Hacker News Reader

Comment by jsnell | Hacker News Reader

Yes, it would not make sense for the GP to consider that statement, since it was just made up for political purposes.

There is no evidence of it being true, and some circumstantial evidence of it not being true: namely, that FB was willing to block news from their site, and there was no obvious impact to e.g. their financials.

View on HN

I’m not following. What’s been made up for political purposes?

That "FB is heavily profiting from professionally created content that takes a lot of money to create". Sorry, I thought this was obvious from context, since it is what you accused the GP of not considering.

But they are profiting quite heavily from it. Look at all the engagement it drives, especially political content.

Yes, you keep asserting that with no evidence. Just saying it more often doesn't make it any more true.

Where's your evidence?

First, you're the one making an affirmative statement about what FB should be doing. The burden of proof is on you.

Second, I've posted the (admittedly circumstantial) evidence in direct reply to you multiple times. You've not engaged with it in any way, but just repeated your talking point.

You don't appear to be acting in good faith in this discussion. Your need to put some effort into this, and actually reply to what people write.

The burden of proof should be on FB, they're the ones hiding the data on this.

>> FB is willing to block news links, which suggests they don't actually profit from them meaningfully.

This is just an assumption and not evidence.

FB just isn't willing to pay for it.

So just to be clear, you do indeed not have any kind of evidence at all for the claim about FB profiting from news links?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com