Facebook’s new algorithm change is what makes publishers so afraid of Facebook

Today, Facebook announced that it’s tweaking its algorithm so that users see less stuff shared by publishers and brands and more stuff from friends and family.

This isn’t a nightmare scenario for publishers, but it’s pretty grim; websites and news organizations are leaning more and more on Facebook for growing their audiences, and Facebook just weakened a key traffic driver for them.

But don’t listen to me, here’s what other people in media are saying:

This isn’t even the first time this year that Facebook has changed the way it drives traffic to publishers, but it’s a demonstration of precisely why people are so afraid of Facebook.

When Facebook last year rolled out Instant Articles, its direct-to-Facebook publishing tool, people were initially apprehensive but everyone eventually began joining in. The Washington Post, for example, started pushing all of its content to Instant Articles.

For such publishers, today’s announcement reflects the risk of making your distribution reliant on a third-party platform. Though Facebook says places making content that’s truly viral — the stuff that gets shared ad nauseam by your friends and family — won’t be penalized, that’s small comfort. But if publishers are still interested in giving Facebook money to promote their content, then Facebook would be delighted for them to keep spending their dollars on Facebook.

So what are publishers thinking?

I’ve reached out to representatives at Politico, Vice, Gawker Media, BuzzFeed, the Huffington Post and Politico to ask how this affects their editorial strategy, or their relationship with Facebook. I’ll let you know when I hear back.

Representatives for the Washington Post and Mic declined to comment. A spokesperson for Vox Media* provided the following statement:

All eight of the Vox Media brands have a strong presence across many platforms, and we are strategic in reaching audiences wherever they are. Facebook is a valued partner and we'll continue to work closely with them as they evolve their products.

Here’s a statement from New York Times spokesperson Jordan Cohen:

We appreciate Facebook's transparency and we intend to closely monitor this situation. We very much value our audience on Facebook. Still, while we are not yet in a position to forecast exactly what the change will mean to us, our subscription model and levels of direct traffic make us less dependent on Facebook than some other publishers.

And here’s what the guy who does social media for Mother Jones told me on Twitter:

* Vox Media is the parent company of Recode.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via