Australia and Facebook....
Discussion
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).........
Facebook don't need to recode anything. They know how much they make in ads per page, as they charge the advertising customer for it. They just need to give a cut of it out.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).........
elster said:
I don't quite understand what the Aussies hoped to achieve here.
. However why would Facebook bother with just Australia.
.
FB make over 500m USD in revenue per year, Australia population means 25 million potential users. . However why would Facebook bother with just Australia.
.
Facebook doesn't want a competitor popping up and cutting into these. As WhatsApp has found recently, the people also don't like being dictated to.
Good luck to them in Oz. It won't be an easy fight, but it's one that needs settling.
The EU, all the gods bless 'em, has taken on the the USA and their big international IT giants and, to a very limited extent, come out ahead. However, the USA doesn't want to know. They are quite happy to let things go on as they are, so no help from them.
Australia has been gradually distancing itself from the US, but not by much. This latest might speed them up a bit. They've shown themselves a bit ambivalent towards China more recently. I wonder where they see themselves in the years ahead.
I've go no doubt, despite a complete lack of evidence to support my view, apart from years of his actions, that this has been generated by Murdoch. He dominates the media in Oz and can make or break politicians.
Best of luck, mate.
The EU, all the gods bless 'em, has taken on the the USA and their big international IT giants and, to a very limited extent, come out ahead. However, the USA doesn't want to know. They are quite happy to let things go on as they are, so no help from them.
Australia has been gradually distancing itself from the US, but not by much. This latest might speed them up a bit. They've shown themselves a bit ambivalent towards China more recently. I wonder where they see themselves in the years ahead.
I've go no doubt, despite a complete lack of evidence to support my view, apart from years of his actions, that this has been generated by Murdoch. He dominates the media in Oz and can make or break politicians.
Best of luck, mate.
TTmonkey said:
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.
What is happening is that Newscorp want Google, Facebook et al. to pay them for the priveledge of hosting and. Indexing Newscorps content.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.
You are right that is makes no sense and is utterly pants on head retarded.
This is what Australians call "Rent Seeking".
However as Newscorp owns the Australian government I expect it to be passed and smacked down in the courts. This is borderline unconstitutional in Oz.
I also can't see how the Morrison Government and Murdoch can win. If the law gets passed all Google and others will do is remove its services from Australia... Which means they will still serve ads on Australia, paid by Australian companies but because the transaction now occurs outside of Oz, they won't see a cent of GST (Goods and Services Tax, similar to VAT) income as well as losing the meagre income tax Google and Facebook pay.
But as has been mentioned, the LNP are beholden to Murdoch in the worst way possible.
Although Facebook blocking Newscorp's content may backfire on Facebook as users will like having a Newscorp free feed and support the law.
Derek Smith said:
.
I've go no doubt, despite a complete lack of evidence to support my view, apart from years of his actions, that this has been generated by Murdoch. He dominates the media in Oz and can make or break politicians.
Why has it taken him so long, Why has he been successful now?I've go no doubt, despite a complete lack of evidence to support my view, apart from years of his actions, that this has been generated by Murdoch. He dominates the media in Oz and can make or break politicians.
hyphen said:
Derek Smith said:
.
I've go no doubt, despite a complete lack of evidence to support my view, apart from years of his actions, that this has been generated by Murdoch. He dominates the media in Oz and can make or break politicians.
Why has it taken him so long, Why has he been successful now?I've go no doubt, despite a complete lack of evidence to support my view, apart from years of his actions, that this has been generated by Murdoch. He dominates the media in Oz and can make or break politicians.
The paywalls drove users away in vast numbers and many have found alternate sources of news.
Murdoch is firmly rooted in the old school of media. One where he controlled the papers and TV so he could control what people saw and believed. He hasn't been able to control the internet so people are now getting information outside his control.
Murdoch even managed to get the Abbott government to neuter the ABC back in 2014. It only slowed his demise and fewer and fewer people are blinly accepting what Murdoch writes but he still thinks he can force people back into his sway.
most people find it hard to have several screens open on a phone so inevitably FB took over as the one stop shop. Gossip/argument merchants copy anything triggering to friends. They all then get fed similar stories. Whats not to hate?
FB aficianados should just browse the net like the non stupid do.
FB aficianados should just browse the net like the non stupid do.
I think the Australian government are in the right on this. Facebook are keeping the user inside the Facebook site but using someone else's content to do this.
Worth noting, this is not content that a media organisation has uploaded themselves to Facebook but stories scraped from the media organisations own websites.
I think it is no different to you buying a car and allowing anyone to drive it but a company decides they can make money out of your generosity, keep the revenue and give you as the car owner nothing but still expect you to accept them to continue earning off your back.
I think Facebook are taking the piss and rather than accept they need to behave fairly throw their toys out of the pram. Do Facebook see this as a serious thread to their business? I think so and are hoping that users who can't live without their fix will force the Australian government to back down. I can see Facebook's business model unravelling somewhat in the future.
Worth noting, this is not content that a media organisation has uploaded themselves to Facebook but stories scraped from the media organisations own websites.
I think it is no different to you buying a car and allowing anyone to drive it but a company decides they can make money out of your generosity, keep the revenue and give you as the car owner nothing but still expect you to accept them to continue earning off your back.
I think Facebook are taking the piss and rather than accept they need to behave fairly throw their toys out of the pram. Do Facebook see this as a serious thread to their business? I think so and are hoping that users who can't live without their fix will force the Australian government to back down. I can see Facebook's business model unravelling somewhat in the future.
ChocolateFrog said:
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?
It's slightly more nuanced because the legacy news don't own the stories, if they don't put their wording of what happened on Facebook then it leaves a gap for me to start my own media company and post the story there myself and take the advertising revenue via linking from Facebook etc. I can make it work because I don't have all the legacy costs associated with printing and distributing a paper or broadcasting on TV. 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?
The media organisations don't really have a choice but to post their content to Facebook because it's the only way to keep new organisations from gaining traction. Why read the news from me when you could read the BBC's version?
Obviously the answer is to stop printing newspapers as there simply isn't a viable model that competes with online-only media. The Australian Government have bowed to lobbying for protection for the established media. Of course Facebooks response is that they're not going to subsidise the Australian media.
The losers are Facebook's users, so while I'm all for appropriate control of the likes of Facebook, I'm perfectly happy for them to stand up to Government policies like this that have nothing to do with anything other than protectionism.
Not knowing the minutiae of what the Oz govt have done they may have done it in a cloddish and blundering way as they have a cloddish and blundering PM, but it's about bloody time big tech paid their way instead of freeloading off content generators, generally doing what they like with a general air of 'f
king make me'.
king make me'.I don't see why the state should be involved in telling private companies what content they can provide, far less the terms on which they do it. If you want facebook to pay, why not just mandate a levy directly? If you make it conditional on facebook providing the content, don't complain when they stop providing it.
If you can only get news on facebook (patent nonsense), then that is a failure in state policy in allowing such a monopoly to exist.
If you are so dense that you cannot think to look on the xxxx website for news, I would have thought that using a smartphone would be beyond you in any event...
If you can only get news on facebook (patent nonsense), then that is a failure in state policy in allowing such a monopoly to exist.
If you are so dense that you cannot think to look on the xxxx website for news, I would have thought that using a smartphone would be beyond you in any event...
gottans said:
I think the Australian government are in the right on this. Facebook are keeping the user inside the Facebook site but using someone else's content to do this.
Worth noting, this is not content that a media organisation has uploaded themselves to Facebook but stories scraped from the media organisations own websites.
I think it is no different to you buying a car and allowing anyone to drive it but a company decides they can make money out of your generosity, keep the revenue and give you as the car owner nothing but still expect you to accept them to continue earning off your back.
I think Facebook are taking the piss and rather than accept they need to behave fairly throw their toys out of the pram. Do Facebook see this as a serious thread to their business? I think so and are hoping that users who can't live without their fix will force the Australian government to back down. I can see Facebook's business model unravelling somewhat in the future.
I think it depends on the demographic, but for the most relevant/profitable demographic the reverse is true. People don’t go on Facebook to consume news, they do it to see what their friends/family/celebrities are up to. Worth noting, this is not content that a media organisation has uploaded themselves to Facebook but stories scraped from the media organisations own websites.
I think it is no different to you buying a car and allowing anyone to drive it but a company decides they can make money out of your generosity, keep the revenue and give you as the car owner nothing but still expect you to accept them to continue earning off your back.
I think Facebook are taking the piss and rather than accept they need to behave fairly throw their toys out of the pram. Do Facebook see this as a serious thread to their business? I think so and are hoping that users who can't live without their fix will force the Australian government to back down. I can see Facebook's business model unravelling somewhat in the future.
Don’t think that will change. The likely side effect is that people will just consume less news. As that happens the news websites will receive less add revenue.
Ultimately it’s just a question of whether people would rather browse Facebook or a news website. For the majority of people under 25, I’d place my bet firmly in the Facebook camp. Or maybe some other social media platform.
peterperkins said:
Interesting that FB go all confrontational but Google decide to pay up on the same day.
I think FB have shot themselves in the foot.
Google have done the old media/Goole relationship some good and will get some positive PR especially from the Murdoch group.
Google now have a means of monetising the content and deriving advertising revenueI think FB have shot themselves in the foot.
Google have done the old media/Goole relationship some good and will get some positive PR especially from the Murdoch group.
“As part of its three-year-agreement, News Corp said the two firms would also collaborate on a subscription platform, share advertising revenue and invest in video journalism on YouTube, which shares a parent company with Google.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56101859
However, 7 years ago they didn’t have the platform in place, so closed google news in Spain when something similar happened.
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/google-news-shuts-d...
I'm sure the issue was people sharing articles on Facebook, meaning zero traffic goes to the news sites themselves... they get name recognition but no foot traffic. Facebook says "it isn't us" but it kinda really is with the ecosystem & content nurturing they manage very very carefully. Keeps users on their site & their ad revenue...
The fact 85% of all ad revenue goes to their big tech and 15% to the news sites creating the news.... That isn't right IMO.
The fact 85% of all ad revenue goes to their big tech and 15% to the news sites creating the news.... That isn't right IMO.
super7 said:
Anyone willing to go to war with FB, Amazon, Ebay or Google is fine by me.....
All of them are far too powerful for their own good and need to pulled down a peg or two!!!
Fully agree! All of them are far too powerful for their own good and need to pulled down a peg or two!!!
ChocolateFrog said:
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?
It is actually a fairly serious time for the Australian media.
If you google "news" and the only thing that comes up is Murdoch media because they are the only ones that have come to an agreement then you're only being fed a certain agenda. Which of course is what Murdoch and the current Government want.
The Government have habit of cutting funding to the ABC at each budget, especially if the ABC has been keeping them honest.
This article from the Betoota Advocate sums it all up nicely. Note they are a satirical site but were locked out of FB and then reinstated.
https://www.betootaadvocate.com/headlines/facebook...
If you google "news" and the only thing that comes up is Murdoch media because they are the only ones that have come to an agreement then you're only being fed a certain agenda. Which of course is what Murdoch and the current Government want.
The Government have habit of cutting funding to the ABC at each budget, especially if the ABC has been keeping them honest.
This article from the Betoota Advocate sums it all up nicely. Note they are a satirical site but were locked out of FB and then reinstated.
https://www.betootaadvocate.com/headlines/facebook...
The Aussie government approach to this has been completely ham fisted, but I struggle to see how they can say with a straight face that Facebook should be forced to carry content and forced to pay for it at some rate not determined by Facebook.
I wasn't in favour of Twitter turfing specific individuals off, but I've zero issue with Facebook here.
I wasn't in favour of Twitter turfing specific individuals off, but I've zero issue with Facebook here.
There appears to be on here a number of posts that completely misunderstand what is happening here in Australia.
The Australian Government went out sometime ago and told platforms that if you want to host links and contents to news you have to pay for it in an agreement with the providers of the content they wanted to have on their sites.
The requirement was that they arrange deals with the content providers and once agreed in a mutual deal they can then provide the content.
This was at all platforms not just FB.
A few days ago Seven West Media here signed a deal with Google for just this. No problems everyone happy.
What FB have done has said 'we're not paying' and closed off more than just news in some quasi protest hoping to curry favour with the court of public opinion. This has backfired as ultimately people are looking at this massive multi-billion dollar corporation who pay almost no tax in Australia, and make good money off Australia in ad-revenue effectively wanting their content for free with no payback to the content providers.
Australians very much dislike their own Government, regardless of who is in power, but they like piss takers even less who don't put in their fair share against the 'Aussie battler'. The large news corps here are very influential at Govt level and have leveraged this but there are many, many small local news outlets that are run on the smell of an oily rag, that are so isolated geographically that they depend on their local support, that are affected by lack of traffic through their own mediums amd so all press outlets have fought for this, not just the big boys.
So FB have absolutely taken the piss, decided to throw their toys out and been smacked for it.
And let's be clear, this rule is not just about FB, it's for all platform providers but FB have decided they dont want to join in, so FB have created their own problem here, not the Australian Govt.
The Australian Govt is making rules to benefit its own people and companies and are quite right to do so. FB just doesn't want to pay to play.
The Australian Government went out sometime ago and told platforms that if you want to host links and contents to news you have to pay for it in an agreement with the providers of the content they wanted to have on their sites.
The requirement was that they arrange deals with the content providers and once agreed in a mutual deal they can then provide the content.
This was at all platforms not just FB.
A few days ago Seven West Media here signed a deal with Google for just this. No problems everyone happy.
What FB have done has said 'we're not paying' and closed off more than just news in some quasi protest hoping to curry favour with the court of public opinion. This has backfired as ultimately people are looking at this massive multi-billion dollar corporation who pay almost no tax in Australia, and make good money off Australia in ad-revenue effectively wanting their content for free with no payback to the content providers.
Australians very much dislike their own Government, regardless of who is in power, but they like piss takers even less who don't put in their fair share against the 'Aussie battler'. The large news corps here are very influential at Govt level and have leveraged this but there are many, many small local news outlets that are run on the smell of an oily rag, that are so isolated geographically that they depend on their local support, that are affected by lack of traffic through their own mediums amd so all press outlets have fought for this, not just the big boys.
So FB have absolutely taken the piss, decided to throw their toys out and been smacked for it.
And let's be clear, this rule is not just about FB, it's for all platform providers but FB have decided they dont want to join in, so FB have created their own problem here, not the Australian Govt.
The Australian Govt is making rules to benefit its own people and companies and are quite right to do so. FB just doesn't want to pay to play.
Edited by Pommy on Thursday 18th February 23:14
Pommy said:
A few days ago Seven West Media here signed a deal with Google for just this. No problems everyone happy.
Nothing wrong with that.Pommy said:
What FB have done has said 'we're not paying'
Nothing wrong with that of they don't take the content either, surely?Pommy said:
and closed off more than just news in some quasi protest hoping to curry favour with the court of public opinion.
Some other pages were caught up in it, but they're fixing those?Pommy said:
This has backfired as ultimately people are looking at this massive multi-billion dollar corporation who pay almost no tax in Australia, and make good money off Australia in ad-revenue effectively wanting their content for free with no payback to the content providers.
No, they'd rather not have the content than pay for it.Pommy said:
The Australian Govt is making rules to benefit its own people and companies and are quite right to do so. FB just doesn't want to pay to play.
FB just doesn't want to play at any price, why should they have to?This seems such an obvious outcome. If any free service on the internet starts charging they lose customers, they can't reasonably expect to keep them all, or even most of them. If the Australian government wants to benefit it's own people it should try something less cack-handed.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff