-
The idea that Mic failed because it couldn't/didn't produce work of quality is clearly and demonstrably false. The market for the content isn't against news startups, the ecosystem is, which is a real difference.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 15 Favorites
Mood 0
-
Let's not confuse the buzzsaws for the forrest here. Making the decision to depend on Facebook is bad, even if FB was the best partner in the world, a single source for users is bad. But Facebook's decision to decrease news distribution doesn't mean there is no desire for newsPermalink On twitter.com
❤️ 3 Favorites
Mood -1 🙁
-
It means Facebook would rather have its users drop then get called in front of Congress again. That's not a meaningful judgement call on quality or even the utility of the work news outlets produce. It is a signal about the marketplace and its gatekeepers, but not the *market*Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 2 Retweets
❤️ 4 Favorites
Mood +3 🙂
-
Like if you produce a superior product and every store decides to only stock its house brand version of that product that doesn't mean your product is bad, it means the intervening layers of the marketplace are badly regulated.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 4 Favorites
Mood -2 🙁
-
Facebook's interaction with news organizations is more akin to what would happen if CVS declined to stock non-generic drugs than it is anything else.Permalink On twitter.com
♻️ 3 Retweets
❤️ 5 Favorites
Mood 0
-
Now imagine you are a VC-sponsored drug co who measures on units moved instead of successful science. Your inability to move non-generic units of drugs you invent is going to cause VC to flip you, but that doesn't mean the science is bad or that people don't want the results.Permalink On twitter.com
❤️ 2 Favorites
Mood -3 🙁
-
There is a special irony in the fact that the journalism outlets that were enabled by the destruction of traditional gatekeepers are being destroyed by all new gatekeepers.On twitter.com
❤️ 3 Favorites
Mood -7 🙁