Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9049 total)
454 online now:
Tanypteryx, xongsmith (2 members, 452 visitors)
Newest Member: Wes johnson
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume: Total: 887,590 Year: 5,236/14,102 Month: 157/677 Week: 16/26 Day: 4/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What Is Australia's Problem With News in Google and Facebook
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 32 of 58 (884558)
02-24-2021 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Percy
02-20-2021 12:22 PM


Note that I am not taking sides in this matter.

Percy writes:

I still don't understand how Google providing a link to a news article does anything to the news company but provide a benefit. Google benefits, too. Seems like a win-win situation. I don't understand why Google caved.

You're an outlier in that you actually read the articles from which a headline is derived. 99% of people, especially Facebook users, only read the headlines and they never EVER bother reading the actual substance about a topic that they then proceed to rail on about. FB (and most all other social media) users share links all over the place without having ever learned what that link is actually talking about. So in essence, their content is being shared but their sites never visited. Entire discussions are had about a topic that some journalist took the time to create and write about but a good chunk of people discuss and share this article without knowing who wrote it or worse, realizing that it wasn't written by a journalist but rather by some bot somewhere just to elicit their outrage....but that's a whole other can of worms for another day.

Percy writes:

Google Ads is based upon this principle. Webmasters create places on their sites where Google can run ads that companies pay them to run, and when someone clicks on one of those ads then the website running it gains revenue. Making links available to click on is a benefit to the websites linked to, and companies are willing to pay for other websites to host links (in the form of ads) to their own websites.

Adblockers man, adblockers. I certainly hope you are smart enough to not click ads on the internet should you not be tech savvy enough to not see them.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Percy, posted 02-20-2021 12:22 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Percy, posted 02-24-2021 5:16 PM hooah212002 has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 33 of 58 (884559)
02-24-2021 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Percy
02-22-2021 11:04 AM


The other problem with a purely subscription based model is that it seems like it would push people even further into their own echo chambers. If people have to pay for access to news in that manner, then it is that much less likely that a person is willing to seek out opposing views. No fucking way will I willingly pay Fox news or Breitbart, or god forbid OANN or Newsmax, just to get a different perspective. At the same time, I don't want to only get my news from a limited number of sources that I personally am convinced is "unbiased" because that doesn't exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 02-22-2021 11:04 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 02-25-2021 9:42 AM hooah212002 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021