Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Is Looking Into Allowing Paywall For Selected Media Stories (techcrunch.com)
New submitter sarbonn writes: Facebook is testing whether or not it can start charging for stories by placing a paywall that appears after ten stories have been viewed from one of its media sources. An interesting takeaway is that Facebook would like to do this by avoiding the mandatory 30 percent cut that Apple and Google get from their stores by going around their app stores. This is being targeted for around October. The news comes from Campbell Brown, who heads Facebook's new partnerships business. "We are in early talks with several news publishers about how we might better support subscription business models on Facebook. As part of the Facebook Journalism Project, we are taking the time to work closely together with our partners and understand their needs," Brown told TechCrunch in a statement via a spokesperson.
Money money money ðY'
And I'm proud of it.
I browse the web with uBlock Origin, I use FaceBook Disconnect and GreaseMonkey. I IM from my Mobile Device through XMPP to a Spectrum 2 Server.
What I do want to know is, how can I get information on what FaceBook knows about me as a non-user.
It's the best kind of fake news. Fake News Premium. Can only be read on an iPhone.
Can we put all of Facebook behind a paywall, please?
As paying customers, those who want to use the service might actually be able to convince FB that *they* are the customer rather than the source of product (personal information) that FB sells to advertisers. And, for those of us who could care less about FB, it's all paywalled and won't bother us.
This could actually be a positive development. If consumers will start paying for credibly-reported news, that could be a boon to journalists and a benefit to the populace (and democracy, where applicable).
Genius.
Give that pile of capital something to do worth while, and maybe make using FB worth more than ZERO to the end user. Side bonus, it props up the necessary institution of journalism.
Write a check, Schmuckerberg.
I'm sure it's going to be just as fair and balanced as that other 'F' news site. Possibly even more so when their algorithms kick in and show you only news that align with your world view.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
Those of us in 40s and more would remember AOL even if they didn't use. The only time I had to use AOL was when my wife joined UC Berkeley extension online UNIX course and the professor made it mandatory to use AOL for assignments. Many people didn't use any other app to access internet other than AOL app. You could subscribe to books, magazines, courses, etc on AOL. Companies bought keywords on AOL (like company pages on Facebook).
More I read about Facebook, more similarity I find with AOL. AOL's popularity was tied to the fact that it was dial up internet provider and internet wasn't well standardized (Netscape came much later). FB's popularity is tied to it being free and social interaction by its users. Not sure what will come in future that will kill FB.
Ignoring the privacy and big data issues: Facebook actually was useful at some point. It was a pretty decent groupware solution, especially its events feature. People posted personal updates, some more interesting than others, but in general it was an efficient place to check on your network with a for the time unparalleled clean and useful interface. I quit when most of my feed was about who read what article, or commented on it.
(The actual trigger however was when they made the colour of Messenger customisable. That's exactly the kind of crappy clutter that made people leave Myspace.)
Never used it, never will.
And even if I did, if they think I'd be willing to pay for the drivel that they're going to spam into their "news" feeds, all I can say is "HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!"
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
I never ever read Facebook for the news. When others quote FB news, I disregard it. Untrustworthy sources denies validity.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
quit pushing "apps" and, ya know, actually build a usable web interface that doesn't slow down to a fucking crawl once you page down a few times. pagination is a thing, zuck, USE IT.
Relevant part of my hosts file:
127.0.0.1 facebook.com
127.0.0.1 www.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 ssl.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 *.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 fbcdn.net
127.0.0.1 www.fbcdn.net
127.0.0.1 *.fbcdn.net
127.0.0.1 fbcdn.com
127.0.0.1 www.fbcdn.com
127.0.0.1 *.fbcdn.com
127.0.0.1 facebook.net
127.0.0.1 www.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 *.facebook.net
Let them paywall all they want.
"...work closely together with our partners and understand their need for money..."
FTFY
Your sig here!
I do use Facebook but I don't think it is very well designed. It is low down on my list of sites I would pay money to use if I was forced to. Very much in the "ditch if paywalled" group.
They can't roll this out fast enough! The sooner it rolls out, the quicker people start jumping ship! There are so many venues for free news that pay-walling your particular venue is financial suicide. The mainstream media is going to love this as well. Weakened competitors are far easier to buy out.
One problem is that a subscription to WSJ doesn't help if the articles you want to read are spread out across NYTimes, LATimes, Washington Post, and other paywalled outlets.
I have been flogging this idea for almost 20 years. about time somebody picked it up.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?