tl;dr → Riffs against comments of Ezra Klein; mostly summarizing Klein’s output; RSS is the syndication platforminterchange format.
“the media” is a wire service.
<quote>Wherever they came from, they were counted in the Chartbeat. They saw at least 50 percent of at least one ad for at least one second, and so they existed.</quote>
Though audiences swirl among the portals, they are not “owned” by them; rather they are sourced from social media platforms which control them.
New Media Skillset
[clickbait] development within a platform’s technical constraints
Video for Facebook that doesn’t need sound to get viewers’ attention.
Use vertical videos for Snapchat
Outbursts punctuation (“Actually!”) in a feed to resynchronize attention.
Linkbait headlines; hooks, intrigues, bombast, etc.
The Explainer, as a genre.
<quote>Allow users to perform their understanding</quote> (whatever that means).
<quote>[The Media Innovations] must serve a platform’s needs in order to serve their own. This, especially for companies that may have described themselves as “full stack,” or who have touted their technological advantages or advanced CMSes, may be where the anxiety over the exchange of autonomy for audience feels most acute.</quote>
<quote><snip/> a transfer of power: from publisher to platform; from content creator to content distributor. In exchange for audience, platforms ask for some degree of labor and conformity and control. Their technical access replaces your expensive CMS; their advertising replaces your ad team; their audiences’s sensibilities inflect yours. But their influence extends beyond subtle pressures to do or talk about certain types of things, or to perform your work in certain ways. Ceding your responsibility as a publisher of news gives platforms the power to be proscriptive as well.</quote>
Much of media innovation is paring the redundancy out of the media effluent
Trending Topics, Trending Links
<quote>Newspapers wrote and printed hundreds of redundant articles a day because their trucks could only deliver so far; websites produce an enormous amount of duplicative content jockeying from the outside for space in search results or social feeds, or simply because they expect people to read their sites like papers, front-page first. Recontextualized within a platform, this level of duplication is easier to see as waste. Fifty embedded John Oliver videos become one Facebook video shared under a few headlines. A hundred slight acknowledgements of the same political gaffe are reduced to a trending topic link. What were heralded as novel and bold content strategies are reclassified as spam; territory where publications could fruitfully mine to subsidize whatever else they thought they should be doing is rezoned or reclaimed under eminent domain. </quote>
<quote>A strong and sudden consensus about one aspect—bloated, slow, invasive web advertising versus lean, fast, invasive platform advertising—appeared last week: “Why Web Pages Suck,” “The Mobile Web Sucks,” etc.)</quote>; separately noted.
John Herman, “tech blogger”, an editor, The Awl; Statement; 2014-03-04.
<quote>These channels [web portals, circa 1997] were arranged around search, not feeds. They were much smaller than today’s platforms. They predated smartphones and social media. But they were, in their time, the center of internet experience. They had the people—people they needed to keep, people they needed to turn into money. So they offered tools for communication and play, entrenching themselves with email and messaging services as best they could. For years, wielding enormous audiences, they provided news. They navigated syndication and aggregation deals with news organizations and wire services. They partnered with TV networks. They tried mingling media with their search results; they incorporated it directly into their portals. Sometimes they sent huge traffic to outside sites; sometimes they sucked it away.
In contrast to their glory days, Yahoo, MSN and AOL exist in various states of comparative failure, so their lessons are hazy. (Their closest modern counterparts are all-inclusive apps like WeChat.) But one thing sticks out: Eventually, to the last, they tried to make media of their own.</quote>
Year of the Channel, C|Net, 1997.
Web Portals (think 1997, the Windows IE hegemony).
Publishers run their own ads against their own media.
Sub-publisher revshare of media sold bcak with the venue (Discover)
Ad units are cheaper than “regular” Snapchat ads.
House (Snapchat house ads)
<quote>After people navigate to the app’s Discover section, they can click on one of the publishers’ logos. That will open up that publisher’s daily edition. People can swipe through each of the day’s stories and view 10-second previews of each. If they like what they see, they can swipe up to check out the whole thing.</quote>
“Subchannels” or “Subsites” within the host container app.
Advertisers, are brought in by the publisher
BMW on CNN
Ritz Crackers on Food Network
T-Mobile, Macy’s, Stride, Oxygen’s Street Art Throwdown
GrubHub on Vice
Content, is supplied by the publisher
J. J. Watt (NFL) & Katy Perry
SportCenter Top 10 NBA clips
Atlanta Hawks photo gallery
editorialized by the reporter
YouTube of Google
for background, color & verisimilitude
Gian LaVecchia, managing partner-digital content marketing for North America, MEC..
News and Ads to Debut on Snapchat; Gillian Tan, Douglas MacMillan,Jack Marshall; In The Wall Street Journal (WSJ); 2014-08-19.
Teaser: With 27 Million Users, the Mobile App Looks to Bring in News Content and Sell Ads to Go With It
The rapid evolution of digital technologies has hurled to the forefront of public and legal discourse dense social and ethical dilemmas that we have hardly begun to map and understand. In the near past, general community norms helped guide a clear sense of ethical boundaries with respect to privacy. One does not peek into the window of a house even if it is left open. One does not hire a private detective to investigate a casual date or the social life of a prospective employee. Yet with technological innovation rapidly driving new models for business and inviting new types of personal socialization, we often have nothing more than a fleeting intuition as to what is right or wrong. Our intuition may suggest that it is responsible to investigate the driving record of the nanny who drives our child to school, since such tools are now readily available. But is it also acceptable to seek out the records of other parents in our child’s car pool or of a date who picks us up by car? Alas, intuitions and perceptions of “creepiness” are highly subjective and difficult to generalize as social norms are being strained by new technologies and capabilities. And businesses that seek to create revenue opportunities by leveraging newly available data sources face huge challenges trying to operationalize such subjective notions into coherent business and policy strategies.
This article presents a set of social and legal considerations to help individuals, engineers, businesses and policymakers navigate a world of new technologies and evolving social norms. These considerations revolve around concepts that we have explored in prior work, including enhanced transparency; accessibility to information in usable format; and the elusive principle of context.
Definition of creepiness: gives an “I know it when I see it” sort of a definition.
does not involve breach of any of the recognized principles of privacy and data protection law (often) ;
is not exactly harmful (includes, but-is-not-limited-to);
does not circumvent privacy settings;
does not exceed the purposes for which data were collected.
involves either (usually)
the deployment of a new technology
(or) new use of an existing technology
the implementation of a feature that eliminates obscurity,
(or) an unexpected data use or customization.
Cases, kinds; a taxonomy
“creepy” behavior “leans in” against traditional social norms
(or) it exposes a rift between the norms of engineers and marketing professionals and those of the public at large
(or) social norms have yet to evolve in order to mediate a novel
Data returned to consumers in a machine-readable format.
<quote>Organizations are to be transparent about the decisional criteria underlying their data processing activities, allowing individuals to challenge, or at the very least understand, how decisions about them are made.</quote>
Something vague about “The Golden Rule” (do unto others…)
<quote>means that users should observe others’ privacy choices; respect them; and act responsibly when allowing third parties to access not only their own personal information but also others’ information to which they have access themselves.</quote>
Something vague about “avoiding the Super User” (optimizing for the power user).
Something vague about “transparency” as an antidote for nearly all ills
<quote>As with all matters “creepy”, shining the light is the ultimate strategy, providing individuals with access to their information and insight as to data practices deployed.</quote>