It makes you think of content being shoved out as quickly as possible, about whatever topic is popular, in hopes of getting clicks. Which is exactly what their sans-"News" site is.
More people are interested in buzz than turned off by it.
Note the lack of "make sure you know what you're talking about before you tell me"
What you're describing is gossip.
Competition works, and is important, because you would rather make $1 for yourself even if it reduces someone else's profit by $10. Which is how the market gets $9 more efficient.
Sometimes the status quo sucks. This is often caused by a lack of competition or some kind of information problem. In media it's a little of both, but the main one is that people don't understand how they're being manipulated because the people they rely on to help them understand things are the ones manipulating them.
Social media algorithms aren't designed to make you happy or informed. They're designed to make you spend all day on social media.
It's not that hard to design algorithms to do the opposite. That's not the problem. The problem is people aren't informed of the choice, or don't have a choice because the network effect locks them in and the network doesn't let them choose the algorithm.
So we need to solve two problems. First, divorce the network from the algorithm, so people can choose. Second, people need to be informed, so they choose the one that works for them instead of against them.
The person who figures out how to do this gets the $1 at the expense of costing Facebook $10. But they're currently getting nothing, and 10% of what the incumbents get is still a lot. So who wants to make money?
Facebook achieved market dominance in an open market, it's hard to convincingly argue that they won by doing things against the desires of the market. So the market would work for a problem like "Facebook is too expensive and doesn't need to be." But Facebook is already free, so you can't easily beat it on that point (it's unlikely that your thing would be so profitable you could meaningfully pay users to take them away from FB).
But we don't have to simply blindly accept that the result of market competition == the outcome that we'd all choose if we thought about the big picture and not just the in-the-moment choices.
How does market competition divorce the network from the algorithm? Keep in mind that Facebook actively tunes their algorithm to give people more and more (short term) emotional reward for engagement.
A third party would have to convince people that they actually want stuff different than what they've currently been responding to, and that they should leave FB to get it (versus just behaving differently on FB to get a different version of the product).
There's already a lot of alternatives for news - I personally decided FB wasn't right for me (nor was any "social media" network) and got a newspaper subscription instead - but they're hardly seeing mass adoption from people migrating away from Facebook.
This is the information asymmetry. People sign up without understanding how the algorithm works, or sign up not knowing that the corporation can change the algorithm at any time to make it more abusive. Then the network effect locks them in even if some eventually figure it out.
So beating them in the market takes two things. First, yours has to be better.
Designing something which is better at the expense of being less (but not un-) profitable is straightforward. Let users choose the algorithm, they'll typically want one that optimizes for quality over volume etc., so you'll make less money but not none.
Second, people have to know yours is better. This is the information problem. This is also partially a coordination problem. You need everyone to find out quickly enough that enough can switch together and overcome the network effect before the early people forget about it or try it and give up because no one else is there.
That's not a trivial problem but it's hardly a violation of the laws of physics either. And if you can do it one time, the network effect is now in your favor.
> How does market competition divorce the network from the algorithm?
Because that's how you get people to switch from Facebook. That's the competitive advantage that Facebook doesn't have. Not locking you into a specific algorithm, which informed users would prefer once they learn the consequences of not having that.
In theory Facebook could see this coming and do this voluntarily. Then it would lose 90% rather than 100% of its profits because it couldn't optimize for getting people to spend all day on Facebook once users could choose an algorithm that doesn't do that.
Or their refusal to do this creates an opportunity for someone else to.
People who don't want it have moved on.
Facebook is like Congress. People like their part but hate the other parts.
Which shouldn't be hard when they're objectively maximizing engagement at your expense. The hard part is figuring out how to overcome the network effect.
This needs more proof - specifically, would people agree it's at their short term expense even if they agree it's against their long term expense? Lots of successful short-term fun, long-term negative products out there in the world, and we rarely expect - or see - the free market alone to make those products go away.
The products in that category you see succeeding are survivorship bias, like cigarettes. Which only works because it builds a physical dependency.
But maybe the algorithm is like nicotine and it's hard to break the habit. We can still win, because we can offer the same algorithm, because we can offer more than one. So you switch because you aspire to quit. You want the option. And you don't have to quit today, you can switch and keep the addictive one.
But then you have a choice. You can turn it off when you're feeling strong. Wean yourself. Time lock the bad one in your client.
Which eventually makes it easier to quit smoking altogether.
Changing outcomes/behaviors to ensure people act ethically would have to come from an outside-the-market force, like government.
Additionally, for $5000/year, access is ad-free.
The universal subscription fee would be divided among the syndicate itself for distribution to its members as well as its access provider. The majority (but not all) of the revenue would be allocated to the members on the basis of how many times their articles were actually read.
You're welcome! Any other apparently-unsolvable problems need solving, you guys know where to find me.
I feel quite strongly that syndication is the only possible solution, if we're going to compensate journalists fairly. One subscription, no user-hostile gatekeepers or paywalls, no artificial barriers to either publication or exploration.
Apart from that, it's no longer 1997, and people are used to paying for stuff online. Frequently they pay a LOT for stuff online. There is nothing radical about this.
How do you determine who gets paid? If it's by impressions, you have all the clickbait problems as with advertising.
What happens when the central gatekeeper decides they've had enough of anyone criticizing their interests and starts booting people out who do? Or journalists self-censor for fear of that?
What do we do about privacy? Having a big database of everything everyone reads is bad. Tying it to payment info and therefore identity is unacceptable. We do not make lists for future fascists or communists. In theory it's possible to address this with cryptography and zero knowledge proofs, but we all know it won't be in a centralized system, because they want to track and control everything you read.
Meanwhile the real problem with subscription fees is people read different sources in different amounts. If you read one religiously, you pay the $5/month. But it should be possible to get the articles a la carte for a low price, e.g. $0.10 each, for the publications you don't read all the time.
So the thing we really need here is an anonymous payments system with low transaction fees. The blockchain people keep trying to do this, and let them if they can, but how about this.
A payment processor that uses the cryptography and the zero knowledge proofs. They know who you are, you pay them, you get a secret which allows you to spend the money. Now you can use the secret to pay for articles or anything else, and the payment processor debits your account and credits the seller's, but they can't tell who you paid, only that you paid someone and someone paid them. This would be highly useful in general, but especially here.
This might require some constraints like not supporting chargebacks, or maybe the cryptographers can figure it out. But if you can make an anonymous $0.10 transaction with no transaction fee, that's a solution.
What would keep this plan from working is if there were a lot of major holdouts that insist on keeping their own paywalls and subscription model. Can't account for that level of stupidity, but the market will eventually eliminate it.
Apple News in its current state is a step in the right direction, they just need to bring it to its logical conclusion.
It's quite evident that Buzzfeed went public not to finance their news business, but to seemingly cash out. After all, it's now nothing more than a $700M list builder.
"In April, however, the deal was approved when BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti made NBC a guarantee of concessions that still came with a loss of some $100 million, people familiar with the matter said in the WSJ report. In order to ink the deal, Peretti agreed to terms that would put the burden on his company to raise its shares after the merger. According to the report, he had offered a portion of his stake to NBCUniversal if the shares did not reach their target."
https://www.thewrap.com/nbcuniversal-expects-to-lose-100-mil...
https://media.bayer.com/baynews/baynews.nsf/id/Bayer-launch-...
https://www.bayer.com/en/agriculture/agriculture-biologicals
In 1925 Bayer merged with five other German companies to form IG Farben
IG Farben the made Zyklon B, and as a result it got split up after the war, into it's original companies, one of them bayer.
So, yes, you are mostly correct.
How? Nobody gets confused between a cartoon and a news program. They are completely differently offerings, branded completely differently.
Buzzfeed, on the other hand, built up a reputation over years for pumping out lowest-common-denominator trash journalism, then later set up a serious news website under the same brand.
It would be more like if Fox News bought out the BBC and called it "Fox News UK".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_21st_Century_Fo...