top | item 16129530

(no title)

iokevins | 8 years ago

Josh Marshall just now: "Announcement to publishers who reshaped business models around Facebook. Bye."

https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/951615904760172545

discuss

order

tzahola|8 years ago

Golly! Who would have thought it was a bad idea to shape your business model exclusively around facebook’s news feed algorithm without any contractual relationship with them?!

Seriously, I won’t shed a single tear for these “”””publishers””””.

username223|8 years ago

Yep. It's just clever spin on making publications pay for their FB "subscribers" to even see their posts.

NetOpWibby|8 years ago

Twitter did the same thing to devs using their API to make apps.

george3383|8 years ago

If it's bad for journalists and advertisers then it's good for users.

untog|8 years ago

There's a meaningful difference between journalists and advertisers. I know it's fashionable to bash "the media" but I wouldn't want to live in a world without journalism. Advertising I could take or leave.

roywiggins|8 years ago

It depends. Some people use Facebook "likes" as a crappy replacement for RSS, so it's probably not great for them.

abritinthebay|8 years ago

It's only bad for media companies who use pretty awful tactics to get eyeballs.

The trick is really to stop worrying about clicks to your site and focus on good content that people will engage with (share, comment, like, whatever). If it's good content people respond well to it and will seek out your brand.

You see the same thing with the savvy companies on Instagram/Snapchat/etc

It's only bad if you're essentially a click-bait factory.

scottmf|8 years ago

These days I’m extremely skeptical of recently created accounts whose only comments are political and two of which bash journalists.

taurath|8 years ago

“Journalists” being those making their money by being shared on Facebook are the least journalistic.