Play Nice Random Chat Thread V

[SpiderBurton22]

Meh, Facebook. I've always preferred MySpace.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

I can see some parallels between this and the AFL.

The 'big' clubs (large media outlets) are given all the spotlight, primetime broadcast slots, exposure, favourable fixtures etc. (favourable media deals) which in turn leads to a perpetual cycle of the big clubs just getting bigger (larger % of clicks funnelled through smaller no. of outlets), and the small clubs (less popular, or even new outlets still finding their feet) slowly having the life choked out of them due to this inherent power imbalance.

That is probably part of the reason why we are having a senate-led media diversity inquiry.

 

[B4Bear]

I personally wouldn’t put the CIA in the same basket as the Teliban

If you were from Central or South America you would probably feel different about that point of view.

The legacy of CIA 'misdeeds' is as long and glorious as any terrorist organisation since the end of WWII.

 

[B4Bear]

'It's gross': Brittany Higgins says if Scott Morrison's office is briefing against her it must stop

Former Liberal staffer, who says she was r*ped in parliament, has allegedly had loved ones become subject of negative briefings by prime minister’s department

www.theguardian.com

Absolute campaigners.

 

[Val Keating]

'It's gross': Brittany Higgins says if Scott Morrison's office is briefing against her it must stop

Former Liberal staffer, who says she was r*ped in parliament, has allegedly had loved ones become subject of negative briefings by prime minister’s department

www.theguardian.com

Absolute campaigners.

Germs. Soulless pack of scum. I don’t expect much from Morrison but the handling of this is beyond disgraceful. I don’t believe for one second he didn’t know, and if he didn’t it means the Libs are a worse organisation then I thought.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Germs. Soulless pack of scum. I don’t expect much from Morrison but the handling of this is beyond disgraceful. I don’t believe for one second he didn’t know, and if he didn’t it means the Libs are a worse organisation then I thought.

Been a giant ass-covering exercise from the start. Some embellishment has been chucked into that guardian article, but still. It has been handled horridly.

 

[Themanbun]

I do not believe in subsidising dying for profit media orgs. I do not believe that a business which allows people to share content, and which drives clicks to these organisations, should be forced to pay these organisations for driving traffic to them.

And, any company should be free to withdraw its services if it thinks that service is unprofitable or more effort than it's worth.

I honestly cannot say I would click most news article if it weren't for people I know sharing them to me.

I feel that people are mixing their general angst towards these companies for their activity in creating echochambers, radicalising people, etc. and dying on one of the weirdest of hills I've seen, just to stick one up 'big tech'' (weird new populist buzzword).

If you want 'independent' media then any source of profit is potentially disastrous, so fund it properly by the Gov.

 

[7577969923]

I do not believe in subsidising dying for profit media orgs. I do not believe that a business which allows people to share content, and which drives clicks to these organisations, should be forced to pay these organisations for driving traffic to them.

And, any company should be free to withdraw its services if it thinks that service is unprofitable or more effort than it's worth.

I honestly cannot say I would click most news article if it weren't for people I know sharing them to me.

I feel that people are mixing their general angst towards these companies for their activity in creating echochambers, radicalising people, etc. and dying on one of the weirdest of hills I've seen, just to stick one IP 'big tech'' (weird new populist buzzword).

If you want 'independent' media then any source of profit is potentially disastrous, so fund it properly by the Gov.

We have Govt. funded media already.

 

[Themanbun]

We have Govt. funded media already.

Agreed, so let's not write laws to force some companies to fund other for-profit entities.

 

[7577969923]

Agreed, so let's not write laws to force some companies to fund other for-profit entities.

Agree this is weird. If anything media companies should be paying platforms for traffic.

 

[B4Bear]

Agree this is weird. If anything media companies should be paying platforms for traffic.

This is socialism writ large, government controlling the means of production.

 

[7577969923]

This is socialism writ large, government controlling the means of production.

It is a very corporate nanny state-type approach. Not sure it equates directly to socialism.

It does seem a bit incongruous that all those media organisations who are very staunchly against any Government intervention in the free press and defend self-regulation are happy for the government to shake down the tech platforms for revenue on their behalf. They all bitch and moan if Google changes the algorithm and that affects their rankings or Facebook reduces the visibility of the content.

I think the media companies stand to lose far more if Facebook walks away from their content than they stand to gain from the government forcing payments.

 

[Devington]

All these social media and tech companies are FOREIGN entities and take up a ridiculous portion of our digital landscape reaping untold amounts of wealth, and paying **** all taxes, while Australian companies suffer for it.

The legislation might well be shit, but it's in the self interest of our nation to have a diverse localised news landscape (even if it is shit, at least it's our shit) and I'm all for making facebook/google/twitter and every other tax dodging foreign megacorp with a proclivity for dictating terms to governments to eat a big fat one and help subsidise this particular industry.

 

[Themanbun]

It is a very corporate nanny state-type approach. Not sure it equates directly to socialism.

It does seem a bit incongruous that all those media organisations who are very staunchly against any Government intervention in the free press and defend self-regulation are happy for the government to shake down the tech platforms for revenue on their behalf. They all b*tch and moan if Google changes the algorithm and that affects their rankings or Facebook reduces the visibility of the content.

I think the media companies stand to lose far more if Facebook walks away from their content than they stand to gain from the government forcing payments.

I reckon B4Bear was having a lend.

 

[7577969923]

I reckon B4Bear was having a lend.

The best humour has an element of truth. B4Bear may be using hyperbole to make a point but he is not wrong.

 

[7577969923]

All these social media and tech companies are FOREIGN entities and take up a ridiculous portion of our digital landscape reaping untold amounts of wealth, and paying fu** all taxes, while Australian companies suffer for it.

The legislation might well be sh*t, but it's in the self interest of our nation to have a diverse localised news landscape (even if it is sh*t, at least it's our sh*t) and I'm all for making facebook/google/twitter and every other tax dodging foreign megacorp with a proclivity for dictating terms to governments to eat a big fat one and help subsidise this particular industry.

The tech platforms haven't put any local media companies out of business. They are distribution and traffic platforms for media. Yes absolutely make them pay their fare of tax but don't conflate the issues.

 

[Devington]

The tech platforms haven't put any local media companies out of business. They are distribution and traffic platforms for media. Yes absolutely make them pay their fare of tax but don't conflate the issues.

See, I think there is a lot of interplay between the industries. Instead of going to a National/local news website and browsing their content (ie seeing their ads) many/most people simply use the news feeds these large companies offer instead.

Just look at bigfooty for a close to home example. Every time someone posts an article in full here, that's a few less clicks onto the content providers website itself. What's happening in Australia is a similar issue and on a much larger scale.

 

[Tas]

What? Nah. If anything, it's the other way around. With physical papers dying, news sites derive a significant majority of their revenue by click through from the likes of Facebook and Google. It's arguable that they would be dead without those platforms.

I think there is still the demand for news and information, the question is how do people access it and where does the advertising revenue go. Google and Facebook attract 81% of the digital ad revenue alone in Australia. It is easier to just advertise with one place than it is to advertise like we used to. These sites get a lot of revenue because of the convenience but they still need content to have the traffic. If the news isn't on Facebook any longer, how is that going to impact their traffic? Are advertisers still going to get the same value for money? Are people going to spend the same amount of time on Facebook or will they spend less time there and more on other sites, accessing news and other services?

If Facebook traffic declines substantially, it is going to have a more adverse effect than just paying for access to content.

Don't get me wrong, Facebook is the absolute arse-end of the internet world and I absolutely agree with you about the tax avoidance stuff, but let's not pretend they're adversaries with some saints here. This is News Corp, arguably the evillest and most vile corporation in the world and huge tax dodgers themselves, and an Australian government that is so incestuous with them in every way that they'll introduce laws that harm average Australians and smaller, independent news organisations simply to prop up their revenue and reduce competition -- and it's not the first time they've done that either *cough NBN *cough.

We aren't just talking about just Newscorp though, it is access to the digital market and how you source advertising revenue. Even if you do not like Newscorp and their shitty politics, it still employs journalists. It is the same for left wing, right wing, independant, green, you name it, everyone who employs journalists has a hard time making ends meet because they can't collect user data and sell it off like Facebook or Google do because they are not as invasive.

The larger news organisations will have an easier time negotiating agreements, but it is worth their while to do so, the pool of advertising money is sufficiently large enough and their cost of managing is sufficiently low enough to warrant them coming to arrangements. it is lucrative enough for Microsoft to come in and replace Google with Bling, so Google is dancing to the new tune. Facebook do not really have an alternative so they can afford to be a bit more belligerent but they are facing numerous antitrust lawsuits in the USA and the last thing they need is for foreign governments to start regulating their core business, which is selling users private data.

They are one piece of government legislation (making it illegal to collect and sell private user data) away from having their business model destroyed entirely.

 

[7577969923]

I think there is still the demand for news and information, the question is how do people access it and where does the advertising revenue go. Google and Facebook attract 81% of the digital ad revenue alone in Australia. It is easier to just advertise with one place than it is to advertise like we used to. These sites get a lot of revenue because of the convenience but they still need content to have the traffic. If the news isn't on Facebook any longer, how is that going to impact their traffic? Are advertisers still going to get the same value for money? Are people going to spend the same amount of time on Facebook or will they spend less time there and more on other sites, accessing news and other services?

If Facebook traffic declines substantially, it is going to have a more adverse effect than just paying for access to content.



We aren't just talking about just Newscorp though, it is access to the digital market and how you source advertising revenue. Even if you do not like Newscorp and their shitty politics, it still employs journalists. It is the same for left wing, right wing, independant, green, you name it, everyone who employs journalists has a hard time making ends meet because they can't collect user data and sell it off like Facebook or Google do because they are not as invasive.

The larger news organisations will have an easier time negotiating agreements, but it is worth their while to do so, the pool of advertising money is sufficiently large enough and their cost of managing is sufficiently low enough to warrant them coming to arrangements. it is lucrative enough for Microsoft to come in and replace Google with Bling, so Google is dancing to the new tune. Facebook do not really have an alternative so they can afford to be a bit more belligerent but they are facing numerous antitrust lawsuits in the USA and the last thing they need is for foreign governments to start regulating their core business, which is selling users private data.

They are one piece of government legislation (making it illegal to collect and sell private user data) away from having their business model destroyed entirely.

Yes, Facebook and Google control 81% of digital advertising but that leaves a whole load of spend in print, outdoor, radio, TV, pay TV, cinema, etc.

The question for media is not so much how do they source ad revenue, it should be how do they monetise their core business. That could be advertising or it could be actually getting people to pay for access to the best quality journalism. That model is not going to be about small local media organisations. It will be about big ones with great resources to produce the content that matters. I pay for subscriptions to the Washington Post and New York times for that reason.
It will also be about specialist media producers that generate content that really matters to a smaller but specialised audience.

Facebook and Google dominate the digital ad revenue because they offered a much better product to advertisers and have the eyeballs.

 

[Val Keating]

Been a giant ass-covering exercise from the start. Some embellishment has been chucked into that guardian article, but still. It has been handled horridly.

A woman was r*ped in Parliament House and the government covered it up. That’s enough for me to never vote liberal unless they clean house.

 

[B4Bear]

A woman was r*ped in Parliament House and the government covered it up. That’s enough for me to never vote liberal unless they clean house.

Me. Helps justify why I have never voted for them.

Don’t get me wrong, the ALP has been horrendous at times, but a party that can throw up a Curtin, Chifley, Whitlam, Hawke and Keating at least has the potential to do it again.

It will be a cold day in hell before I vote for a party that has #scottyfrommartketing in its ranks.

 

[Themanbun]

Yes, Facebook and Google control 81% of digital advertising but that leaves a whole load of spend in print, outdoor, radio, TV, pay TV, cinema, etc.

The question for media is not so much how do they source ad revenue, it should be how do they monetise their core business. That could be advertising or it could be actually getting people to pay for access to the best quality journalism. That model is not going to be about small local media organisations. It will be about big ones with great resources to produce the content that matters. I pay for subscriptions to the Washington Post and New York times for that reason.
It will also be about specialist media producers that generate content that really matters to a smaller but specialised audience.

Facebook and Google dominate the digital ad revenue because they offered a much better product to advertisers and have the eyeballs.

Let's also not forget that their superior advertising product actually helped to democratise media and, in other contexts, helped lots of smaller players across a load of industries level the playing field. You could grow traffic organically through quality content, and then spend smaller amounts for highly targeted advertising of your product. Gone were the days of paying $50k for a 20 second time slot.

Media needs to work out how to monetize itself without forcing the company that drives traffic to them to also subsidize them.

 

[Snake_Baker]

A woman was r*ped in Parliament House and the government covered it up. That’s enough for me to never vote liberal unless they clean house.

What are the actual established facts of this scenario?

 

[B4Bear]

Yes, Facebook and Google control 81% of digital advertising but that leaves a whole load of spend in print, outdoor, radio, TV, pay TV, cinema, etc.

The question for media is not so much how do they source ad revenue, it should be how do they monetise their core business. That could be advertising or it could be actually getting people to pay for access to the best quality journalism. That model is not going to be about small local media organisations. It will be about big ones with great resources to produce the content that matters. I pay for subscriptions to the Washington Post and New York times for that reason.
It will also be about specialist media producers that generate content that really matters to a smaller but specialised audience.

Facebook and Google dominate the digital ad revenue because they offered a much better product to advertisers and have the eyeballs.

The government basically did what they did to the car industry.

’Go, leave, I dare ya’.

Facebook: No worries Josh, cya.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Me. Helps justify why I have never voted for them.

You were teetering on a decision, then potential rape concealer forced your hand?

Y'know, many wouldn't, but I actually believe you.