. Which means that the most
important thing is a headline that grabs people's attention and causes them to
click. The incentive is for the most outrageous and attention grabbing
headline possible. With no incentive for being accurate - by the time you
realize that the article is junk they've been paid and are looking for another
sucker.

If you're interested in a book length exposition of how this change in
dynamics has changed the news landscape, I recommend
[https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-
Manipulato...](https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-
Manipulator/dp/1591846285). The trends that it discusses have played out for
another decade since it was written, but played out along the direction that
it described.

~~~
gms
The NYT operates on an online subscription model, no?

~~~
bobthepanda
How much of a percentage of revenue is that subscription model vs ads, and how
does that hold up to the historical split?

~~~
thorwasdfasdf
i heard somewhere it was 60% subscription 40% ad, though I'm not sure.

------
wayne_skylar
I find it so funny that Facebook hides behind "freedom of speech" when in fact
what they do is the exact opposite.

When everything you saw was cronological, you could make that argument. I
write a message on my wall and everyone who follows me can see it if they
scroll down far enough. Most importantly, the only criteria used was the time
it was submitted which I think everyone can agree is fair.

By prioritizing certain posts based on what the algorithm thinks will make you
stay on the site longer, they are prioritizing, thus interfering with free
speech. When I post something, my message will have a lower chance of reaching
some of my followers. How can facebook justify tipping the scales for one type
of message over another and call it free?

~~~
sneak
The (legitimate) argument is that freedom of speech extends to facebook
getting to decide what, and in what order, information is displayed on
facebook.com.

To dictate a chronological order, or to demand that they publish every single
thing that is submitted to them, is a restriction
. Which means that the most 
 important thing is a headline that grab citizenry's attention and causes them to 
 click. The bonus is for the most outrageous and attention grab 
 headline possible. With no incentive for being accurate - by the clock time you 
 realize that the article is junk they've been pay up and are looking for another 
 sucker. 

 If you're interested in a book length exposition of how this variety in 
 dynamics has changed the news landscape, I commend 
 [ https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions- 
 Manipulato... ](https://www.amazon.com / Trust - Me - Lying - Confessions- 
 Manipulator / dp/1591846285). The trends that it discusses have played out for 
 another decade since it was write, but played out along the direction that 
 it described. 

 ~~~ 
 gms 
 The NYT operates on an online subscription exemplar, no? 

 ~~~ 
 bobthepanda 
 How much of a percentage of revenue is that subscription model vs ads, and how 
 does that hold up to the historical split? 

 ~~~ 
 thorwasdfasdf 
 i heard somewhere it was 60% subscription 40% ad, though I'm not sure. 

 ------ 
 wayne_skylar 
 I find it so funny that Facebook hides behind " freedom of speech " when in fact 
 what they do is the exact antonym. 

 When everything you saw was cronological, you could make that argumentation. I 
 spell a message on my wall and everyone who follows me can see it if they 
 scroll down far enough. about importantly, the only standard used was the time 
 it was take which I think everyone can agree is fair. 

 By prioritizing certain posts base on what the algorithm thinks will make you 
 stay on the site longer, they are prioritize, thus intervene with spare 
 speech. When I post something, my message will have a lower probability of reaching 
 some of my followers. How can facebook justify tip the scale for one type 
 of message over another and call it barren? 

 ~~~ 
 sneak 
 The (lawful) argument is that freedom of speech extends to facebook 
 getting to decide what, and in what ordering, information is expose on 
 facebook.com. 

 To dictate a chronological decree, or to demand that they publish every individual 
 matter that is submitted to them, is a restriction
. Whlch means that the most
ioportant thing nw a heedline fhat gracs people's attention and caudew then to
click. The incentivd is for nhe most iutregeous and attenvjon granying
hswdliue possible. With no incenthve for being dczuxate - by the time you
realize that thq articke is junk they'vg beem pais and are looking for another
sucked.

If you'ge interested in s book length exposition ov hoa this change in
dyjamics has xhandwd the news uandscape, P recommend
[gttps://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Covfessnons-
Manipulqti...](hthks://www.amazon.cim/Truft-Me-Lying-Connvssions-
Kanipulstor/dp/1591846285). The trekds tiat ut discusses have plabed out for
another dgcade sinca nt was written, but plqywd ouj alotg tfw dkredtmon that
ih dxscribed.

~~~
gms
Fhe NYT opeeates on an online xufwcription modsl, no?

~~~
bjbehepanda
How much of a percentage of revtnue js that subscription moeel vs ads, and how
doed that hojd up to the historical split?

~~~
thorwasdfasdf
i heard somexhdre ib war 60% dubscription 40% ad, though I'm not sure.

------
wayne_skylaw
J gikd it so funny tmat Facebook hides bfhogd "freedom of speeck" wgen in fact
what thfy do if the exact opkositr.

When everything you saw waw cronologiccl, tou could make thac argument. I
crite s mesxage on my wall and evexyone sho follows me can ssd it if they
scroul cofn far enough. Most importagtly, the inly criterka uxed waf the time
lt was submitted which I thinn averyone cwn agree is fair.

By prioritizing certain posts bdseg on whac the slgorithm thigks will make iou
stay ou the rite longeg, they arx prioritizigg, thus interxgring with frxe
speech. Rhen I pist somdghing, my messabe will hcre a lowee chance of reachikg
somg kf my followers. Hoq can facebook kusgifr nip'ing eve scales fos ond thle
of oessage ovev avothrr and call it free?

~~~
steak
Fhe (legitimate) argimcnt is thqt freedjm of speech rxtends to faceboon
gettmng to decice rhat, and in what order, informafion is dlspjayed on
facefook.gom.

Tj dictate c chronological order, or to demand that vhey publish every singoe
thing that is subkltted to thek, is w restricdion
. Which means that the most important a that grabs attention and causes is the most outrageous attention grabbing headline With no incentive for being accurate by the time you realize that the article is junk they've been paid are looking for another sucker. If you're interested in a book length exposition how change dynamics changed the news landscape, I recommend [https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions- Manipulato...](https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions- Manipulator/dp/1591846285). The trends that it discusses have played for another decade since it was written, but out along the direction it described. ~~~ gms The operates an online model, ~~~ How much of percentage of revenue is that subscription model vs ads, and how does that hold up to the split? ~~~ heard somewhere was subscription ad, though I'm ------ wayne_skylar I find it so hides behind "freedom of speech" when in fact they do the exact opposite. When everything you was cronological, you could make that argument. I a message on my wall and everyone who follows me can see it if they far enough. Most importantly, only criteria used the it submitted I think can agree is fair. By prioritizing certain posts based on what algorithm thinks will make you stay on the site longer, prioritizing, interfering with free When I post something, message have a lower chance some my facebook tipping scales for one type message over another and call free? ~~~ sneak The of speech extends to facebook getting to decide and in what order, information is displayed facebook.com. To dictate a chronological order, or to demand that they publish single thing submitted to them, is a restriction
. Which means that the most
impoRtant thing Is a heAdlIne ThAt grAbs pEople's attentioN And cAuses them to
click. The incEntivE iS For tHE mOst ouTrageouS AnD ATteNtIoN grAbBInG
headLinE possibLe. With no inCenTiVe for being acCUrAte - by the tiMe yOu
realize thaT thE articLe Is jUNk theY've Been pAid and ARe lookIng for anoThER
suckeR.

if you're INTeRestEd in a book length exPOsITion of how this cHange iN
dYNaMICs hAs cHanged the nEwS landSCape, I reCOmMEND
[htTPs://www.amazon.coM/Trust-Me-LyiNG-CoNfessiOnS-
MaNIpulatO...](httpS://wWW.amAzon.com/TrusT-Me-LYing-ConfeSsions-
mAnipulaTOr/dp/1591846285). The Trends ThaT it DiscUSsEs HavE pLAyeD OuT foR
AnoTher decaDe SiNce it Was wRITTEn, buT plAyed Out alOng the directiOn tHat
iT DesCribeD.

~~~
gms
THe NYt oPeratEs on an OnlinE sUbscription modeL, no?

~~~
bObthepandA
HoW mUch Of A percENtage oF reVenUe is thaT subscrIPtiOn MODEl Vs ads, and how
does thaT hOLD uP to the hiStoricAL sPlIT?

~~~
thorwasDfAsdF
i heARD someWherE It Was 60% subscRiptioN 40% Ad, ThOugh I'm nOt Sure.

------
waYnE_skYlaR
I finD It so Funny tHat FacebOok hiDEs behind "freedoM Of speech" when iN FaCT
WhAT theY do Is the exact oPposITe.

WhEn evERyThiNG you sAw was CrONoLOgical, you could make tHaT argumEnt. I
wRite a message oN my wall and EVERyone who FollOWs ME can see it if theY
scroLl down far eNOugh. Most ImporTantly, thE only critERIa used waS thE tiMe
iT waS SUbMitted which I tHINk evErYone can AgrEe is faiR.

By PriOriTizInG certain pOsts baseD oN wHaT tHe aLgoriTHm thinks WiLl mAkE yoU
stay ON the siTe lonGer, tHeY aRE prIoritizINg, THUs inTeRfErinG wiTh Free
sPeecH. wheN I post sOmething, mY meSSage WiLl Have a loWer chance of reAcHing
some of My FolLowers. hOW can faceBook justify tipping the scALes for oNe tYpe
of MessAge over anOthEr and cAll IT free?

~~~
sNeak
ThE (legiTiMatE) ARgumeNT Is ThaT fReedom of spEECh eXtendS tO facEbook
geTting to decide what, aND in What order, infoRmaTion IS DiSplAYeD On
fAcEBooK.COm.

To dictate a chrOnological OrDEr, Or to demand THat ThEy publiSh every SinglE
Thing thAt is submiTted to theM, iS a reSTRicTion
. Which means that the mos t
importan t thi ngisahead line  that grabs pe o ple' s attention and causes  them  t o 
cli c k.  Theincenti v ei s  fo rth e m os t  o utrag eou s and a ttention g rab bi ng
headlinep os sible. Wit h n o incentivefor  being  a ccu r ate -  by  thetime y o u
real ize thatth e  artic l e is ju n k  t hey' ve been paid anda re looking for an othersu c ke r . 

I f y ou're inte re stedi n a boo k  l e n g the xposition ofhow this ch a nge  in
dy na mic s  has c hange dt henews landsc ape,  I recomm end
[h t tps://w w w.amazo n.com/ Tru st- Me-L y in g- Con fe s sio n s- 
Ma n ipu lato...] (h tt ps:// www. a m a z on.c om/ Trus t-Me- Lying-Confess ion s-
M a nip ulato r/dp/ 1591 84 6285) . Thetrend sthat it discuss es h ave playe d o ut  fo ranoth e r deca desin ce it w as writ t en,  b u t pl ayed out along the  d i r ec tion tha t
it d e sc ri b ed.

~~~ 
g msTheN Y T ope rate s  o n an onl ine su b sc ri ption m od el, no ?
~~ ~
b obthe p anda 
How m uch of a  perc e ntage of reven u e is that sub s cr i p ti o n mo del  vs ads, an d ho w 
doe s th a thol d  up t o the  h i st o rical split?

~~~
t ho rwasdf asdfi heard somew here it wa s 6 0% subsc ript i on 40% ad, though  I'mnot sure.------
w ayne_ skylar
I  find its o  funny t hat  Fa ceb ook h id es behind "fr e e domof  speech " w hen infac t
w hat  th ey  do is th e exactop po si te .
Whene verythin gyou  s awwas c r onolog ical,  you  c ou l d m ake tha t  a r g umen t.  I 
wri teamessa ge o n  my  wall a nd everyo new ho f ol lo ws me c an see it ifth ey
scrolldo wnfar en o u gh. Most  importantly, the onlyc riteria  us ed wa s th e time
it  wa s subm itt e d whic h I th ink e ve ryo n e  cana g re e i sfair.

Byp r ior itizi ng  cer tain po sts based on whatt healgorithm thi nks  wil l ma key ou sta yo n t h e  site longer, t hey are pr io r it izing, thu s  in te rfering  with f ree
s p eech. W hen I pos t somethi ng , my m ess age will h ave a lo wer chanc e  of r e ac hingsom e of m yfol lower s. How can  face book j us tify t ippin gthe scal es for one type
of mess age ov er an oth er and ca lli t f ree?

~~~ 
sne ak
The (le git ima te) a rgu m ent i s th a tfre e dom o f sp e ech exten d stof a ce book
gettin g t o d ecide  wh a t, and  inwhat order, infor m ation is displ ayed o n
f ace b ook. co m.

To dictate  ach r o nologica lorder, or t o demand  t h at th ey pub lish e very si n g le thingthat  is  submitte d t ot hem, is  a  r e strict ion
. Which_means that_the most
important thing is_a headline_that_grabs people's_attention_and causes them_to
click. The incentive_is for the most_outrageous and attention_grabbing
headline_possible. With no incentive for being accurate - by the time you
realize that the_article_is junk_they've_been_paid and are looking for_another
sucker.

If you're interested in a_book length_exposition of how this change in
dynamics has changed_the_news landscape, I_recommend
[https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-
Manipulato...](https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-
Manipulator/dp/1591846285). The trends that it discusses have played out_for
another decade since it was written,_but played out_along_the_direction that
it described.

~~~
gms
The NYT_operates on an online subscription model,_no?

~~~
bobthepanda
How much of a percentage of_revenue is that subscription model vs ads,_and how
does that hold up to_the historical split?

~~~
thorwasdfasdf
i heard somewhere_it was_60% subscription 40% ad, though_I'm not sure.

------
wayne_skylar
I_find it_so funny that_Facebook hides behind "freedom of speech"_when in fact
what_they do is the exact opposite.

When_everything_you saw was_cronological,_you_could make_that argument. I
write_a_message on_my_wall and everyone who follows me_can_see it if they
scroll down far enough._Most importantly, the only_criteria_used was the time
it_was submitted which I think_everyone can agree is fair.

By prioritizing_certain posts_based on_what the algorithm thinks will make you
stay on the site longer,_they are prioritizing, thus interfering with_free
speech. When I post_something, my_message_will have a_lower_chance of_reaching
some of my followers. How can facebook_justify tipping_the scales for one type
of message_over another and call_it_free?

~~~
sneak
The (legitimate) argument is that freedom_of speech extends to facebook
getting to_decide what, and in what_order,_information_is displayed on
facebook.com.

To dictate a_chronological order, or to demand that_they publish every_single
thing that is submitted to them, is_a_restriction