Facebook To Stop Paying Publishers To Make Live Videos (recode.net) 32
Last year, publishers worldwide began making live videos on Facebook. The social juggernaut had cut deals with them, offering lofty amounts and promising big future moving forward. Turns out, Facebook's experimental project is over. Recode reports: Facebook spent more than $50 million last year paying publishers and celebrities to create live video on the social network. Now numerous publishers tell Recode that Facebook is de-emphasizing live video when it talks to them. And none of the publishers we've spoken with expect Facebook to renew the paid livestreaming deals it signed last spring to get live video off the ground. Instead, Facebook is pushing publishers to create longer, premium video content as part of a larger effort led by Facebook exec Ricky Van Veen. The hope is to get more high-quality video onto the platform and into your News Feed -- the kind of stuff, presumably, you might find on Netflix.
FB is not entertainment (Score:4, Interesting)
It has long been proposed that TV and "social" could merge. There have been experiments with Twitter and TV shows (tune into the Show & Twitter and the director and main actors will be responding to tweets). Attempts to bring the viewers together and make the show more engrossing. Could FB be trying to merge the two on a single platform?
For awhile now I've just been speed scrolling through my feed - lots and lots of posts and nothing to watch (sounds like cable TV right?!) I figured I just wasn't the social type and peeked to stay in the know.
But I noticed my wife doing the same thing last night and putting her iPad down to read a book.
Maybe FB "see's" this and is concerned. Gotta keep eyeballs on the stream to feed the ad engine. The more I think about it - FB offers very little. A fun way to keep in touch with friends and family...yes. However I'm either tinkering with something, playing with the children, watching Netflix, or reading a book. Or doing Work!! Work!! Sorry boss just walked by.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the big error Facebook made early on was making it too easy to post links and to share other such posts. This diluted the content from "stupid shit my friends say and do" to "clickbait social media shares" with no original content from friends.
I see people on Facebook who seem to do nothing other than re-share web links and meme photos, with zero original content added. And there's a lot of it, which is why you end up speed-scrolling your news feed, because its all clickbait and a lot of it politi
Re: (Score:2)
I remember when I got started on Facebook, not a high volume of posts from people, still some semblance of decency. With alarming speed that started changing, people began putting every thought into words. On twitter if somebody is being an asshat you just unf
Re: (Score:2)
This, so much.
When I post, I don't us meme very much. I don't like it when people use their minds to mouse-click "Share" on a picture without attaching, " ... and this brings to mind an experience I had ..."
The fucking meme-share is so uninformative, usually, wrong, and never original.
When I post on Facebook, it's original material, often with citation, and, while I expand, I don't write a fucking book.
The subjects are in my wheelhouse.
Meme-jamming is useless as tits on a bore (see what I did there).
Re: (Score:2)
I see your point and agree with your observation and wish to expand it to include my experience along the same lines.
I'm an amateur photographer (I don't sell my photos) and have been since 2001. It happens that people enjoy the product of my work.
Facebook is an excellent venue for exposure (see what I did there).
I spend way more time in the field than I do on Facebook.
My wife is a "scanner," as well.
She has a Paper White and reads so prolifically it's amazing.
--
Facebook's drive to monetize is not surprisin
Re: (Score:2)
...The more I think about it - FB offers very little...
...which is exactly why Facebook is in fact entertainment.
Social media is nothing more than entertainment, since it's often nothing more than constant streams of mindless junk. It is not a source of income other than for a lucky few who have managed to carve a temporary niche. It does not provide valid news content other than maybe re-broadcasting weather forecasts. It often is a source of many social problems as it shamelessly promotes internet addiction, complete with a #FOMO tag.
Keeping in touch with
Re: (Score:3)
Shit, even youtube emphasizes content creators making shitty videos every day instead of one great one every month.
Re: (Score:2)
Largely Invisible Outside of Facebook (Score:2)
How to block all video? (Score:1)
I hate seeing videos in my feed. Any way to block them all?
Re: (Score:2)
You can prevent them from auto-playing. That way they are just pictures along with every other goddam useless meme.
Google it for your particular platform.
Re: (Score:2)
fbpurity.com [fbpurity.com] Facebook is useless without it.
What is 'live video'? (Score:1)
Isn't 'video' short for 'video cassette' or 'video cassette recording'?
So what exactly is 'live video'?
Related question: Is my age showing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't 'video' short for 'video cassette' or 'video cassette recording'?
No, "video" isn't short for 'video cassette' or 'video cassette recording'. In case you didn't realize it, originally, ALL video was live, there were actually no methods to record it. That didn't come until later.
-
So what exactly is 'live video'?
Video that is broadcast as it happens and that is not pre-recorded.
-
Related question: Is my age showing?
If you mean "Am I too young to understand the origins of video technology?", then yes, you are showing your "age".
Facebook (Score:2)
Signs the even FB is tired of the vapid crap that appears on social sites as video ?
Surprise (Score:2)
Surprise! As it turns out, no one wants to watch a live show of you and your nerdy pop-culture pals discussing the finer points of Dr Who's cape or any of that other ridiculous minutiae that you think is so incredibly fascinating.