Australia and Facebook....
Discussion
There have been quite a few treads on here about social media banning or blocking extremist (but legal) views with many advocating that it is the prerogative of a private platform to choose who and what it allows to be posted.
Seems to me you can't have it both ways.
If a platform decides it now wants to block mainstream news or any other arbitrary criteria then surely it's the same argument.
Never has there been a clearer example of the old 'first they came for the communists' adage.
It's difficult to argue the case for one while arguing against another.
Seems to me you can't have it both ways.
If a platform decides it now wants to block mainstream news or any other arbitrary criteria then surely it's the same argument.
Never has there been a clearer example of the old 'first they came for the communists' adage.
It's difficult to argue the case for one while arguing against another.
TTmonkey said:
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....
As ever, legislators are toying with a delicate emergent model they don't really understand, and are now b
hing that there are consequences they hadn't thought of. Meh. I do use FB, but I don't really care for any of the actors in this particular spat.i4got said:
There have been quite a few treads on here about social media banning or blocking extremist (but legal) views with many advocating that it is the prerogative of a private platform to choose who and what it allows to be posted.
Seems to me you can't have it both ways.
If a platform decides it now wants to block mainstream news or any other arbitrary criteria then surely it's the same argument.
Never has there been a clearer example of the old 'first they came for the communists' adage.
It's difficult to argue the case for one while arguing against another.
Also this. The same government which is now complaining that FB blocked their government pages over night, is on the other hand also complaining that they don't block news they don't like. Sorry, I mean "misinformation". Governments will always want to control the media in whatever form it takes. Seems to me you can't have it both ways.
If a platform decides it now wants to block mainstream news or any other arbitrary criteria then surely it's the same argument.
Never has there been a clearer example of the old 'first they came for the communists' adage.
It's difficult to argue the case for one while arguing against another.
FunkyNige said:
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.
I’m also not a Facebook News user, but that does look OK. The key point (for the publishers) is who gets the ad revenue - is that second pic actually the independent site, or something still inside Facebook? A lot of the time they will redirect the content so it looks like something else but is in fact coming through Facebook. 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.
However, I think the simple act of copying the headline is part of the problem. Most users will go no further, and Facebook are getting immense benefit from someone else’s work.
"You're including our content without paying. Pay up."
"OK, we won't include your content. Bye."
Don't see what the complaint is really unless someone wants to have their cake & eat it. Guess they're whining they aren't getting their payday.
Plus Facebook do have a point that they aren't searching and linking external content, it's user generated, so why should they pay for what users do? Especially the ones uploading the content they want to be paid for...
"OK, we won't include your content. Bye."
Don't see what the complaint is really unless someone wants to have their cake & eat it. Guess they're whining they aren't getting their payday.
Plus Facebook do have a point that they aren't searching and linking external content, it's user generated, so why should they pay for what users do? Especially the ones uploading the content they want to be paid for...
Greedydog said:
Much as I'm not a Facebook fan I think they've done nothing wrong here. The Australian government stance was they had to pay for the content, all Facebook have done is said, "OK, we won't use the content then". Users are free to go and get their news elsewhere, who's lost out?
That's my take too.The Aussie government has inadvertently shafted those companies they thought they were trying to help.
Their reach will be a fraction if what it was.
How long until the government back peddle?
ChocolateFrog said:
Greedydog said:
Much as I'm not a Facebook fan I think they've done nothing wrong here. The Australian government stance was they had to pay for the content, all Facebook have done is said, "OK, we won't use the content then". Users are free to go and get their news elsewhere, who's lost out?
That's my take too.The Aussie government has inadvertently shafted those companies they thought they were trying to help.
Their reach will be a fraction if what it was.
How long until the government back peddle?
gooner1 said:
ChocolateFrog said:
Greedydog said:
Much as I'm not a Facebook fan I think they've done nothing wrong here. The Australian government stance was they had to pay for the content, all Facebook have done is said, "OK, we won't use the content then". Users are free to go and get their news elsewhere, who's lost out?
That's my take too.The Aussie government has inadvertently shafted those companies they thought they were trying to help.
Their reach will be a fraction if what it was.
How long until the government back peddle?
ChocolateFrog said:
The Aussie government has inadvertently shafted those companies they thought they were trying to help.
Their reach will be a fraction if what it was.
I don't think they have. "Their reach", as you put it was irrelevant because they gained no income from it, all the ad revenue went to Facebook, so they are the only losers here.Their reach will be a fraction if what it was.
TTmonkey said:
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....
Dromedary66 said:
Embarrassing for the Aussie legislators
Facebook has absolutely slapped them down.
Not really.Facebook has absolutely slapped them down.
I live in Australia and it appears opinion is against FB.
Govt asked FB to pay for content they effectively used to benefit themselves, FB said no and basically pulled all the news services rather than pay and Aussies are like 'mate, youre rich enough to pay and now you've spat the dummy. Aussies love a 'fair go' and FB isnt paying which is effectively not them giving it a fair go.
pquinn said:
"You're including our content without paying. Pay up."
"OK, we won't include your content. Bye."
Don't see what the complaint is really...
That FB has thrown it's toys out of the pram, baby out with the bath water and so on. FB makes a lot of ad revenue, and splitting a bit of it won't kill them."OK, we won't include your content. Bye."
Don't see what the complaint is really...
It's very brave of Australia to take this stand and lead the way and hope other countries including the UK join in.
If Facebook and co paid more tax in the countries they operated, they probably wouldn't be in this situation. But all the profits go back to the USA/stay offshore.
If FB won't show the news, then the aussie public will start going direct to the news sites.
news said:
But Australia's competition watchdog - cited by the AFP news agency - says that for every $100 spent on online advertising, Google captures $53, Facebook takes $28 and the rest is shared among others, taking revenue away from media outlets.
rxe said:
I’m also not a Facebook News user, but that does look OK. The key point (for the publishers) is who gets the ad revenue - is that second pic actually the independent site, or something still inside Facebook? A lot of the time they will redirect the content so it looks like something else but is in fact coming through Facebook.
It looks like it's the actual Independent site but ads from Facebook, if I press 'Report this ad' I get the Facebook report ad feature and the 'Ad Policies' link brings up the Facebook ad policies. If I click the 3 dots in the top right then 'Open in Browser' I get the actual Independent site in Safari, the ads are in the same place but served by 'Teads' and Taboola. It also asks me to register.If Facebook are serving up the Independent site but putting their own ads on (which looks to be the case but I can't be certain) that is really sneaky and I can see why the papers wouldn't want that happening.
FunkyNige said:
It looks like it's the actual Independent site but ads from Facebook, if I press 'Report this ad' I get the Facebook report ad feature and the 'Ad Policies' link brings up the Facebook ad policies. If I click the 3 dots in the top right then 'Open in Browser' I get the actual Independent site in Safari, the ads are in the same place but served by 'Teads' and Taboola. It also asks me to register.
If Facebook are serving up the Independent site but putting their own ads on (which looks to be the case but I can't be certain) that is really sneaky and I can see why the papers wouldn't want that happening.
Suspected as much - this is the nub of the issue. If Facebook are serving up the Independent site but putting their own ads on (which looks to be the case but I can't be certain) that is really sneaky and I can see why the papers wouldn't want that happening.
Facebook take the content, make it look like they have put you on the “independent” site or whatever, serve you their ads and collate your metrics. It’s theft, pure and simple.
If they simply put a link to the “independent” no one would have an issue here. The independent would get the ad revenue and the user metrics.
They don’t want to back down here because they want you to stay on Facebook, and have ads served to you.
I don't quite understand what the Aussies hoped to achieve here.
They said facebook had to pay for any ad revenue, for Facebook to do this would have taken them to recode their entire UI they have been building to make facebook a 'safe' web interface so even if a dodgy website you wont get it (reality is they wanted the money but I am spinning it the same way they would). However why would Facebook bother with just Australia.
Surely someone in Australia Government must have thought what the end goal would be if they did this to facebook? Would Facebook just had over their ad revenue, would facebook change their entire UI, or would they just say thanks but no thanks. IF a meeting didn't happen to go through these options and discuss with facebook then they have just themselves to blame.
They said facebook had to pay for any ad revenue, for Facebook to do this would have taken them to recode their entire UI they have been building to make facebook a 'safe' web interface so even if a dodgy website you wont get it (reality is they wanted the money but I am spinning it the same way they would). However why would Facebook bother with just Australia.
Surely someone in Australia Government must have thought what the end goal would be if they did this to facebook? Would Facebook just had over their ad revenue, would facebook change their entire UI, or would they just say thanks but no thanks. IF a meeting didn't happen to go through these options and discuss with facebook then they have just themselves to blame.
elster said:
I don't quite understand what the Aussies hoped to achieve here.
They said facebook had to pay for any ad revenue, for Facebook to do this would have taken them to recode their entire UI they have been building to make facebook a 'safe' web interface so even if a dodgy website you wont get it (reality is they wanted the money but I am spinning it the same way they would). However why would Facebook bother with just Australia.
Surely someone in Australia Government must have thought what the end goal would be if they did this to facebook? Would Facebook just had over their ad revenue, would facebook change their entire UI, or would they just say thanks but no thanks. IF a meeting didn't happen to go through these options and discuss with facebook then they have just themselves to blame.
What’s the downside? Facebook is less useful than it was to Australians. So what? It would take very little time to calculate the ad revenue from the re-badged content, they have the metrics, it is a simple database query. They said facebook had to pay for any ad revenue, for Facebook to do this would have taken them to recode their entire UI they have been building to make facebook a 'safe' web interface so even if a dodgy website you wont get it (reality is they wanted the money but I am spinning it the same way they would). However why would Facebook bother with just Australia.
Surely someone in Australia Government must have thought what the end goal would be if they did this to facebook? Would Facebook just had over their ad revenue, would facebook change their entire UI, or would they just say thanks but no thanks. IF a meeting didn't happen to go through these options and discuss with facebook then they have just themselves to blame.
This is actually very dangerous for Facebook. They have a network effect - if Facebook is less attractive for Australians, and a load of high profile Australians bin it, then the same reasons that caused them to grow rapidly suddenly cause them to shrink. If another government suggests they are about to do this, it could all come tumbling down.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff