Australia and Facebook....

[TwigtheWonderkid]

rxe said:

menousername said:

Of course and FB users get their services for free. Change that and FB users need to pay a subscription.

In fact having built up a fairly dominant position FB could have gone down that route if it wanted

The analogy I’d use could be based on this site. A load of content is put here by people, and hosted on a site that presumably generates some material bills. If I came along and took that content and re-hosted it, stripping PHs ads out, and replacing them with my own and put it all on my (very popular) website - would that seem fair? I think not. That is precisely what Facebook are doing.

If it was obvious it had come from PH, and 100m people who had never heard of PH were now aware of it, and 5% decided to log on to PH to see what it was all about, and PH could get 5 times as much ad revenue as before because of the increased traffic on their site, they'd probably be delighted.

[rxe]

They may or may not be delighted, that isn’t the point. It would appear that the news sites aren’t delighted.

Per the images posted on Page 2 of this thread, the users of the news service actually believe they are on the relevant sites, but they aren’t - they’re still on Facebook.

If Facebook linked directly to new sites, there wouldn’t be a problem.

[citizensm1th]

rxe said:

They may or may not be delighted, that isn’t the point. It would appear that the news sites aren’t delighted.

Per the images posted on Page 2 of this thread, the users of the news service actually believe they are on the relevant sites, but they aren’t - they’re still on Facebook.

If Facebook linked directly to new sites, there wouldn’t be a problem.

Well there is not a problem now as fb is not linking to them and the media will have to drive visits some other way

[rxe]

citizensm1th said:

Well there is not a problem now as fb is not linking to them and the media will have to drive visits some other way

As I said at the beginning of the thread, so what. If people want news content, they will need to go to the providers of said news. Oh, the hardship.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

rxe said:

They may or may not be delighted, that isn’t the point. It would appear that the news sites aren’t delighted.

Per the images posted on Page 2 of this thread, the users of the news service actually believe they are on the relevant sites, but they aren’t - they’re still on Facebook.

If Facebook linked directly to new sites, there wouldn’t be a problem.

Do we know they are not delighted? Those images on P2 make it clear the source is the Independent. My son's employers are certainly delighted Facebook host their news. Facebook are doing something that not only do they not expect to get paid for, but are very grateful it's free of charge. They would actually pay Facebook to run their stuff!!!

I'm not on Facebook, but do The Independent have their own Facebook page? If so, then that answers the question about them being happy or not with the arrangement.

[citizensm1th]

rxe said:

citizensm1th said:

Well there is not a problem now as fb is not linking to them and the media will have to drive visits some other way

As I said at the beginning of the thread, so what. If people want news content, they will need to go to the providers of said news. Oh, the hardship.

Can you tell the aussie gov that please, they are whinging more that us poms

[hyphen]

rxe said:

citizensm1th said:

Well there is not a problem now as fb is not linking to them and the media will have to drive visits some other way

As I said at the beginning of the thread, so what. If people want news content, they will need to go to the providers of said news. Oh, the hardship.

Many users will download a news app, and then spend regular time on that app. And so less time on other apps, including Facebook.

It's an own goal for Zuckerberg.

[CrutyRammers]

rxe said:

They may or may not be delighted, that isn’t the point. It would appear that the news sites aren’t delighted.

Per the images posted on Page 2 of this thread, the users of the news service actually believe they are on the relevant sites, but they aren’t - they’re still on Facebook.

If Facebook linked directly to new sites, there wouldn’t be a problem.

That's a red herring really. It's normal to use your own browser inside an app, because if you link out to safari or chrome or whatever, you lose all control of the flow; so pressing "back" won't take you back to FB, for example. They may well be building their own stuff on that, but it's not a nefarious choice instead of using the standard browser. It's the only sensible choice in order to make your app work nicely. Most apps will use an "in-app browser" control for this, it's quite standard.

[CrutyRammers]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Do we know they are not delighted? Those images on P2 make it clear the source is the Independent. My son's employers are certainly delighted Facebook host their news. Facebook are doing something that not only do they not expect to get paid for, but are very grateful it's free of charge. They would actually pay Facebook to run their stuff!!!

I'm not on Facebook, but do The Independent have their own Facebook page? If so, then that answers the question about them being happy or not with the arrangement.

They do indeed, and post their own content on to it. For free. As do all the others.

[survivalist]

hyphen said:

rxe said:

citizensm1th said:

Well there is not a problem now as fb is not linking to them and the media will have to drive visits some other way

As I said at the beginning of the thread, so what. If people want news content, they will need to go to the providers of said news. Oh, the hardship.

Many users will download a news app, and then spend regular time on that app. And so less time on other apps, including Facebook.

It's an own goal for Zuckerberg.

If you believe the Facebook numbers, then only 4% of their content is news. If true, it won’t have a huge impact. Most people log on to Facebook to see what their friends are up to, look at businesses’ pages and participate in Facebook groups (it’s where a lot of motoring related content seems to have gone and every school class seems to have a group for parents) and use marketplace.

I agree that it’s no big deal, plenty of news apps are indeed available. What will be interesting is whether fewer people consume news as a result. The reaction from the government and news providers seems to suggest to me that they might be concerned about this. See the Spanish google news debatable when they tried to do something very similar.

[anonymous-user]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

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.

Spoke to my son about this case. He works for a news outlet, whose content is used by Facebook. Not only are they happy for Facebook to use their stuff free of cost, they are actually quite relieved they don't have to pay Facebook to use it. As Facebook's usage drives far more traffic to their website, so they benefit. It's symbiotic. My son explained it to me as follows:

Local Council: The library is no longer free. Anyone taking out a book will be forced to negotiate a fee with the author.
People: But it's always been free.
LC: Not any more. The authors need to be paid.
People: But the authors seem quite happy. Yes, we take out their books free, but that often encourages us to by other books of theirs, and we also recommend stuff to other people that we've read, and they buy books.
LC: Don't care. You will pay them from now on.
People: OK, we hear you. You've made your position clear.
2 days later
LC: why is no one using the library.
People: You said we had to pay, we don't want to pay, so we've stopped using it.
LC: This is a declaration of war, a vicious attack on the LC. How dare you think you can treat us like this, who do you jumped up self important lot think you are.
People:

The interesting comment in this is how using Facebook drives traffic back to the news outlets site, please explain as I think one of the main problems is the 'canned' news inside Facebook doesn't drive traffic to the news outlets site and strangles them financially.

I would guess there are a couple of types of news outlet, ones that are not reliant on advertising revenue to continue and are happy to give away content and those that rely on advertising income to continue in business. The way Facebook works will kill one quickly and kill the other slowly.

Just because they haven't paid for content doesn't mean what they doing is right, they have basically said they won't pay so have stopped using the content. They have them punished the Australian government and population for having the audacity to try to get Facebook to behave fairly.

I think the Facebook response to Australia is also interesting because it also says we can survive without your content and asking the question of the content creator, do you want to be on our site? It maybe the first steps in paying to use Facebook.

[captain_cynic]

wisbech said:

Yeah - also in Australia. FB's actions have managed to pretty much unite the country as much as an Ashes tour.

Yep... In the last 24 hours I've seen more of my Aussie friends on facebook than I've seen in years... including those I haven't seen on there in years. More interesting is that some of them are ex-journos... They all went into Marketing because it was a more honest career.

This is going to backfire on both Newscorp (the beneficiary of the law) who will lose more readership and the LNP, who will lose votes as fewer people are reading the scare stories written by Newscorp.

[Tony Starks]

They only ones who seem to be losing out are all the charity and school pages on FB who have been blocked.

Me, I'm happy if FB get screwed over a bit as they spam the poop out of my Newsfeed with adverts. Every third post is an advert. Or so in so likes this page, which makes me laugh when my it says my wife likes this page and when I ask she's never been on that page.

You try and get them to stop and they trot out the whole ad preferences bs. I don't care what ads I see, I just want fewer.

[hidetheelephants]

Tony Starks said:

They only ones who seem to be losing out are all the charity and school pages on FB who have been blocked.

Me, I'm happy if FB get screwed over a bit as they spam the poop out of my Newsfeed with adverts. Every third post is an advert. Or so in so likes this page, which makes me laugh when my it says my wife likes this page and when I ask she's never been on that page.

You try and get them to stop and they trot out the whole ad preferences bs. I don't care what ads I see, I just want fewer.

I'd pay to not get them; not an option apparently, I wonder why...

[citizensm1th]

hidetheelephants said:

I'd pay to not get them; not an option apparently, I wonder why...

Because it is Facebook usp they even state it on the site

"free and always will be"

For. Personal users anyway

[TwigtheWonderkid]

gottans said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

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.

Spoke to my son about this case. He works for a news outlet, whose content is used by Facebook. Not only are they happy for Facebook to use their stuff free of cost, they are actually quite relieved they don't have to pay Facebook to use it. As Facebook's usage drives far more traffic to their website, so they benefit. It's symbiotic. My son explained it to me as follows:

Local Council: The library is no longer free. Anyone taking out a book will be forced to negotiate a fee with the author.
People: But it's always been free.
LC: Not any more. The authors need to be paid.
People: But the authors seem quite happy. Yes, we take out their books free, but that often encourages us to by other books of theirs, and we also recommend stuff to other people that we've read, and they buy books.
LC: Don't care. You will pay them from now on.
People: OK, we hear you. You've made your position clear.
2 days later
LC: why is no one using the library.
People: You said we had to pay, we don't want to pay, so we've stopped using it.
LC: This is a declaration of war, a vicious attack on the LC. How dare you think you can treat us like this, who do you jumped up self important lot think you are.
People:

The interesting comment in this is how using Facebook drives traffic back to the news outlets site, please explain as I think one of the main problems is the 'canned' news inside Facebook doesn't drive traffic to the news outlets site and strangles them financially.

My son is a sports journalist. His employer has a Facebook page where they post up stories. Facebook also take the stories and use them elsewhere, and internationally, but the source of the story is always clear. Thus the story and my son's employer's name is exposed to millions of people, for no cost. They get to hit people in Tasmania and Alaska, courtesy of Facebook. A proportion of those people then log on to my son's employer's website, for more stories and more detail. This allows them to charge more to advertisers.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

CrutyRammers said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Do we know they are not delighted? Those images on P2 make it clear the source is the Independent. My son's employers are certainly delighted Facebook host their news. Facebook are doing something that not only do they not expect to get paid for, but are very grateful it's free of charge. They would actually pay Facebook to run their stuff!!!

I'm not on Facebook, but do The Independent have their own Facebook page? If so, then that answers the question about them being happy or not with the arrangement.

They do indeed, and post their own content on to it. For free. As do all the others.

Well that hardly sounds like the actions of a organisation being cheated out of a living by Facebook. Perhaps my son's view that it's a symbiotic relationship has some merit.

[AlvinSultana]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Well that hardly sounds like the actions of a organisation being cheated out of a living by Facebook. Perhaps my son's view that it's a symbiotic relationship has some merit.

No not symbiotic.

Adapt or die.

The news organisations (and many other market sectors) have seen their businesses ground into the dirt by entities like FB and the internet in general.

The fact that they have found ways to fight back in their own small way does not create a symbiotic relationship.

I am all for change, market disruptors, and new tech, which brings genuine new services, real choice and improved standard of living for consumers.

However FB built the empire by scraping content and selling their product on the back of it, Uber are building their empire with unlicensed services that pay a fraction of the taxes of the industry they are "disrupting".

Far too often the "disruptor" builds a business not through improved tech or brilliant new thinking, but through tax loop holes and regulatory safe havens such as section 230.

Newspapers have to pay for their content and be legally responsible for everything they publish. FB would not exist under the same set of circumstances.

Jeez all they are asking FB to do is start contributing to the costs of the content they steal ! Instead of taking whatever they want for free.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

AlvinSultana said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Well that hardly sounds like the actions of a organisation being cheated out of a living by Facebook. Perhaps my son's view that it's a symbiotic relationship has some merit.

No not symbiotic.

Stuff....


Jeez all they are asking FB to do is start contributing to the costs of the content they steal ! Instead of taking whatever they want for free.

If it's not symbiotic, how many people in Australia would have read a News story from The Independent without Facebook? Now some are, and are then logging on to The Independent's own website. Which increases ad revenue. How much are The Independent paying for their name to be spread around the globe?

And having been asked to pay, don't think Facebook have the right to say "we won't pay, but we'll stop taking the stuff we were taking free". Because that's what they've done, and that's what's infuriated the Oz govt. That what makes it look less like concern for the victims of Facebook, and more like a muscle flexing shakedown, which Facebook have slapped aside with ease.

[AlvinSultana]

If you want to call it symbiotic thats fine.

However the relationship between the tech companies and traditional news gathering business is a bit like the kid who goes hungry because the school bully always takes his dinner money. The bullied kid soon realises if he befriends the bully, he might get a few scraps. If he helps the bully beat up the other kids he might even end up with a decent meal at lunchtime.

That is not a symbiotic relationship, its the weaker party doing what it has to for survival.

The weaker kid would much rather keep his own dinner money and not have to beg for scraps from the bully.

You ask a slave if he enjoys a symbiotic relationship with his master.