Horses didn’t get replaced by GlobalAutomobileMonopoly Inc., they got replaced by many dozens of competing car and train companies. I’m quite confident if FB tomorrow were to self-dissolve into 10 separate competing companies all this regulation would be handily removed.
By positioning themselves as platforms, not publishers, Facebook, Google, Twitter and others are profiting greatly from information displayed on their sites that have been produced and paid for by publishers. Although there are far, far fewer blacksmiths and farriers than there once were, I think a huge % of those that remain are not working for free. Craig’s List and Monster did decimate classified dealer and used car and employment related ads, but they have not profited from unauthorized and uncompensated postings of editorial and images produced and paid for by publishers.
I’m sorry, I’m confused. Are you talking about Facebook or Rupert Murdoch?
1 Like
Something I just remembered…Murdoch bought My Space in 2005 for $580,000,000 because it was the world’s largest and most profitable social media company. At that time rumors were flying that he was going to develop TV shows, and eventually channels like MTV and Lifetime based on My Space content. He sold it five years later for just $35,000,000. The reason…Facebook.
You write, “but [the] fact is, FB customers cannot vote with their feet. It’s essentially FB or nothing.” But I have never had a FB account and I have never had any trouble getting news on the Internet. Every website I go to wants to push notifications to me whether I am a paying subscriber or not. Friends send me text messages or emails with links to news they think I want to know about. Newsmakers and other interested parties tweet about stuff they think their followers might want to know about. I don’t feel like I have missed anything because I refuse to get a FB account. In short, if the trade-off is FB or “nothing,” “nothing” works great, and it’s possible to vote for “nothing” with your feet.
6 Likes
To the extent that people just walk away from Facebook, issues with that company are reduced. I’ve been very happy to have cut my ties years ago.
I agree entirely with that, @fritz. I’ve never been on FB my entire life. No need to convince me that works.
But here that is beside the point since people like us are not in that market in the first place.
Those who are, i.e. those who desire to be on some kind of “social network” basically get to choose between FB and FB. In that market FB has a de facto monopoly, worse than MS on the desktop in the 90s. And as I argued then, I argue now: once a company is in such a position it has to be subjected to stringent regulation and it has to be treated different from private companies in other markets where they’re exposed to competition and true market forces.
Or Twitter or Youtube or Tiktok or WhatsApp or WeChat or LinkedIn or Reddit or Pinterest or…
Dominant position? Yes. Monopoly? No.
3 Likes
For what it’s worth:
@MrKRudd: After a full day’s Senate hearings where the Murdoch media denied they were a monopoly, what do his tabloids deliver today in 8 different cities? The same cookie-cutter article published in 8 different papers! They really take us for fools. #MurdochRoyalCommission
https://twitter.com/MrKRudd/status/1363080224359862277/photo/1
2 Likes
Syndicating print and broadcast news has been a fact of life for well over a century, ever since Morse code and teletypes were invented. From the largest to the smallest, the vast majority newspapers depend on syndicates for national, global, human interest, opinion and how to coverage and columns. They cannot afford to do otherwise. That they only found one article in a big bunch of newspapers that run multiple pages that include lots of news, reviews and opinion coverage is nothing indicating anything resembling monopolistic practices.
Murdoch just recently shut down his Australian external print syndicate; he sold off his US print syndicate a few years ago. The Murdoch papers, like other publishing groups, are syndicating internally. But like other news and broadcast companies, New York Times, Washington Post, Hearst, Tribune publications, McClasky, and others are external as well as internal syndicators. McClasky and others all syndicate content across their properties as well as to other publishers. Every time you see a byline for “wire services” like Assciated Press (AP) or Reuters, you are reading syndicated content.
Here’s a link to the NYT’s syndicated services:
There are many older movies about newspaper journalism that include scenes with teletypes and tickers, including The Front Page and All The President’s Men. And for anyone interested, here’s an excellent summary about a newspaper that always has always been the first on board with using new wireless technologies, The New York Times, got the first accurate scoop on the sinking of The Titanic:
1 Like
There are other news publishers that publish and broadcast news in multiple markets in Australia, including the Canadian owned Globe And Mail.
Nine Media is another big one; they bought Fairfax a few years ago:
1 Like
I live in Australia and haven’t noticed any change to my browsing news - but then I have never used Facebook for this purpose 
It does seem to me that it is mostly a political exercise of the Australian government being seen to be standing up to bullying tactics, despite the regulation being requested, apparently, by the Murdoch press.
It will be interesting to see where I stand as I have created dozens of non-commercial pages over 24 years with links to interesting news items on astronomy, global warming and other topics. As far as I can tell the sites are happy for me to link to them and I don’t earn click income of course.
Incidentally the Facebook blunder in Australia also took out community safety Facebook pages such as bushfire warnings. The press here had a field day with that one!
I just thought about what I have always thought were two of the most iconic and moving news photos of all time, the G.l.s raising the US flag on Iwo Jima, and three year old John F. Kennedy Jr saluting his father’s coffin during the funeral parade. They were both photographed for wire services. If they weren’t, they wouldn’t have been circulated in as many news media as they were, and certainly not have received as much attention:
https://sites.psu.edu/hannahirossblog/2015/11/19/john-john-salute/comment-page-1/
(There’s an exceptionally interesting back story about how the Photo Editor went ballistic and chewed the photographer out about not going to Arlington cemetery to get more photos before he returned to base.)
And something else that’s heavily syndicated…cartoons. Would the Peanuts gang, Mickey Mouse or Superman have remained popular and viable for as long as they have been if it were not for syndication and licensing? Even Apple inked a big syndication deal with Peanuts.
I get none of my news from FB. But when it comes to maintaining a dialog with far-flung family and friends, it truly is FB or nothing.
Twitter: Limited number of characters in messages, no groups, not designed for sharing still photos to a small group, hard to navigate.
YouTube: Videos, not stills. Owned by Google.
TikTok: Short Videos that disappear
WhatsApp: Created to avoid using Cellular Voice, since in most countries you pay by the minute. But, it is now owned by Facebook, so doesn’t count as a competitor to FB
WeChat: Don’t know much about it, I have one Chinese friend that uses it. Most content in is Chinese.
SnapChat: Mostly videos that disappear after the user has seen them
LinkedIn: Totally focused on work life, business, job hunting, sales. Owned by Microsoft.
Reddit: Actually, pretty interesting. I find stuff on Rediit that I won’f find else where. Like how to force Google Voice on an iPhone to stay off cellular voice networks. (Answer: Write some automation that turns on Airplane mode and turns off all the cellular radios anytime you are using Google Voice.)
Pinterest: Again, totally different than FB. It is subject based rather than person based. Has some good stuff for hobbies like cooking, travel, photography, etc.
You forgot Instagram, but it is owned by Facebook anyway, so doesn’t count.
My point is none of these “Social Media” sites does what FB does, as easily as FB does it, plus most people want or need to be on the same network as their friends and contracts. So if I hate FB and go WeChat instead, I’m going to be pretty lonely since only one of my friends is on that platform.
In addition to the social media sites, there is the whole hidden side of the advertising networks, where companies and agencies can target individual users across multiple web sites. Google owns the largest one with most of the revenue. I think it was called Double Click, but I am cnot positive. I read an interesting article about how the ad networks are starving the publications for ad revenue. If I was an advertiser and wanted to reach skiers for example, in the past I’d buy ads on sites dedicated to winter sports. But I would have difficulty targeting my skier with ads for flights to ski resorts or winter photography. Google’s ad network knows more about a user than the user knows about himself or herself. By buying ads on Google’s Ad Network, the advertiser reaches the target across multiple websites and subject matter. I think FB has its own ad network.
I would not choose the word “dominant” to describe FB. There is no viable alternative which makes FB a de-facto monopoly with way too much power. the barriers to entry for new competitors are enormous. Most people today are getting their news from Social Media and not necessarily from journalistic sites, streaming video, or other sources. So what FB choose to put on their users feed is vitally important to the future of society. And too much of what Zuckerberg permits is not even opinion, but outright non-factual, lies.
I don’t have a proposed solution. Do we make Facebook and Twitter publishers who are responsible for the content their users publish on their sites? Do we increase censorship and ban the liars, racists, fascists, and other spreaders of material many people find offensive? I do think the concentration of control and power enjoyed by the largest technology companies probably isn’t healthy to society. I certainly think it is time for an informed Congress to at least start getting educated about how this industry works.
Capitalism works best when there is real competition, which benefits both consumers and Entrepreneurs.
3 Likes
I didn’t forget Instagram – I didn’t put it in because, as you note, it’s owned by Facebook.
And yes, all social media sites have various limitations and different approaches – but they exist and just because you decide that Facebook is the best site for you is not the same thing as it being a monopoly.
There’s no viable alternative for you. That’s not the same thing as being a monopoly in the larger world.
1 Like
My adult children (and most of their adult cousins) hardly ever use Facebook. I think it’s been over a year since either one has posted anything. My daughter occasionally posts photos or stories on Instagram, but it’s pretty rare (my son doesn’t even use IG.) Not universal, but I believe that most of that crowd just uses group and one-to-one messaging to stay in touch with each other and with the rest of us. It’s mostly only our generation (and their grandparents) who use it now. I hardly ever use it anymore myself. Again, I am far more likely to contact people with Messages/SMS or email. Or call them.
The news today is that Facebook has received assurances from the Australian government that these laws will not put them into a forced arbitration with random news organizations just because a Facebook user has posted a link to an article, so Facebook is now allowing links to Australian news sites again, and will also show news links to Australian users. So it looks like this one has been resolved for now.
I have been among those who have opposed a link tax on Google and Facebook. However, a comment on an article that appeared yesterday on Ars Technica has changed my view. The top comment currently in the ‘insightful view’ (this may change–I’m referencing a comment made at 2:56 PM (PST?) by Engineer Scotty). He points out that links from Google and Facebook are NOT direct links to webpages but rather link back to Gooogle or Facebook, which then process the encoded information to present the page that you have selected. He then presents an example.
I have done gone through a similar process, doing a search for a page in Google and DuckDuckGo and examining the raw link in a text editor. DDG presents a direct link to the page while Google presents a link internal to Google. I’ve also checked a link to an article on my Facebook Newsfeed and seen the same result where the link goes back to Facebook.
So it appears that Google and Facebook may be doing something more than just serving up the result you requested.
1 Like
[Note: Email processing may mangle this note–view on talk.tidbits.com]
For example, here are the results from a search by me for ‘Alan Forkosh’ in DuckDuckGo, Google, and Bing, respectively from Safari. The first line is how the link appears while the following text is the actual HTML with the 'HTTPS" header removed (so that the link is not actually resolved).
DuckDuckGo—-First Entry for Alan Forkosh
al4kosh.com home | al4kosh.com | Alan Forkosh
Google–First Entry for Alan Forkosh
al4kosh.com home | al4kosh.com | Alan Forkoshwww.al4kosh.com
Bing—First Entry for Alan Forkosh
2 Likes
They are collecting analytics - to maintain a database of which links you click through. Then they redirect that link to the original URL so you can actually see the page. They are not republishing the remote content under their own URLs, if that is what concerns you.
Google also does redirection for links in GMail messages (at least when clicked through the web interface). I’ve found that most web-mail services do this. Some are almost certainly tracking you. Some are just collecting analytics. Some pass the URLs through malware detectors as part of their security process. And I’m sure there are other reasons I haven’t thought of yet.
Regarding Google, you can see the history they collect by visiting https://myactivity.google.com/myactivity (when logged in to your Google account, of course). From there you can view and erase the history they’ve collected. You can also configure your account to have it not track this information or have it auto-delete information after 3, 18 or 36 months.
Google says your browsing, location and YouTube history is used to improve your use of their services, by auto-suggesting links and content related to your interests. I assume they’re also using some of the data in the link to track who you share the link with in order to identify your friends and see how far a link propagates as people forward it to each other.
I don’t know what Facebook does with the data they collect. They appear to be far more secretive than Google and they’ve been caught lying to the public on many occasions, so I tend to assume the worst from them. I can almost guarantee that they’re using it build up a friends-of-friends database as they track link propagation, since that’s a core facet of their business model.
2 Likes