Saying society is screwed because ads are more expensive seems like quite a stretch to me.
Looking at the NYTimes stock as an example it seems that they are doing pretty well these days (although some might argue their quality has gone down)
Looking at the NYTimes stock as an example it seems that they are doing pretty well these days (although some might argue their quality has gone down)
It's like the news media saw what was happening with music and napster/the internet and thought, "Glad that could never happen to us" and went right back to the printing press to fire off the next day's issue.
Stop your sentence there and I'd agree with you
That is, to project some of my own opinions: If something like this is not enough to cause major consequences for a big company like google, there is little hope that anything will.
You could find a bone to pick with any big company. It’s just clear priorities at the company have shifted from their fun growth days of just doing what’s best/right for users to optimizing for money and other KPIs - search, ads, you name it.
It’s definitely noticeable and their size/monopoly definitely has influence on society.
Isn’t that the entire thing the article argues? That journalism (real journalism, that is meant to keep those in power on the straight and narrow), suffers because not enough money goes to the actual journalists? Stock is the public’s perception of something’s value, but the actual value to society can not be measured in stocks.