Mainstream social media is making it harder and harder for indie journalists to use their platform successfully. To our audience (I don't want to call you followers; if you watch News2Share, you're not a follower. You're a freethinker): Come to Steemit. While we'll continue publishing our content in the traditional ways, we're trying something new. Journalism on the blockchain. I'll be uploading our new content onto Steemit/Dtube (Steemit's video section), as well as archiving most of our old work there.
That's what I wrote two days ago on Facebook, with a modest but positive response. I wanted my audience to check out my first Steemit article, Youtube and Facebook are wiping out the indie media. We're going to Dtube/Steemit.
See any spam? Facebook says it does.
For a long time, Facebook has punished outgoing links with poor performance. It is common knowledge that your posts will perform better if they don't contain outgoing links, especially ones with competing services like Youtube. In a way, this makes sense. Facebook stomps down the visibility of Youtube links because they'd rather you post your videos to Facebook.
Some people have given in. For example, I all but stopped trying to post Youtube links, and instead I post videos to both Youtube and Facebook.
Others, like Derrick Broze, dodge the issue on Facebook by making posts about their work and linking in the comments.
Facebook has the right to do as they please. The website is their property, and if they disappoint their users, that's their loss. However, I was profoundly disappointed to see them call my story "spam."
Did someone report the article? Did a human ever read it or did some steemit-hating AI do this? I'll never know.
I do know that it wasn't just me. Many who shared the article experienced the same:
They even removed the featured image, one person told me:
Facebook has a right to do what they want, but ultimately, it's clear they aren't serving the public. A post I made criticizing their actions gained overwhelming support. Will Facebook change its algorithms to serve the public's needs or desires?
Of course not. They'll aim to fill their pockets with advertising money. Allowing people to advertise alternatives doesn't serve that goal. The user isn't the customer; they're the product.
Social media has put enormous power in the hands of users. As a college student, the company I co-founded garnered 30,000 followers (and a fancy blue checkmark!) I couldn't have achieved that in the days of Walter Cronkite.
I co-founded News2Share in part to bring the consumer and producer of news closer together. The rise of the citizen journalist has brought accountability to every major power from the to mainstream media to the government itself.
Social media's democratization of the power to spread information was an important step. But with central, corporate power, there will always be flaws. Information flow is clearly adjusted to the financial and social interests of the corporation who owns the platform.
Steemit and its multimedia offshoots offer another step in the right direction. With media on the blockchain, we can escape the soft censorship of algorithms and supposed "community standards." The consumers and creators of the media are closer than ever before, and the flow of money isn't controlled by a central authority.
The question now is whether people will be willing to evolve.
PS: As I wrote article, I was notified by Facebook that they realized their mistake. While I appreciate the fix, I can't imagine any logical or sincere reason this happened in the first place. With Facebook's enormous power and reach, they should compete with or embrace new technology. Ignoring the future won't make it go away.
