This 'argument' comes up in almost every article critical of shady browser tracking purposes, as if it's the end-all-be-all argument for why we should disregard the article.
Yes, journalism makes a bunch of money from ad impressions collected by cookies and trackers right now. No, a lot of the actors in the business don't want it that way, but they still want to earn a paycheck for the time being.
Further, I'm sure that journalists have no control over their specific page-- they can't just say "Oh it would look pretty bad if there was a content tracker on this specific page, so let's demonetize this article". No, the paper has a policy for how they collect their revenue, and I guarantee that that department is well separated from the journalism department.
Sometimes people climb hills to get to the mountains. We don't say "Why aren't you climbing mountains, I thought you were a mountain climber!? You must be a crappy mountain climber if you only climb hills.".
I didn’t realize sites got paid for the facebook thumb. I just assumed that it mainly provided value for facebook and social media coordinators eager to show growth. I’m a little more sympathetic if the guardian actually gets something from the button.
Why would so many sites do this for Facebook's benefit?
The sole purpose is for advertising, which is how they make money. The thumb will have the article show up to your friends, and people who have similar interests to you. The pixel also helps with advertising, because they build a picture of who you are and can give you relevant ads.
Well, I personally pay for a guardian subscription, but block ads. This is because I consider ads a net-negative in my life: they actively lower the quality of pretty much everything around me, including the content pimping the ads.
Meanwhile, a facebook thumb button is net-negative only if the guardian doesn't get paid--it essentially becomes a transaction where I pay facebook with information and then facebook pays the guardian with money.
If this assumption is false, I'm happy to continue blocking the passive pixel and thumb trackers and continue to support the guardian directly.
Yes, journalism makes a bunch of money from ad impressions collected by cookies and trackers right now. No, a lot of the actors in the business don't want it that way, but they still want to earn a paycheck for the time being.
Further, I'm sure that journalists have no control over their specific page-- they can't just say "Oh it would look pretty bad if there was a content tracker on this specific page, so let's demonetize this article". No, the paper has a policy for how they collect their revenue, and I guarantee that that department is well separated from the journalism department.
Sometimes people climb hills to get to the mountains. We don't say "Why aren't you climbing mountains, I thought you were a mountain climber!? You must be a crappy mountain climber if you only climb hills.".