Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

anthonykantara t1_ite3jry wrote

Reply to comment by ultraj92 in Meta threatens to block news content in Canada over media revenue-sharing legislation by BollocksAsBalls

Most independent outlets in Canada are speaking out against this law.

I run a media company, we used social media like Facebook to give us a fighting chance against the heavily funded traditional outlets.

This cuts off one of our main traffic sources which in turn cuts off our funding.

28

ctimmermans t1_itficmz wrote

You are not independent if you require Facebook for traffic and making ends meet. That makes you dependent. On Facebook.

8

MrMarklar t1_itfrp82 wrote

Right? They also depend on their electricity provider, internet service provider, and also depend on breathable air, drinking water and nutrition

Independent journalism is truly dead

13

ctimmermans t1_itfrtqe wrote

Yes, but they can easily switch providers or get the water elsewhere and transport it to the office. Apparently with Facebook that’s not an option

−2

MrMarklar t1_itfsj5k wrote

They want to spread their independent journalistic work through a platform that reaches the most people. It doesn't make it any less independent.

Let's say facebook said you can't write about X or you always have to meantion Y in your articles in order to be allowed on their platform. If they complied, then they would cease to be independent. But that's not the case here, facebook is just a means to reach an audience for their independent news outlet without any sort of influence being enforced by Meta on their work.

It's not a hard concept to grasp.

7

ctimmermans t1_itfspml wrote

I understand the concept. I’m just saying it has consequences (especially longer term) which are not in their favor.

Like being dependent on Facebook.

1

yut7 t1_itfyksj wrote

Facebook no way stops them from disseminating their context outside of facebook.

They are free to open TV channel, YouTube channel, start their newspaper, start magazine, build own website and thousand other things.

Facebook is a successful platform, one of most successful ones in entire human history.

1

knockingatthegate t1_itj0kv8 wrote

For “successful” read “exploitative” and “counterproductive to the aims of a healthy and sustainable civil society.”

2

anti-torque t1_itgg5yb wrote

It's not a hard concept.

But when the execution lines you up next to an ad for pizzagate, what was that concept, again?

1

MrMarklar t1_itgisiq wrote

Sorry, but I don't get your point (no offense). I think you're saying good articles and shitty articles exist side by side on the same platform, but I don't know what you are implying with this. It doesn't make the aforementioned independant news sites any more corrupt or less valuable (make them even more so)

1

anti-torque t1_itgk1rk wrote

The platform they choose delegitimizes their own content, due to association.

I know I would likely never go to a fb link for news. I have issues going to small businesses who can't figure out how to make a wordpress page, leaving it up to fb and yelp to tell me who they are.

1

MrMarklar t1_itglkxr wrote

I don't think OP means they have their whole business on Facebook. It's just a means to share their articles. All serious businesses that depend on online engagement have pages on Facebook and other social media that point to their websites, it's just a nobrainer.

While I don't browse facebook at all, lots of people still do.

What's the "proper" way to grow your business online, astrosurfing on reddit?

2

anti-torque t1_itgml4w wrote

lol... it's valid to direct traffic away from fb, I guess.

There are a lot of local businesses who do only have these fb profiles as their business page. It's pretty annoying going from an interwebs experience where I'm just cruising along, to this fb page that tells me nothing, except what a neat pumpikin carving some kids did today... at this restaurant that has no known menu online.

1

anthonykantara t1_itfnhl0 wrote

That’s not what independent means. It has nothing to do with source of traffic.

How do you think digital media outlets get their traffic? TV or newspaper stands?

4

ctimmermans t1_itfrrnb wrote

It has everything to do with dependence. If you are dependent on 1 traffic source you tend to cater to that traffic source, thus losing your independence.

−3

MrMarklar t1_itftb9e wrote

You are using the word "dependent" and "independence" in their literal sense, in a completely different context.

"The reach of an independent media outlet depends on a free platform." is not a contradictory sentence, but you are trying to make it seem like it is, and that's dishonest.

​

>you tend to cater

That's a very safe way to form a baseless personal opinion.

5

r3zza92 t1_itfqm89 wrote

Same thing happened in aus. The big guys got deals the small guys got fucked.

5

anthonykantara t1_itg5hf5 wrote

That’s literally it. Facebook rather sit down with the main few than sit with thousands of smaller ones.

1

r3zza92 t1_itg7zkc wrote

Facebook threatened to pull news for everyone same as they’re doing in Canada. Googles the one who caved which forced Facebook to follow suit. It’s all Fucking Murdochs fault though, well here it is anyway.

4

dshdhjsdhjd t1_itfh7tn wrote

interesting...
But, what kind of independent outlet?
If it's a qanon type, well????

2

anthonykantara t1_itfnlwc wrote

In our country independent means not owned or affiliated with any political party or politician. 80% of outlets here are linked to a political entity.

3

Allusionator t1_itgw31n wrote

Nobody needs media that isn’t regional. The news business was a mistake, having people worry about issues they can only know the first thing about that are thousands of miles away is to our collective detriment.

1