Facebook Is Telling the World It's Not a Media Company, But It Might Be Too Late (businessinsider.com)

Let's get some facts straight. The vast majority of people now get their news from social media. Facebook has become one of the largest platforms for media companies. Not only does it send people to publications, it also offers outlets Instant Articles platform, essentially acting as a publisher. But when CEO Mark Zuckerberg was asked on Monday if Facebook is a media company, he took some time thinking about it, and said "no." From a Business Insider article: Zuckerberg went on to explain how Facebook is a technology company that gives media companies tools and a platform, not a media company itself. This isn't the first time we've heard him spout a similar rhetoric recently, because it has been a particularly thorny year for Facebook and the news business. Zuckerberg maintains that it isn't a media company because it doesn't create content. Sure, Facebook isn't making journalism (what many people think of when they hear "media company") but it is hosting, distributing, and monetizing content just like a media company. And even what Zuckerberg said -- "When you think about a media company, you know, people are producing content, people are editing content, and that's not us" -- has been more or less true this year depending on how you define producing and editing.

Comments

"News" from social media

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... "news"... like repostings and sharing of stupid political memes. And other important information like Bekki was fucking Jennifer's guy. Oh and kids with cancer... don't forget to share the picture of chemo-boy, otherwise you'll have bad luck for 10 years (the caption says so - it must be true). And high angle shots of some 14 year olds tits to make them look bigger than they really are.

There's the NEWS of the future for you.

Okay

[willoughby]

You seem pretty insistent on jamming Facebook into that slot. Okay, fine, Facebook is a "media company", whatever that means to you. So... now what?

Re:Okay

[i.r.id10t]

Is slashdot and the corporate overlord of the year a "media company" ? Sure, most of the slashvertisements point to other "news" sites, but there is also the ask slashdot, the ability to post from a journal, etc. Is that just providing a platform to us plebes to comment on "news" "articles" with a nifty rating system that gives us some sort of social gratification?

Want the upsides but not the downsides

[Tablizer]

Next we'll hear Microsoft say, "We are not a malware conduit company!"

Yes, I read about this story

[penguinoid]

on Facebook.

Re:So what kind of company is it?

[Yvan256]

You mean a Google division?

Correction

[Greyfox]

That headline should read "Media Company Facebook is Telling The World that it's not a Media Company".

Re:Correction

[drinkypoo]

That headline should read "Media Company Facebook is Telling The World that it's not a Media Company".

If Facebook is a media company first and foremost, then Slashdot is journalism.

Re: Correction

[drinkypoo]

Not really, but Slashdot is a social media site as is Facebook.

Yes, yes they are, and I agree with you on both points. But that still doesn't make Facebook a media company. They provide the platform that others use to deliver media. They're a social networking company.

Re:Correction

[EndlessNameless]

Not really.

Traditionally, media companies have created intellectual or artistic content. Films, television, newspapers, music. Facebook, as a company, creates none of these things.

Facebook is a conduit for its users' content. In that respect, it is more like a sewage system---it simply transports material created by one party to another party.

I could have made a comparison to cable companies vs television stations, but those lines are blurred now that half of them own the other half. Plus the sewage comparison just felt right somehow.

Half true.

[SuricouRaven]

Facebook does not create media, especially news.

But Facebook has a lot of influence over which stories become global news that all people are aware of, and which remain forgotten in the back pages of a local paper. That's a great deal of power to be in the hands of just one company.

Re:Half true.

[BurfCurse]

And that's different than a search engine how? So its not the only company that has that power.

Re:Half true.

[CanadianMacFan]

And take a look at a newspaper now. Most of the articles come off a newswire service. Many papers don't create a lot of their own content. The exceptions are the very large papers or the smaller papers that focus on local events.

Re:Half true.

[rtb61]

Facebook as with all other social media fads has a real shelf life and the company is basically a well organised inside investor scam. Basically pump up the value of Facebook shares well beyond what the revenue justifies and use those shares to buy in real money making ventures (basically buying in revenue to justify the share price to buy in more revenue, this gives the illusion of increasing revenues, until boom, the insiders sell, the company collapses and all those sources of actual revenue get sold off).

Lets be honest, Facebook has bugger all real influence beyond the easily influenced and they most do it to themselves, under direction of pay to play advertisers, well at least that is what Facebook sells. It is becoming quite 'uncool' to be on Facebook, more like being on sheepbook, rather than a human social media channel.

Re:Half true.

[Dog-Cow]

Facebook has revenue that exceeds expenses. We usually call those profits. In what way is it a scam?

Re:Half true.

[rtb61]

It runs for quite a while. Basically to keep share price well beyond realistic price profit ratio, all sorts of weird crap happens in corporate accounting. So for example buying in revenue to increase revenue with the pretence of future higher profits, collapses when debt becomes to high, no higher profits ever occur (often impossible as they paid too much for the companies they buy) and eventually the share price drops to realistic levels, problem is the debt is way too high for that price and everyone gets worried and boom, it all collapses (the financial institutions are the ones that profit playing in the background like the true psychopaths they are).

I don't care

[blackfeltfedora]

I don't care what kind of company Facebook says it is, I just want some context for why 10K people are talking about McChicken without having to click a link.

The problem with calling them media company

[zedaroca]

Is that people will start to expect the censorship, instead of complain about it. As if they are responsible for what people are saying in their platform, and that what we see on it are "the face of the company".

Reminds me of Yahoo.

[Rexdude]

They had the same confusion over being a media vs. a tech company. Though with the way FB has been trying to promote their own political agenda, they most definitely aren't behaving like a pure tech company that's only focused on their platform.

Sorry Markie! You're a media company.

[Chas]

You have exactly ONE product with any real brand recognition, and its a social media platform. Everything else either hangs off that product or is a media project you've bought (like Occulus).

You can think of your company however you want. You're rich enough to mostly ignore reality all you want.
It doesn't actually CHANGE reality however.