Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 107
I've been confused about this for a while now, perhaps someone with more knowledge of the issue at hand can enlighten me. I understand that any company, news outlets i:ncluded, will always take more money when it is offered to them, so they would love to have $$$ for clicks, but why is it necessary? Like most of us busy people, I used FB for my news source, but I OFTEN clicked on the news articles, bringing me to their websites AND, by extension, their advertisements (which I always figured is how they made their money?). How did they not generate income off the clicks driven by those social media sites that led to viewers of their advertisements? Until this whole uproar, I actually thought they were GLAD to be able to drive traffic through social media, not resentful and wanting money for those clicks. In today's fast paced news world, where news is often spread at the source by people on hand at the time with a cell phone video camera, why would news outlets be balking at the idea of a social media giant sharing their news for free, but then generating clicks to their sites that lead to massive ad revenue? What am I missing here? I know for myself, and I would assume millions of others, not having access to these sites on social media means I will simply not be reading their news articles.