Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jimmy]

So Facebook banned news today, in response to the Australian government's pending legislation validating rent-seeking from media companies to big online platforms.

Frankly, I support this move. Facebook and Google simply offer a platform for online services to reach consumers. If the media companies don't like these companies using their products for free, they can put them behind a paywall or add code to remove them from indexing. Or, they can create their own service in competition to these companies and attempt to monetize it.

The declining profits of established media empires aren't due to declining subscriptions, they're from online services replacing print media's ad revenue domain. Nobody pays for classified ads for jobs, goods or services when you can search for the same online. This is blatant political manipulation by the old generation of news monopolies holding their influence over election results to force others to prop up their failing business model.

Facebook's getting a lot of flak over taking down a bunch of sites like weather and pandemic vaccination information. Guess what? These sites are publishing news on Facebook. The government's definition of news isn't clear. Thus, you get a bunch of sites removed that are news-adjacent, simply because there's too much grey area in the new laws.

When the government makes a law that forces you to either stop doing something or pay a fine, most people will stop doing that thing. Seems like a logical reaction to me.

[Maximum Spin]

So Facebook banned news today,

All news or just Australian news? (I don't use Facebook, so I don't have a clue)

[Jimmy]

Facebook censored news in Australia, to Australians. Outside of this, nothing else changed. Get a VPN or change your location in Facebook and I believe you'd be unaffected.

I'm also in the same camp as you, since I don't use Facebook. I've no desire to post my private life for the entertainment of others. However, I'm disappointed Google buckled under the pressure of the media. I'd hoped they really would withdraw from the Australian market in protest to the law.

[Loud Whispers]

I really hope they all withdraw from Australia so we can get some Aussie baidu competition growing

[feelotraveller]

The aussie replacement for Giggle (sic) shall be called Wombat - 'eats, roots, shoots, and leaves'. 
(Mind the vernacular on your way out.  )

[thompson]

I’m mostly with you Jimmy, but I wouldn’t give Facebook a pass. Governments around the world have been trying to engage with Google and Facebook for a long time now to address issues such as tax loopholes and their monopoly positions, only to be given the runaround.

This legislation is monumentally dumb, but I get the sense that the government is legitimately clueless about what to do here. Mind, Scotty seems pretty clueless about everything.

There are some legitimate issues with Google and Facebook publishing material that is copyrighted by others. In the news context, recall Google and Facebook’s news summaries with an image and synopsis from the provider. Copyright providers might consent, but with Google and Facebook being monopolies third parties have no leverage. I think the legislation would have been better if it involved advertising revenue sharing when third party IP is used, with further legislation that prevents the companies prejudicing their algorithms against people who want to be compensated for their IP. So, they could stop showing images and summaries, but they would have to do it consistently for all. A competitor who is happy to pay so they can use the IP of others to improve user experience could then emerge and use that as a point of differentiation.

By tying it to advertising revenue during the search, you keep it fair as companies would be awarded royalties in proportion to their relevance. My 2c