Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 
Oblivian
7345 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2117

ID Verified

  #3006231 6-Dec-2022 12:48
Send private message

Theres a relatively easy solution

... ignore all from stuff

You can likely thank your previous related subject interactions or social circle reach (pals who like it etc) if you see them. Or using the standard feed (not selecting most recent)

Don't have any links to herald or stuff. But because others I know interact they try extend the reach.

It's kinda how it works.

This was just a 'suggestion' when changing from most recent to the one they want us to see. No sign prior




Kyanar
4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified
Trusted

  #3007117 7-Dec-2022 22:55
Send private message

Wombat1:

 

Hopefully this would mean less stuff rubbish in my facebook news feed. I dont go onto their site to read their nonsense, and dont want to see it in my feed either.

 

 

It doesn't. It actually means it gets worse as Facebook et al have to more aggressively monetise to cover the payments they're forced to make to low effort "news" providers who now have a captive audience and revenue stream.


jarledb
Webhead
3319 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1983

Moderator
ID Verified
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #3007128 7-Dec-2022 23:44
Send private message

I wouldn't bet money on Google and Facebook keeping the sharing of articles. Push Google enough and they might even stop crawling the news sites.

 

That would be more costly for the news organisations than for Google/Facebook et al.





Jarle Dahl Bergersen | Referral Links: Want $50 off when you join Octopus Energy? Use this referral code
Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by making a donation or subscribing.




Handle9
11924 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9675

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #3007129 7-Dec-2022 23:50
Send private message

jarledb:

 

I wouldn't bet money on Google and Facebook keeping the sharing of articles. Push Google enough and they might even stop crawling the news sites.

 

That would be more costly for the news organisations than for Google/Facebook et al.

 

 

 

 

I would. They jumped up and down and made all sorts of threats in Australia but ultimately caved in as it was in their best interests to do so.


Kyanar
4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified
Trusted

  #3007293 8-Dec-2022 11:42
Send private message

jarledb:

 

I wouldn't bet money on Google and Facebook keeping the sharing of articles. Push Google enough and they might even stop crawling the news sites.

 

That would be more costly for the news organisations than for Google/Facebook et al.

 

 

In Australia, it's illegal to simply stop indexing or allowing sharing of the news. Designated companies MUST pay.


jarledb
Webhead
3319 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1983

Moderator
ID Verified
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #3007311 8-Dec-2022 12:21
Send private message

Kyanar:

 

jarledb:

 

I wouldn't bet money on Google and Facebook keeping the sharing of articles. Push Google enough and they might even stop crawling the news sites.

 

That would be more costly for the news organisations than for Google/Facebook et al.

 

 

In Australia, it's illegal to simply stop indexing or allowing sharing of the news. Designated companies MUST pay.

 

 

That is a crazy concept.

 

Having to perform a service that you then have to pay for. And not being able to not do it.

 

 





Jarle Dahl Bergersen | Referral Links: Want $50 off when you join Octopus Energy? Use this referral code
Are you happy with what you get from Geekzone? Please consider supporting us by making a donation or subscribing.


 
 
 

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).
Kyanar
4089 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1684

ID Verified
Trusted

  #3007355 8-Dec-2022 14:10
Send private message

jarledb:

 

That is a crazy concept.

 

Having to perform a service that you then have to pay for. And not being able to not do it.

 

 

It's pretty telling also that when originally drafted, the law had a carveout that said you didn't have to pay the publicly owned media companies, only the commercial ones.


1 | 2 
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic








Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.