Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mcv 41 days ago
I don't think it's the demographics that have changed, but the state of the internet, and the awareness that big tech's stranglehold over our media is a problem.

Of course the likely end result is going to be that legitimate news will disappear from Facebook and there will only be misinformation left. I'd rather see them address the spread of misinformation instead of the spread of quality news.
2 comments
akersten 41 days ago
> awareness that big tech's stranglehold over our media is a problem.

The legacy consolidated news organizations getting a sweet free new revenue stream are glad that they've been able to convince so many people that big tech linking to them is actually a "stranglehold" and a problem!

link
shevy-java 41 days ago
Well, while I am not saying this is incorrect, I also fail to see why US mega-corporations should proxy-control europeans.

I trust neither involved side here, ever since the EU tries to push for age snifing and abolishing VPNs. At the same time US corporations ruin a LOT of the world wide web, and that continues. I don't think we need to accept this anylonger. Out with them.

link
mcv 41 days ago
You're missing both points here. I don't think they're going to get a sweet free new revenue stream. I think they're going to get less traffic.

And the stranglehold is not big tech over the newspapers, but big tech over the internet.

link
gruez 41 days ago
>I don't think it's the demographics that have changed, but the state of the internet, and the awareness that big tech's stranglehold over our media is a problem.

The less charitable interpretation is that interest groups are just harnessing the current kneejerk reaction for anything anti-"big tech" to serve their own interests. See also: people being theoretically in favor of affordable housing, but are also against "greedy developers" and "luxury condos" so nothing gets built.

link
anigbrowl 41 days ago
Why not just build affordable housing instead of luxury condos, you're creating a weird false equivalence.
link
gruez 41 days ago
Because in practice that just means nothing gets built at all. It's like having a food shortage but not wanting to buy/grow more food unless it's fair trade, organic, permaculture certified, non-gmo, certified kosher/halal, and cruelty free. All of those are laudable goals, but if the combined effect is that nothing gets done, that's counterproductive.
link
mcv 41 days ago
But that is a choice. You could also build the affordable housing and grow the sustainable food. But then you have to decide not to let it be done by people who don't want to do that, but want to build luxury condos instead.
link
anigbrowl 41 days ago
That's just another false equivalent. People want affordable housing. Luxury condos are clearly Not That. Your food analogy is backwards. You're actually saying that people want affordable food, but object to building more luxury restaurants, so that nobody gets fed at all.
link
gruez 41 days ago
>People want affordable housing. Luxury condos are clearly Not That

Luxury condos increase supply, driving down the price of all housing. It's economics 101.

>You're actually saying that people want affordable food, but object to building more luxury restaurants, so that nobody gets fed at all.

The point is that all the stipulations people have on top eg. "organic" makes it harder to create more supply.

link