A big factor in the decline of internet media companies that nobody talks about—every single dominant social platform (except this one) now aggressively penalizes external links in their algorithms.
This should be illegal for any dominant platform IMO, external links are the lifeblood of a free and open internet. They are the only release valve from the walled gardens the inevitably result from human power-law clustering and network effects.
What do you mean no one talks about it? The media itself (and occasionally even the United States government) were taking about it a lot as they lamented the rise of Fake News and the election of Donald Trump. They asked for it, and suggested if they didn’t get it there might be heavy handed regulation. Facebook gave it to them.
Social media became better at curating news than the news sites themselves, IMO, and most folks end up just reading comments or quotes in the comments. There's also too much noise on most media outlets.
I think most media outlets should look at LWN as a model for sustainability: niche stories, hyper focused on what their audience is interested in.
This, is such a succinct summary of what is wrong with the news that I am upvoting it even if you didn't mean it that way.
To be clear: the curation social media does is perverse, because it bubbles the worst, most salacious and panicked stories to the top. Reading comments and quotes without having the context of the article itself is a great way to wind up angry and misinformed. If you're a news outlet, designing your news coverage to support this is unethical, and results in a cultural death spiral. Hyper-focusing on what your audience is interested in is good business, but bad journalism, and freedom of the press is enshrined in law so they can inform us rather than just give us the content we crave.
>the curation social media does is perverse, because it bubbles the worst, most salacious and panicked stories to the top.
As opposed to the mainstream media which… bubbles the worst, most salacious and panicked stories to the top.
Social media did not invent or seemingly run by the aphorism "if it bleeds it leads". If anything, it was a few decades late to the party. At the end of the day, you can't force people to watch something they are not interested in.
> bubbles the worst, most salacious and panicked stories to the top.
I think there's a big difference between traditional newspapers and media. Traditional newspapers definitely have things wrong and are trying to sell subscriptions but "media" channels are the culprits with selling fear and hate.
NY Times Front Page
- Polls Close in Turkey as Erdogan Faces Tough Re-election Fight
- Want to Make your Mom Happy? Tell her she was right
- As Ukraine Makes Inroads in Bakhmut, Devastation Still Reigns
- He Told Followers To Starve To Meet Jesus. Why Did So Many Do It?
Washington Post Front Page
- Football bonded them. Its violence tore them apart.
- Erdogan’s fate in the balance as polls close in Turkey election
- Zelensky, in private, plots bold attacks inside Russia, leak shows
- 4 ways to reconnect with parenting joy and build a child’s emotional skills
Boston Globe Front Page
- Biden pleads for Congress to take steps to curb gun violence
- Power Shift: In less than a decade, the state’s electric grid must dramatically transform. It won’t be easy.
- Finally, a promising new class of drugs is making its way to Alzheimer’s patients
- Alleged leaker Jack Teixeira fixated on guns and envisioned ‘race war’
-------
CNN Front Page
- Russia may have just lost four aircraft in one day. What we know
- She always felt safe in San Francisco. But the streets are different now
- World’s oldest dog celebrates another birthday
- The rise of the Supreme Court’s ‘shadow docket’ and how it can impact every American
Fox News Front Page
- Marine veteran’s defense fund grows in just one day after being charged in subway chokehold death
- Gov. Newsom facing political predicament as reparations experiment backfires
- Police searching for gunman after 7 people reportedly shot in border city
- NBA star appears to pull the same social media stunt that got him suspended
MSNBC Front Page
- Happy mother's day to everyone — except Moms for Liberty
- George Santos’ flawed attempt to emulate Donald Trump
- This Eric Trump tweet yet again pushes a dangerous way of thinking
- James Harden's friendship with a mass shooting survivor isn't a feel-good story
Even when I'm on an actual newspaper's site, I only briefly check the headline and give the article a token perfunctory skim, then spend the bulk of my time reading the comments.
This feels like a gigantic mistake to me. The comments generally have the least facts and most bias. Another link on HN front page right now is about companies being fined by the government for creating millions of fake personas to comment on social media and news site. With the article you at lest know the author is real.
Can't tell if you're joking, but it seems pretty clear. If you are a news outlet, reporting on something written by someone else — for example, a government report, a scientific article, even a tweet — it makes sense to link to that external resource in the article. Yet, many websites refuse to do that, because it takes eyeballs away from the ads they're serving. I'd cite a reference supporting what I'm saying here, but I don't want you to stop reading my comment and go to a new page, just take my word for it.
There is nothing wrong with this. They get to moderate what’s on their website.
If I don’t want X on my website, I can downrank it. Doesn’t matter if that thing is “hate speech”, “porn”, “links to other websites”, “off-topic comments”
This should be illegal for any dominant platform IMO, external links are the lifeblood of a free and open internet. They are the only release valve from the walled gardens the inevitably result from human power-law clustering and network effects.