Sure, but here there are many communities about subjects instead of one.

John Redcorn?

So what you’re saying is there is no model besides complete subsidy for news to exist?

It would be impossible for them to you know build a subscription model where you get access to all of their news sites for one fee? Kinda like credit unions do with their ATM networks.

Perhaps offering better value to consumers and incentivize upsells rather than demote them. As someone who had a paper version of the economist they tried /real/ hard to convert me to digital only. Which is a far worse value proposition.

How is it destroying a public good?

The public good is being destroyed by themselves. They’ve been acquired and are running 90% AP Wire service pieces. My local news in a top 10 CMA area is basically nothing but opinion pieces.

Our news has been declining for years as people have moved away from a subscription model. People don’t wake up on Saturday morning and read a paper cover to cover anymore and they have failed to adapt.

“Without access to real fact-based news created by real journalists, Facebook will become far less attractive to users and advertisers,” Deegan said in a statement. “We expect more and more advertisers and their agencies will begin pulling advertising from the platform in response to this unilateral, undemocratic, and unreasonable move.”

This is complete horseshit. How is it undemocratic, it’s a private company and they’re free to do what they want. Canadian Government decided to mandate that by linking you owe a share of your profit. This is not how the internet works. No-one forced the CBC to create an instragram account and maintain it, sharing their own news on the platform.

If you demand to be paid for something, they’re free to not pay for it. Welcome to the real world where you can’t just dictate things to people and expect them to take it.