this in a different light than I currently see it in…
People post stuff made by other sites on facebook, sometimes even the creators of the stuff. Facebook never posts these things on their own. Facebook makes money on ads on it’s site, this covers hosting, employees, coding…
People read stuff on Facebook, instead of creator’s site, and don’t view creator’s ads.
Creators want compensation, legislation forces it from Facebook.
Facebook disallows OTHERS from posting the stuff, so that they aren’t liable to creators for what those people (who are sometimes the same creators complaining) are doing. (Duh?)
The creators, now unpaid and standing to earn, posts this negatively everywhere and amplifies it on their platforms.
Canada is pissed?
Obviously if clicking through is desired, legislate that they can only show the link and title. Forcing companies to pay for what users post… Very obviously would end up with disallowed posting.
That’s kind of right although I somewhat disagree with #2. It’s not so much that Facebook is causing people to not visit news organizations websites that’s hurting news organizations, but more so that there are so many ways to advertise to consumers now (largely through Facebook & Google) that the news organizations are struggling to get advertisers to pay them top $ to advertise with them like they used to. Basically, even if Facebook had banned news from day 1 of its existence and consumers had never expected to find it on Facebook, the fact that advertising has become cheaper would itself hurt news organizations that relied on advertising revenue.