-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Bay Area Radio Hall of Fame Luncheon
- Thread starter Bay Radiohead
- Start date
I DO do Facebook mainly because it's the only way I can and have reconnected with some DJs I worked with and some I knew but had lost contact with. One I hadn't talked to in almost 45+ years! Some DJs tend to be wanderers and are jumping from one radio market to the next and it's easy to fall out of contact with them. Others, if they're lucky enough, may end up staying at the same station [or in the same area but at different stations for decades. And others have gone on to greater things, like national voiceover talent for commercials, some became voices for cartoons, some became actors, etc. etc. etc.
I wish The Sturgeon would go on a national tour, I can't afford to talk time off to go to California and if I tried to drive there my car would probably implode or explode shortly after getting into Indiana.
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
That must be why you still have all nine of your lives, Kat (referring to another thread in which you made a quip about that). Social media would definitely create too much of a fatal curiosity factor.
In my case, I live in Silicon Valley. I used to work for the company that owned Facebook's (Meta's) headquarters before Meta bought it. I used to have business meetings there when it was still nicknamed Sun Quentin. I'd been watching Mr. Zuckerberg assemble his empire long before he was on most people's radar, and I didn't like what I was seeing. So I kept my distance and never established any account with any of his services, which also means I never clicked "Accept" on any User Agreement. I did have a Twitter account, but except for one lame joke in one test tweet, I couldn't really find any need to use it, so I didn't. (Probably saving myself thousands of hours and millions of brain cells in the process.) But like Mr. Richards, I kept the account open, because my Twitter ID was my legal name and I didn't want someone else to glom it. Only when Elon lost his mind after acquiring and "X'ing" Twitter did I close that account.
When I lived in the Bay Area there was a big to do about Zuckerberg and his wife buying the houses around his house and planning to demolish them, then rebuild smaller houses on the lots, so that none of his neighbors could see into his bedroom. I knew he was kind of an oddball from watching that movie The Social Network, but that really made me sour on him.
When I was younger, I thought it might be neat to get into the industry somehow, since I enjoyed computers so much.
However, over the past 10 years or so, I've felt so dismayed and horrified about the direction it's heading, that during COVID, when it became apparent that the handful of tech CEOs and their henchmen were collectively taking advantage of the crisis to make trillions of dollars for themselves at everyone else's expense, that I decided I no longer want any part of it.
I'll use things, but I try to be judicious in my use of modern "features" (such as SaaS, which I have managed to mostly avoid paying for), and I buy used if I can because I don't want them to get any more of my money than absolutely necessary (I'm already paying almost $500 a month just for cell phone and Internet service!)
That sure got off topic! What was it again?
EDIT: Oooh, that's right!
How did the luncheon go?
c
However, over the past 10 years or so, I've felt so dismayed and horrified about the direction it's heading, that during COVID, when it became apparent that the handful of tech CEOs and their henchmen were collectively taking advantage of the crisis to make trillions of dollars for themselves at everyone else's expense, that I decided I no longer want any part of it.
I'll use things, but I try to be judicious in my use of modern "features" (such as SaaS, which I have managed to mostly avoid paying for), and I buy used if I can because I don't want them to get any more of my money than absolutely necessary (I'm already paying almost $500 a month just for cell phone and Internet service!)
That sure got off topic! What was it again?
EDIT: Oooh, that's right!
How did the luncheon go?
c
And as Casey Kasem might say, “And where are those pictures?” 😆
Interesting. I'm just the opposite. When Elon took over Twitter, I saw it as a win for free speech, and that is when I signed up for an X account.
We're drifting off radio topics, but I ceased updating the @NERadioWatch Twitter account earlier this year. Under X, Musk's so-called "free speech" turned out to dramatically limit the reach I used to have there. Anecdotally, I was hearing that my would-be readers either were never seeing my content in their timelines (I'm not paying for any of Musk's "premium" services) or it was buried beneath tons of objectionable ads and content that all seemed to be either from Musk himself or the specific things he wanted to promote.
It may be "free speech" (at a $44bn price tag) for Musk and his allies, but it wasn't working for the content I had been creating there.
Me too. I still have the same number of followers, but much fewer impressions and engagements. Especially when compared to Facebook. I used to favor Twitter prior to the sale because it seemed to be more effective. But I have a business account with Facebook, and it's MUCH more effective at reaching people, even without paying additional fees. Facebook pays me, and Twitter does not. Twitter wants to charge me for a business account. So my first choice is Facebook.
I also didn't like some of the new policies at Twitter, eliminating the website embed without login, and the crossposting option with Facebook. Musk doesn't understand that we create free content for him to sell. We need to get something from that. Without us, he has no product. In my case, I get a better deal from Facebook. Musk needs to work harder at cultivating creators, especially non-political creators.
I agree with Fybush and BigA. I wanted to Tweet the new additions to my own site, but discovered the limitations of the new X and did not go ahead. And Facebook, in various trials, has not created increased page views. Since my site is not ad-financed and sells no subscriptions, neither is a good value to me.
The advice I'm getting is that social media isn't a push site. So using it to push people to your website probably won't be effective. Social media is it's own thing. If you run Facebook as a business, and create a lot of engagements, maybe with historic pictures that elicit comments, you can make Meta money.
Excellent analysis and it mirrors my experience. Thanks.
In the case of Meta funds, my audience is specific and limited so the idea of getting mass response is not practical.
I could feature pics and articles like one I scanned today: "We at Sun Records welcome our newest artist, Elvis Presley". Or similar things about other big name artists and entertainers, but that is not the purpose of WorldRadioHistory and most who click would not stick around.
At times it is more like trying to get a 13-year-old to enjoy their math textbook.
I realize I'm outnumbered here. I do not like a company or corporation deciding what is truth and what isn't. I want to see and bear all of it and decide for myself. That's all. Jack Dorsey was of the opposite opinion, so I was thankful to see Twitter become X and the opinions of all equally visible. Go ahead and gang up on me now, call me names, whatever. I don't care. I don't fit the political mold, and I don't care. All I care about is what interests me, like bay area radio. I don't care about politics.
What was happening at that time was the government was trying to make the company responsible for anything on their site. The government wanted to repeal Section 230 of the communications act. Had they done that, Twitter would have been responsible for deaths caused by covid misinformation or that kind of thing. Read about it here:
The FCC's Authority to Interpret Section 230 of the Communications Act
Last week, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced his intent to move forward with a rulemaking to interpret Section 230 of the C
Jack Dorsey wasn't doing this because he's a control freak. He did it to protect his business that was under attack from the government. On the one hand, he was being told by some agencies that his company had to moderate certain content (which happens at this site too). On the other hand, the president was moving to remove Section 230 protection. So in walks Elon Musk, who doesn't care about any of that, and fires all the moderators. Then all the advertisers leave. And Elon Musk can't understand why. It's because a certain level of site moderation is necessary in all ad-supported media. We in radio know that. Jack Dorsey knew that. Elon Musk doesn't.
Since Elon Musk’s Twitter purchase, firm reportedly lost 72% of its value
Fidelity cuts value of X stake, implying 72% drop since Musk paid $44 billion.
arstechnica.com
This is why Musk has cut a lot of services that content creators used to get under Dorsey. This is why he's adding charges for things that used to be free. Now you have free speech that isn't as free, because Musk wants creators to pay for everything including getting blue check marks. This is why a lot of content creators have cut back on posting material on their site.
All available evidence suggests that what's happening now with Musk and Twitter isn't "all of it and decide for yourself." It's Musk using the algorithm to push the things he believes in and wants his audience to see.
If you enjoy that, more power to you. It wasn't what I wanted from social media and I left. To each their own.
The best example was when he redesignated public radio sites as "government funded media." He didn't do that to promote free speech.
X caught blocking links to NPR, claiming the news site may be 'unsafe' | TechCrunch
X, the Elon Musk-owned platform formerly known as Twitter, is marking some links to news organization NPR's website as "unsafe" when users click through
techcrunch.com
I happen to agree with Elon here. Tax dollars funding "public radio" really is the very definition of media funded (in part) by government. The Capitol Public radio NPR affiliate receives funding sourced originally from taxes. My stations have to struggle and fight for revenue from private and business sources. My stations have to be competitive and provide programming that people will listen to, and advertisers will want to buy.
It's very clear that my lack of political affiliation isn't shared by everyone in this thread. So... Back on topic... When is the next Bay Area HoF luncheon? More important (to me anyway), when is the Sturgeon's next public appearance?
That wasn't his point. He was selective in how he applied that label. He applied it to NPR, but not Capital Public Radio. So he was using his power in an arbitrary way, not unlike Jack Dorsey. At the same time, he ignored that his own companies receive a lot more taxpayer money than all of CPB. NPR is very clear about its funding sources. It's no big secret. They don't need to be singled out by the billionaire owner of a social media site who doesn't like their reporting. Ultimately he was talked out of it by Walter Isaacson, who was writing a book about Musk. But the damage was done.
- Status