Australia and Facebook....
Discussion
Seems the Aussie government is in a flap and about to declare war on FB.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9273261/F...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-5610903...
As I understand it, the Aussie government wants Facebook to pay the news channels for the content the news channels upload to Facebook on their own FB pages.
FB say they didn’t ask or commission the content so don’t see why they need to pay....
Not sure I’ve got that right. But seems a bit mad to me.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9273261/F...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-5610903...
As I understand it, the Aussie government wants Facebook to pay the news channels for the content the news channels upload to Facebook on their own FB pages.
FB say they didn’t ask or commission the content so don’t see why they need to pay....
Not sure I’ve got that right. But seems a bit mad to me.
rxe said:
Not being a Facebook user, I fail to understand the fuss here.
A site you don’t need to use gets all silly and prevents the sharing of some content when it is asked to pay for that content.
So what?
If I shared a news story..... such as the two links above.... should Pistonheads pay for the content of the links, and the journalism behind it? Seems to be the same argument to me. No one at Pistonheads asked me to share those links. A site you don’t need to use gets all silly and prevents the sharing of some content when it is asked to pay for that content.
So what?
TTmonkey said:
If I shared a news story..... such as the two links above.... should Pistonheads pay for the content of the links, and the journalism behind it? Seems to be the same argument to me. No one at Pistonheads asked me to share those links.
Thats not the issue, it is the Australian news agency page and they are uploading their own stories to it, FB are being asked to pay for it.Rather like you uploading a picture of your dinner on your own page and facebook having to pay you for the privilege.
TTmonkey said:
If I shared a news story..... such as the two links above.... should Pistonheads pay for the content of the links, and the journalism behind it? Seems to be the same argument to me. No one at Pistonheads asked me to share those links.
Again, so what? Even today, someone shares a link from the FT and it doesn’t work unless you have an FT subscription (or know how to get round it).As I understand it, nothing in the Australian law says you can’t share a link. What they are stopping is sharing content. So
- Here is a link to the BBC - is OK.
- Here is a load of content hoovered off the BBC - not OK.
Facebook have decided to ban sharing links as well, mainly because they are horrified at the idea that someone may leave Facebook and browse onto the BBC. More fool them, they’ve manufactured this situation, and the correct answer from government needs to be “whatever”.
I'm in agreement with Facebook, the media landscape is changing and the incumbents need to adapt to survive.
Sadly Google have just done a deal with Fox news so will likely only now be showing media from them in their Australian results.
Overview of the issue here https://about.google/intl/ALL_au/google-in-austral...
The actual bill is here, it favours mainstream broadcasters to the detriment of smaller ones when it comes to the ranking and allocation
https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platfo...
Good summery here by an independent respected Australian for those who don't want to spend hours reading bills
Sadly Google have just done a deal with Fox news so will likely only now be showing media from them in their Australian results.
Overview of the issue here https://about.google/intl/ALL_au/google-in-austral...
The actual bill is here, it favours mainstream broadcasters to the detriment of smaller ones when it comes to the ranking and allocation
https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platfo...
Good summery here by an independent respected Australian for those who don't want to spend hours reading bills
TTmonkey said:
rxe said:
Not being a Facebook user, I fail to understand the fuss here.
A site you don’t need to use gets all silly and prevents the sharing of some content when it is asked to pay for that content.
So what?
If I shared a news story..... such as the two links above.... should Pistonheads pay for the content of the links, and the journalism behind it? Seems to be the same argument to me. No one at Pistonheads asked me to share those links. A site you don’t need to use gets all silly and prevents the sharing of some content when it is asked to pay for that content.
So what?
Equally though there would be nothing wrong in them responding with no.
rxe said:
Again, so what? Even today, someone shares a link from the FT and it doesn’t work unless you have an FT subscription (or know how to get round it).
As I understand it, nothing in the Australian law says you can’t share a link. What they are stopping is sharing content. So
- Here is a link to the BBC - is OK.
- Here is a load of content hoovered off the BBC - not OK.
Facebook have decided to ban sharing links as well, mainly because they are horrified at the idea that someone may leave Facebook and browse onto the BBC. More fool them, they’ve manufactured this situation, and the correct answer from government needs to be “whatever”.
Isn't that already covered by copyright laws though?As I understand it, nothing in the Australian law says you can’t share a link. What they are stopping is sharing content. So
- Here is a link to the BBC - is OK.
- Here is a load of content hoovered off the BBC - not OK.
Facebook have decided to ban sharing links as well, mainly because they are horrified at the idea that someone may leave Facebook and browse onto the BBC. More fool them, they’ve manufactured this situation, and the correct answer from government needs to be “whatever”.
ReallyReallyGood said:
I thought the issue wasn’t the links but that Facebook collates news articles and puts them on Facebook itself preventing the need to leave FB to read news, and deprive journalism sites from ad revenue. Have I got that wrong? I don’t Facebook.
That's the main issue.Facebook's heavy-handed response is to block even linking to what their algorithms judge to be 'news sites'.
rxe said:
TTmonkey said:
If I shared a news story..... such as the two links above.... should Pistonheads pay for the content of the links, and the journalism behind it? Seems to be the same argument to me. No one at Pistonheads asked me to share those links.
Again, so what? Even today, someone shares a link from the FT and it doesn’t work unless you have an FT subscription (or know how to get round it).As I understand it, nothing in the Australian law says you can’t share a link. What they are stopping is sharing content. So
- Here is a link to the BBC - is OK.
- Here is a load of content hoovered off the BBC - not OK.
Facebook have decided to ban sharing links as well, mainly because they are horrified at the idea that someone may leave Facebook and browse onto the BBC. More fool them, they’ve manufactured this situation, and the correct answer from government needs to be “whatever”.
The news media put their content on their own websites, and on their Facebook pages (voluntarily). They now want Facebook to pay for the content.
Facebook don't want to pay for it either way, so have removed links to the content.
It really is no different to you or I putting content on Facebook, and telling them they should pay for it. If you don't want it viewed or shared on Facebook, don't put it on there.
For the record I don't use Facebook, nor am I Australian so I have zero skin in the game.
AW111 said:
ReallyReallyGood said:
I thought the issue wasn’t the links but that Facebook collates news articles and puts them on Facebook itself preventing the need to leave FB to read news, and deprive journalism sites from ad revenue. Have I got that wrong? I don’t Facebook.
That's the main issue.Facebook's heavy-handed response is to block even linking to what their algorithms judge to be 'news sites'.
ReallyReallyGood said:
I thought the issue wasn’t the links but that Facebook collates news articles and puts them on Facebook itself preventing the need to leave FB to read news, and deprive journalism sites from ad revenue. Have I got that wrong? I don’t Facebook.
There's a 'News' button on the app that takes you to a page of links to various news stories from a variety of sources (my top ones now are The Independent, Metro, BBC, i Paper), opening one of those stories opens the link to the news site but still within the Facebook app.It appears to me like the adverts on The Independent are being served by Facebook when reading the page via Facebook, but pressing 'Open in Browser' the page changes and the ads are served by Taboola.
I'm not 100% on this, it's the first time I've looked for news on Facebook.
98elise said:
AW111 said:
ReallyReallyGood said:
I thought the issue wasn’t the links but that Facebook collates news articles and puts them on Facebook itself preventing the need to leave FB to read news, and deprive journalism sites from ad revenue. Have I got that wrong? I don’t Facebook.
That's the main issue.Facebook's heavy-handed response is to block even linking to what their algorithms judge to be 'news sites'.
FB are arse. But I don’t think their model supports people demanding payment for items they posted up of their own free will....?be that individuals or news corps....
AJL308 said:
Isn't that already covered by copyright laws though?
I think the point is about curation, which is effectively copying by the back door.Facebook takes the content and curates it into a news feed - the user never sees the original content, or even really cares where the content came from.
If News Cos were sticking content on Facebook and the users simply went to the relevant pages and read it, there would be no problem. The problem is that Facebook is bypassing the relationship. A sensible news org would put some content up in a manner that drew people off Facebook and onto their site.
By curating the news into a feed, Facebook are breaking the relationship between consumer and broadcaster - that is what has got them excited.
Facebook have acted like children and banned linking in a ham fisted fashion.
Hopefully most Australians will now just go to the relevant news sites if they want content. It is about time this whole Facebook attempt at a “walled garden” was clobbered.
rxe said:
Facebook takes the content and curates it into a news feed - the user never sees the original content, or even really cares where the content came from.
I don't think that's how it works? I never use FB for news so today is the first time I'm trying it, but clicking on 'News' I get -
With the list of stories going on from various news outlets
Then clicking through on a link I get
Which is the same as news.google.co.uk on my phone.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff