Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Is Looking Into Allowing Paywall For Selected Media Stories (techcrunch.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the insert-25-cents-to-continue dept.

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.

21 of 35 comments (clear)

  1. I don't use FaceBook by Zombie+Ryushu · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:I don't use FaceBook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Really, I commend you on trying to be private but the cat is out of the bag. No matter what you do information about you from others even mentioning you on a Facebook page to just turning your cell phone on is giving someone somewhere your information.

      I've faced it along time ago - our privacy is dead and not much we can do about it.

  2. Paywalled fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's the best kind of fake news. Fake News Premium. Can only be read on an iPhone.

  3. Unexpected benefit? by lhowaf · · Score: 1

    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).

    1. Re:Unexpected benefit? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      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).

      Except the money won't be going to journalists.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:Unexpected benefit? by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      So if credible news costs money and news of lesser credibility is free, which do you think most Joe Sixpacks will read?

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    3. Re:Unexpected benefit? by lhowaf · · Score: 1

      Aw, man. You guys are harshing my buzz! Don't you think, though, that we're better off paying for an NYT article than slurping up some alt-right drool?

  4. Fair and Balanced.. by bjwest · · Score: 2

    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..
  5. Re:Paywall the whole thing! by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    Better yet, give them their very own TLD, and require all advertising to be served from the same TLD. Do the same with Twitter, Google, etc. Make it a requirement to serve all advertising and content (including css and javascript) from the same domain as the site. Not only will it make it easier to stop tracking, but it will also make it easier to track down just who is serving malware.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  6. Re:Paywall the whole thing! by dohzer · · Score: 1

    It already has a global paywall. The currency is your soul and the amount is all of it.

  7. Facebook is the new AOL by u19925 · · Score: 1

    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.

  8. Fuck Facebook by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    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...
    1. Re:Fuck Facebook by coofercat · · Score: 1

      I both do and don't understand their proposed model - you get charged because you're using the site more. That sounds good in principle, because you're charging by usage. But you're encouraging less use, which invites people to google for whatever they want to read, which naturally takes them out of facebook.

      Zuck is a lot richer than me, so I'm sure I can't tell him much about how to make money. This all seems very weird though.

  9. Re:Media stories ruined Facebook by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

    Ignoring the privacy and big data issues: Facebook actually was useful at some point.

    So were buggy whips and mustache wax.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  10. Re:Paywall the whole thing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You sound like one of those faggot Evergreen State assholes. How's that Hillary dick taste?

  11. Not News by Whiteox · · Score: 1

    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!
  12. Translation by BadTuna · · Score: 2

    "...work closely together with our partners and understand their need for money..."

    FTFY

    --
    Your sig here!
  13. Shit website by Stephen+Chadfield · · Score: 2

    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.

  14. Pay-walling content on facebook? Awesome! by Veilex · · Score: 1

    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.

  15. How many subscriptions at a time? by tepples · · Score: 1

    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.

  16. micropayment news: something from my Y2K by swschrad · · Score: 1

    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?