I have seen the future and it Zux! Here’s a useful Vox piece on why we shouldn’t panic about Facebook’s new “Instant Articles” feature. The piece is useful because it is so unconvincing. I wasn’t panicked before. Basically the Vox argument is:
a) Facebook dominates the web. (There’s a stunning chart demonstrating why the profitablity of practically every web site now hinges on Facebook.)
b) Facebook’s mysterious algorithm gives them the power to favor or disfavor specific publications or articles;
c) “Instant articles” will give them even more power to favor or disfavor specific publications, as more and more people read the articles that Facebook agrees to host on its servers;
d) So, hey, don’t worry!
P.S.: Vox‘s Timothy B. Lee argues that big news outfits like the New York Times can stand up to Facebook the way ESPN can stand up to cable operators. Even if that’s true, you have to be a big outfit like the NYT or ESPN to have that kind of leverage, no? What does that mean for small, unaffiliated content providers (e.g., me, or Talking Points Memo) who don’t have protection from a big outfit? The pressure for concentration will only increase. The Web was supposed to be an Army of Davids.
P.P.S.: Lee says “There’s No Reason for Facebook to Censor Instant Articles.” Really? You don’t think they’d ever tweak their secret algorithm to, say, disfavor articles calling for less immigration, or an end to Mark Zuckerberg’s precious H-1B visa program? I’m not so sure. (I didn’t think Tucker Carlson had a reason to censor my pieces to avoid offending Fox, but reality is cruder than the textbook models would have it.)
I predict a lot of Zucking up. At Vox it may already have started.
New Post: If that’s why I shouldn’t be panicked about Facebook then I’m panicked http://t.co/US9p651NXE
When this came up earlier in the week, I didn’t know how I felt about it. I dutifully clicked on the “contact us for more info” link on the FB announcement and was told to join a FB Group, which I tried to do. I’m still pending, as it’s a closed group.
I thought I’d at least be able to get a lttle more specific information, like how much it would cost. Nope.
Since I blog for a social services initiative about getting information about events and etc. to people in AZ who might otherwise be isolated, I figured it would be a slam dunk, but no such luck.
Meanwhile I’m considering Dave Winer’s ideas http://scripting.com/2015/05/13/howToHaveAFuture.html
but I’m not sure if I’m up to it.
Guess time will tell…
As I read it, Mr. Lee’s argument is that Instant is a minor technical optimization that will have a trivial impact on Facebook’s overall power, which comes from their huge footprint in the content consumption space coupled with their opaque algorithms. The focus on Instant as even a small source of this power is misplaced.
OTOH, I completely agree that Mr. Lee underestimates the risk that Facebook could censor content or that their algorithms could be biased.
I have seen the future and it Zux! http://t.co/US9p651NXE
http://t.co/9D1SK964ZO
Facebook could soon have more leeway to censor nonconformist views http://t.co/2BSYOmSq4Y via @kausmickey
Censor content? We’ve already seen them do so…
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/26/facebook-doesnt-want-you-to-read-this-article/
The Facebook effect is linked in this piece. http://t.co/r1E6876opE