back to article News lobsters demand to be let back into the Facebook boiling pot

Stand by for more clickbait. Facebook has abandoned its "fix" for news after publishers complained about a drop in traffic. Last October Facebook added an Explore tab intended to surface more material from friends and family. In six countries, as an experiment, it removed professional publishers from its News Feed alongside …

Anonymous Coward

I like the lobster motif.

Zuck should be boiled in his own BS.

23
1
Silver badge
Devil

Re: I like the lobster motif.

when you cook lobster, you first boil it alive until it turns a nice red color [as I understand it, anyway]. Not sure if you gut it first, though. But as it boils, I'm told it makes a squeeky whistling noise, sorta like a scream...

1
1
Silver badge

Re: I like the lobster motif.

when you cook lobster, you first boil it alive

The alive bit is optional. Quite a lot of places kill it with a knife through the brainstem just beforehand.

2
1
Silver badge
Windows

well in all honesty portals like buzz(click)feed and such really should die a slow agonizing death on warm coals while being hailed on with very small sharp hail pellets, enshrouded in clouds of foul smelling foot odour laced with turmeric and burning Goop website products.

But being that they were getting filtered out of facebook feeds, I can imagine that the VC's behind them saw the returns drop below 71% and immediately started hemorrhaging privilege.

22
1
Silver badge

The other thing is, Facebook is about being in contact with friends. I am not "friends" with any companies, so they shouldn't be in my feed anyway.

2
1
LDS
Silver badge
Devil

"well in all honesty portals like buzz(click)feed and such really should die"

The problem is the people that click on them. On many newspaper site, if they have a list of "most read contents", there's a good chance every day the most read ones are gossipy and stupid ones. And as long as news sites revenues depend on clicks, they will fill their pages with those stupid contents, in prominent places. They're raising generations of gullible people who can't understand the difference between a real piece of news, and stupid, "viral" content. We need a vaccine.

2
1
WTF?

re: Buzzfeed

I have to agree, yet I have a wry smile for the article itself linking to a Buzzfeed article after declaring it a click-bait site....

0
1

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge

As one pundit noted: "Any publisher that is dependent on Facebook, or that trusts Facebook, is out of their goddamn mind."

I think that can be said about the users also.

35
1
I3N
Devil

'utterly clueless Speiser' drank the Kool-Aid ...

"The post is required, and must contain letters."

0
1
Silver badge

Scurrilous

Pot, kettle, black, Mr Murdoch.

15
3
Silver badge

Re: Scurrilous

It made me think of the Devil giving a very accurate speech about the decline in morality and emptying churches up and down our once-pleasant land. You want to agree with him, until you realise just how big a shit he also is.

8
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Scurrilous

In this instance, Zuck should give the grasping, lizard necked old bastard exactly what he wants, and pay a fee for shared content from the Turdoch empire.

Of course, that would be expensive, so simply deprioritise that content, and the users who originate it. If I were Zuck, I'd then make sure that all Murdoch group "properties" collectively have lower Facebook visibility than the Scunthorpe Telegraph. A bit like Google delisting Axel Springer's content, after a similar dispute.

0
4
Anonymous Coward

"Recognition of a problem is one step on the pathway to cure" - Murdoch.

Yes Rupert, yes it is, is the lobster in a pot or kettle and is it black?

6
3
Silver badge

Says it all

"Any publisher that is dependent on Facebook, or that trusts Facebook, is out of their goddamn mind."

4
1

Leave it

If you get your news from Facebook, you're already lost.

20
1
Silver badge

Re: Leave it

If you get your news from Facebook, you're already lost.

Which can lead to my other[1] saying: "If you put your brand reputation in the hands of Facebook, then you are on a hiding to nothing"..

[1] I have lots of other other sayings. One ofr almost every occasion.

1
1
Gold badge

Re: Leave it

Wasn't it Ford who pulled their ads on Facebook for that very reason a few years ago? They said that it was low value advertising for them anyway, given it was just brand advertising and unlikely to lead to purchases. And they worried they were damaging their brand by sticking ads for it next to the shit ads that Facebook still populate themselves with when they can't get better.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Will the real 'Facebook addicts' please stand up...

So its not just the users that are addicts? There's a deeper irony happening here. The publishers that are addicted to Facebook's 'nicotine-like' delivery device, are also being extinguished into irrelevance by Facebook meantime. Serves all the Big-Brands and Publishers right, for making Facebook into the monopolistic Algo-run-unsympathetic data-monster or super-slurper that it is...

2
2
Silver badge

Re: Will the real 'Facebook addicts' please stand up...

If FB goes under, I imagine there will be a massive bidding war for all the servers and accumulated data. The Big Brands will be fighting tooth and nail for it. Bright side.. no more FB. Dark side... the data has been sold and will be used.

0
1
Big Brother

Facebook is toxic.

Facebook is toxic. It destroys everything it touches. Facebook is an existential threat to everything except for itself. By this measure alone it is damaging the whole world and should either be shut down or regulated into oblivion.

13
3
Silver badge

Re: Facebook is toxic.

it is damaging the whole world and should either be shut down or regulated into oblivion.

Why? Because you don't like it? I don't either, but the other half gets much use out of it, and that's fine by me. Why should FB be regulated, when there's no cash charge for it, use is voluntary, and the contract is "we provide you with a service, in return we make money by forcing commercial content in your direction". What's the big deal?

And moreover, you'd trust a government appointed regulator to deliver anything? Look at the energy market - nobody believes that works well despite a very aggressive regulator. Or the dysfunctional world of telecms, overseen by the gormless clowns of Ofcom. The Charity Commission have evidently been dozing on the job for years, the Financial Conduct Authority (and predecessors) have a dismal track record. The Advertising Standards Authority are a long standing joke. So how exactly would you "regulate" the behaviour of "services in exchange for data" companies?

0
3
Silver badge

Re: Facebook is toxic.

Why should it be regulated?

Obvious really, it acts like a publisher, spreads* all sorts of shit, but likes to have no responsibility or liability. Not even the piss-poor standards that the tabloids are held to.

[*] yes it is the users and advertisers really doing the sharing of shit, but Facebook encourages click-bate and such addictive share actions to keep its revenue opportunities big. After all they could stop most of the rot by only allowing users' own posts and not the "share" feature to spread stuff virally. So in that sense they ARE doing it.

0
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

"...inadequate, commercially, socially and journalistically," said Murdoch

And Murdoch knows all about inadequate journalism.

This is an expert talking, people. Listen up.

6
1
LDS
Silver badge

Re: "...inadequate, commercially, socially and journalistically," said Murdoch

When someone makes Murdoch look like Bogart in "Deadline", you have to think something must have really gone wrong...

Which, by the way has this quote "It's not enough any more to give 'em just news. They want comics, contests, puzzles. They want to know how to bake a cake, win friends, and influence the future. Ergo, horoscopes, tips on the horses, interpretation of dreams so they can win on the numbers lottery. And, if they accidentally stumble on the first page... news! "

Just baits were used to drive people to real news - now some real news are used to drive people to remunerative baits...

2
1
Gold badge

Re: "...inadequate, commercially, socially and journalistically," said Murdoch

I fully understand disliking Murdoch. And he does a lot of shit. But he also does pay good money for proper journalism as well. I think because he started out as an old-school newspaper man. So he funds the loss-making Times for example. Probably out of sentiment. That's real money (£10s of millions a year) that he could be spending on monkey glands, yachts or trophy wives).

So just dismissing what he says because he's Murdoch isn't a good way to argue - or even sensible.

This is a problem with dismissing ones political opponents as evil, without considering that sometimes they may have a point.

[Hmmm. Better put the flame-proof trousers on after this post I think.]

4
1
Big Brother

Re: "...inadequate, commercially, socially and journalistically," said Murdoch

"This is a problem with dismissing ones political opponents as evil, without considering that sometimes they may have a point."

He's taking a swing at altmedia, not "fake news" per se. And it's hardly surprising: Breitbart is by far the biggest, most professional example and they are in direct competition with Fox News. If it weren't for them, I doubt he'd care.

0
0
Gold badge

Re: "...inadequate, commercially, socially and journalistically," said Murdoch

He's taking a swing at altmedia, not "fake news" per se. And it's hardly surprising: Breitbart is by far the biggest, most professional example and they are in direct competition with Fox News. If it weren't for them, I doubt he'd care.

Carpet Deal 'em,

I'm not sure that's true. Murdoch's been complaining about Google and FB hoovering up all the money from news organisations for ages. Plus trying to fight the idea that news online must be free. OK, self-interested of course. But self-interested in the sense of all his media properties surviving, rather than just an interest in protecting Fox News from Breitbart.

Fox News is the bogeyman, but he still does plough money into his papers that make losses - and when they were hived off out of Fox into a separate publishing group - he set it up with lots of cash to keep it going. Literally billions of dollars he could have used on say, buying his own island.

So, as I said, he's willing to spend serious amounts of money on journalism. Some of it even proper (non-tabloid) journalism. And people who no longer work for him say that he's still an old newspaper-man at heart.

0
0
Silver badge

Fake News

Given most of what the regular media is fake news because of sloppiness if Zuck was truly honest there would be virtually nothing in the feed. It seems like most news stories are overwrought and overhyped BS with little value. Anything of value or any deep reporting, not done.

The local media likes to focus on the local murders in metro Atlanta. But they almost never mention that these murders are mostly clustered in specific areas but try to make sound as if you will be used for target practice if you walk your front door.

4
9
Silver badge

Do people actually fall for these obvious scams and click the links ?

If it sounds bonkers, then it probably is.

1
1
Gold badge

People sometimes click on the links, even though they might think it's bollocks, in case the story is true.

My new year's resolution (made in about August last year) was to stop clicking on obvious click-bait. In that case it was Brexit stories in the Guardian, where they'd just sourced a quote from Guy Verhofstadt (who's been trolling the UK media ever since he became an MEP at least a decade ago) - and ran it as a story with a PANIC BREXIT DOOM headline to get the clicks and comments rolling in.

I've since stopped clicking on any Brexit stories in the Guardian, and follow it elsewhere - because I no longer trust them on the subject. Which is a shame, because the Telegraph is over 90% bollocks at this point, the Times is behind a paywall and the last time I looked at the Independent website my eyes started bleeding. Where did they get that font from?

1
1
Silver badge

I spend longer on FB than I'd like (mainly due to my friends & colleagues all thinking it's the only way to organise anything).

It's depressing seeing "proper" news agencies resorting to clickbait headlines on there. The Independent is by far the worse for this IMO.

3
1
Anonymous Coward

True, but if it means they get a discount from FB then you can see why they do it.

0
1
Silver badge

The Independent is by far the worse for this IMO.

Presumably because they don't have any print presence, and the shrivelled online rump is now owned by a Russian oligarch, with content, editorial stance, and reputation now the polar opposite of the excellent print broadsheet first edited by Andreas Whittam Smith.

1
1
Silver badge

It's like one of those strange ecosystems

Toxic bacteria spring up in places where you least expect and end up thriving.

Clickbait publishers and advertisers realised they'd wither away and die without Facebook and I guess Facebook realised pretty quickly they'd wither away and die without clickbait publishers and advertisers. No change is going to happen unless governments bring laws, which is a slippery slope.

I guess Facebook and clickbait publishers and advertisers would have to be dealt with by each country's equivalent to the IPSO.

3
1
Devil

Rupert Murdoch says?

Pot calling the kettle black...

1
2
Gold badge

Re: Rupert Murdoch says?

Murdoch actually pays proper journalists, to do proper stories. As well as his tabloid stuff and Fox News. So while you might not like him he's above Facebook in the pecking order of decency.

Then again, so's amoebic dysentery...

3
1

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018