scroll down for chart
https://www.statista.com/chart/13018/social-media-traffic/
Interesting... and I have to ask: who is that bad for? who is it good for?
>who is that bad for?
I'm thinking big brands that are looking for massive impressions. They're scrambling to find an easy mass eyeballs as broadcast is continuing to go belly-up. (Insert NFL-is-dying link du jour here)
<added>
>bad
Also, I've see several articles from non-US major newspapers that were apparently arbitraging their FB traffic over to their own sites. They were b###hing loudly about the reduced traffic from the FB news page. (FB-induced change in news format to reduce fake news.)
Roughly where I was headed. In other words, I don't see this as related to the decline in FB among young people. So
good: users, generally. I think it's evidence that Zuck is trying to deliver on his promise that it would be more about connecting *on* Facebook, rather than sharing clickbaity links for whatever purpose
good: probably Facebook. They keep making it harder and harder to get a free lunch. You want eyeballs? Then pay the good man.
bad: anyone who was getting a lot of free traffic to their business via clickbaity links (see above)
not sure: advertisers
>I don't see this as related to the decline in FB among young people.
Neither do I. Though that's another negative eyeball, it's not the same issue. Yet.