11 ms·
An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia
- threeseed 6y agoAs I've mentioned before you only need to look at the fact that public and smaller news organisations e.g. ABC, SBS are not compensated to get an idea of the intention of this policy. It's purely to prop up News Corp which is struggling (16% loss in 2020 revenue) because of weak newspaper sales and Foxtel bleeding customers to Netflix, Disney etc. And unfortunately just like in UK and US whenever Rupert Murdoch says jump you better say how high or else your government will go down in the next election.
- fphhotchips 6y agoThe fact that it's _years_ too late to save Fairfax reinforces this IMHO.
- jrott 6y agoNews Corp is impressive I think they are the only company that can actually make Facebook look sympathetic.
- aembleton 6y agoIf they're struggling, are they that relevant any more in swinging elections?
- abdulla 6y agoStratechery has a good analysis of the "News Media Bargaining Code": https://stratechery.com/2020/australias-news-media-bargaining-code-breaking-down-the-code-australias-fake-news/ https://stratechery.com/2020/australias-news-media-bargainin...
- abdulla 6y agoCommitting the faux pas of replying to myself, here's another take: https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/08/31/scott-morrison-v-facebook-google/ https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/08/31/scott-morrison-v-facebo...
- pawnednow 6y agoAustralian government and more specifically Rod sims, the chair of ACCC should get some counselling. Really good counselling. They clearly don't understand how publishing works and have a biased understanding of who is benefitting from this relationship. However, the entire Australian media has been nothing but puppets controlled by murdoch. The one true less biased source is ABC which has been muddied by constant federal government censorship and budget cuts almost to a point where independent journalism and Australia cannot be spoken in one sentence. I hope they move forward with this code and I hope that both Google and FB remove news from their site so that newscorp can die quickly. It a shame they are doing this. Come next election I am voting against both SCOMO and the likes.
- waheoo 6y agoABC are compromised, they only ever hard ball interview the opposition, which is completely fucking useless. (They're not in power) Just look at any liberal interview vs any Labor interview. Labor gets questions, liberal gets pleasentaries.
- waheoo 6y agoDon't know why being downvoted. This is as if fox news was govt funded.
- hnick 6y agoAnd the ABC/SBS will not benefit from payments if this goes through. Nor will independents. Only the largest for-profit companies will. The gap ever widens. I guess the level of science and technological literacy in our government here proves we are truly a representative democracy.
- ryan-allen 6y agoWould that mean that ABC/SBS news would feature on FB/Google and the large companies would not?
- 6y ago
- rhema 6y agoThis may not kill the large newspapers, but surely it will destroy the local newspapers. When does a tech blog become news? Can you even share anything on the internet through Facebook?
- kvn_95 6y ago>Instead, we are left with a choice of either removing news entirely or accepting a system that lets publishers charge us for as much content as they want at a price with no clear limits. Tbh I think FB's comment here is too binary. It seems to me they're implying that news needs to either be free, or they will get charged "unlimited amount". I'm sure other industries have faced a similar issue (e.g. music?) and have implemented a workable solution that benefits both parties (the aggregators and the creators).
- stephen_g 6y agoHow exactly are Facebook and Google 'using' news content though? What we're talking about here is a link - a headline, maybe a sentence or two and a thumbnail image... The people pushing this bill are trying to make similar comparisons as you, to things like music, but there's no sense in which Google or Facebook are using news content in the way Spotify uses music content, for instance. If you look at the bill, bits of it are actually fairly carefully designed to work around the inconvenient truth that they aren't really directly profiting, and it actually makes other things (like whether the amount the publishers are asking for would be too damaging to Google/Facebook's finances) as big a consideration (or more!) than what the actual benefit Google/Facebook are getting!
- kmeisthax 6y agoWhether or not Google or Facebook directly profit from the use of news content isn't, and arguably shouldn't, be a consideration as to if they should be required to pay or not. This is copyright logic we're working with here: the harm isn't that Google or Facebook found gold in someone else's sandbox, it's that they were digging there at all. We create the law specifically to make money move from one pocket to another, not to satisfy an underlying concept of justice. The thing is, if this was just a new related right, like the EU Copyright Directive, we'd see the market play out as usual. News corporations would realize that Google and Facebook actually are paying them in valuable exposure, and sign away their aggregation rights for free or little cost to the aggregators. Australia appears to be trying to do an end run around that by taking away as many negotiating options from Google as possible. Effectively, there's one massive news collection society and anyone who carries news at all, regardless of who it's from, has to play ball with them. They also are legally required to get what is effectively most-favored-nation status. This is such an oddball way of doing things that I see this either crashing and burning so hard that the courts have to bail out Australian Parliament, or it works perfectly, becomes the new model regime for funding news, and winds up in the next set of WTO treaties (whenever those come around).
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- xupybd 6y agoWhy are we getting hot by this in New Zealand? Last I checked we were autonomous from Australia and our only legal connections are treaties and the crown.
- jordanthoms 6y agoI don't see any indication we would be affected in there? Aside from that the author is also MD for New Zealand...
- traek 6y agoWhere are you reading that this affects New Zealand?
- xupybd 6y agoThank you. I see what I did. I read the job title and confused things.
- Barrin92 6y agoI haven't followed this debate too closely but this seems pretty disingenuous. >The ACCC presumes that Facebook benefits most in its relationship with publishers, when in fact the reverse is true. News represents a fraction of what people see in their News Feed and is not a significant source of revenue for us News may not directly contribute much ad revenue but it surely is a huge driver of engagement on the website, which in turn indirectly keeps people engaged with the facebook ecosystem at large. Political commentary involving news pieces certainly seems to be a feature on Facebook's most popular pages. Also I haven't figured out yet what part of the law actually would imply that Facebook needs to blackout news wholesale. As I read it the law merely requires that Facebook negotiate with each publisher.
- valleyjo 6y agoFacebook can remove news and it will minimally effect engagement. I wonder what happens to the publishers when they lose 2.3BN clicks.
- Barrin92 6y agoWhich would indirectly prove the point of the legislation right? That Facebook has immense market power in the social media / ad space with no competitor in sight, which would mean expanding bargaining power for news orgs is legitimate. Because switching to a competitor would actually be the answer to your question in a functioning market.
- Permit 6y ago> Because switching to a competitor would actually be the answer to your question in a functioning market. What do you mean by "switching to a competitor"? Me posting an article on Facebook does not create a business relationship between Facebook and CNN.
- joshuamorton 6y agoNo, because the argument being made is that facebook is paying the news orgs less than they're owed. But the reality is that facebook is providing a free service to the news sites. You normally have to pay someone for advertising. Facebook (and Google) give it away for free.
- valleyjo 6y agoI don’t like FB as a company. However I have to admit, they are correct that news organizations benefit the most from this relationship. Why doesn’t google do the same thing? Don’t index news sites. Googles response seemed less effective than FB’s.
- waheoo 6y agoGoogle is a monopoly. Facebook is not. If google pushes their weight around they get targeted for anti competitive behavior.
- not2b 6y agoThey can avoid such issues by simply leaving the Australian market; a non-participant in a market clearly isn't monopolizing it. It just isn't that much money they would be giving up, and if the government tries to force them to operate at a loss it is no money at all.
- waheoo 6y agoThey're not going to pull out of Australia. The market share of English speaking countries is more important. And the loss of revenue from Australia is higher than the cost of paying up. Why do you think they're behaving in the way they are? If they could drop them they would.
- BLKNSLVR 6y agoGoogle is a monopoly for what service? I don't use Google (directly) for search. I use Google for some email accounts and other providers for other email accounts. I use Firefox instead of Chrome. I use Android, mainly because it's far more open than ios, and it's possible to use a de-Googled Android (although the useful-ness is reduced). None of the above is related to news, however, which is what this particular discussion is centred around. I don't go anywhere near Google for news. I know Australia's media websites, and I use them directly, and attempt to focus on the more independent ones because they're less likely to be unduly influenced. If you think Google is a monopoly, then how is Facebook not? Either in direct relation to this discussion of News or in relation to the greater internet?
- catmanjan 6y agoAs an Australian I have no doubt the policy is misguided, but the fact that these American companies are being so loud about it makes me wonder if the government is actually on the right track. In general I would say whatever corporations want is not in my best interest, so whatever they don't want, might be.
- threeseed 6y agoIt's because of the precedent effect. Countries very much look to each other for policy guidance because nothing is better than having facts on the ground in deciding whether a policy works or not. We've seen it especially recently with COVID-19 responses. Facebook/Google need to make sure that policies like this aren't enacted because whilst Australia is tiny, the US and the EU aren't and will adopt a similar policy if it works. And then suddenly it snowballs into something you can't stop.
- darkwizard42 6y agoThat feels like a pretty bad take on how to review changes. You might get better mileage by looking at the context each time. In this case its pretty clear that the Australian goverment is acting on behalf of specific vested news companies and NOT for the consumer... It seems dangerous to have this kind of government-on-the-right-track reaction when the corporation cheering it on is in the business of fossil fuels, factory farming, or opiod manufacturing just because a different corporation yells loudly about it.
- catmanjan 6y agoFair enough, I simply don't trust any corporation to act in my interest - if there was a trusted third party lobbying for FB/Google's position I may have another look Of course I would like to see the government go further and upset News Corp as well, but upsetting these two seems like a good first step
- yibg 6y agoFB doesn't have to have your best interests in mind for their actions to make sense. You also don't need to trust them to agree or disagree with them.
- neximo64 6y agoBut not Whatsapp so no biggie.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- julienb_sea 6y agoAs far as I can tell Facebook makes a good point. The Aus government designed heavy-handed regulation which clearly plays favorites and is totally one-sided. This is not behavior that we should tolerate. I absolutely support Facebook standing up for themselves here.
- gonzo41 6y agoIf Facebook really wanted to fight the government it could unleash it's democracy crippling social network to hurt this toxic government we have here in Aus. Wink wink Zuck. But seriously this is just regulatory capture from News Ltd. Our Government works for them. Corruption is becoming a real and visible problem in Australia these days.
- hcnews 6y agoWhy does the title say "An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia" rather than "Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia"? For me (2) is much more readable.
- goodside 6y ago“An update about...” implies the reader is unlikely to care unless already following the story. If they wanted to reach normal users there would be A/B-tested headlines, pastel illustrations, and bolded reassurances that your Facebook isn’t going away.
- netsharc 6y agoSmells like PR-speak to me.
- chrismsimpson 6y agoI am no fan of this right wing government, which is letting Fake News Corp write it’s media policy, but Facebook does not have an inherent right to other people’s content. Rather than redistributing ad dollars away from big tech, this is likely to force people consuming news to go directly to the source. Either that or it will further dumb down our discourse (though Fake News Corp is doing a pretty good job of that anyway). Time will tell.
- Polylactic_acid 6y agoFacebook is not taking anyones content. News companies willingly submit their content to facebook and now demand that facebook should pay for the stuff they submitted. So facebook is taking the logical step by stopping them from submitting the content. I can't walk up to someone and hand them the keys to my car and then demand that they now owe me the value of the car.
- tempestn 6y agoThey're not even submitting their content; they're submitting links to their content. Readers still need to go to the publishers' pages to read the articles.
- chrismsimpson 6y agoThis isn't even true when you consider news articles that are cached by Google's Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP).
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoThe publisher controls whether AMP is used. If they don't want to use it they can stop publishing it.
- chrismsimpson 6y agoThis is exactly what Facebook are doing (as evidenced by Facebook stating they'll block this feature for Australian users if the proposed law goes ahead). A third party generates the content then Facebook's user base shares it within their network. Any advertising revenue generated in the meantime is pocketed solely by Facebook. My point still stands. The state of online advertising as of 2020 is such that there are essentially two vast monopolies (Facebook and Google) and you can't advertise anything online without going through one of their systems. In addition, they generate essentially no valuable content themselves (I emphasis content here, I'm not suggesting they provide no value whatsoever). For a bit of context here, the Australian Broadcast Corporation (ABC) is arguably Australia's most respected media organisation but as it's publicly funded it generates no advertising revenue itself directly and takes no donations. It also has been hit hard by austerity from this same right wing government in recent years. To suggest we do nothing and continue to let any revenue generated be vacuumed up by the big tech giants is unacceptable.
- kevyin 6y agoNevermind the reasoning If the result is no more/fewer news on FB, doesn't that mean it will be a more difficult platform for political parties and Rupert Murdoch's of the world to manipulate?
- MattGaiser 6y agoIt will probably hurt independents a lot more though. So while they may lose the most views, they might grow their market share.
- anon84598 6y agoMurdoch already has his news distribution systems in place in Australia -- the less other outlets can gain visibility the better as far as he is concerned
- gizmonty 6y agoNews Corp is losing money across almost all of its Australian properties. The government keeps finding ways to prop them up under the guise of subsidies for local sports coverage because News Corp provides them with such favourable coverage. It’s blatant corruption.
- notbutreally 6y agoHow much do we have to pay Facebook to do this in the US?
- wnbc 6y agoIf you are like me and wondering what the legislation draft is, please see https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/news-media-bargaining-code https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/news-m... Some of articles discussing this topic do not provide a link to the the draft legislation source.
- paxys 6y agoRegardless of politics, media and big tech dynamics, anyone who thinks that sharing links can or should be charged for just doesn't understand the fundamental nature of the internet.
- harry8 6y ago2 Points: Underscoring that facebook is not now, nor was it ever a good source of news is a very good thing. Don't get your news from facebook. Don't get it via facebook. Anything on facebook that isn't actually personal is tainted and horrible to be treated with extreme suspicion. Facebook have earned that reputation and deserve it. People going elsewhere on the internet than facebook to get news will reduce facebook engagment, use and get people in the habit of not going to facebook first. Bring it on. Facebook are horrific. The less they do the better. Especially given they apparently won't do anything about being used for violent organisation. About the only organisation guaranteed to be more wrong than the Australian Government about literally everyting is Facebook. [1] https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/8/28/21406022/facebook-banned-violent-militia-groups-kenosha-protests-jacob-blake-shooting-kyle-rittenhouse https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/8/28/21406022/facebook-banne... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/technology/myanmar-facebo...
- jedberg 6y agoI get lots of news from Facebook. My friends who I trust post articles that they've read. It's a perfectly fine source of news if your friends are the kind of people who actually think critically and read the articles. If the news you get from Facebook is suspect, it's your friends that are the problem, not Facebook.
- harry8 6y agoyou get that news from your friends that facebook algorithms deign to show you. They have algorithms to influence. They have said so. They were trying to manipulate people's mood with it for "research" This isn't contraversial. It's a garbage source of news because of that filter. Even if your friends are lovely, wise, empathetic, intelligent and critically minded and their editorial selection is beyond reproach - that isn't what you get.
- smcleod 6y agoSomewhat related, from Daring Fireball's clipping of https://themargins.substack.com/p/facebook-the-pr-firm https://themargins.substack.com/p/facebook-the-pr-firm: > So, in that way, I read Facebook less as a tech company, but instead a communications one. Not a telecom communications, but more like a PR / marketing consultancy. There’s nothing original about Facebook. It’s a company that hires people to build others’ ideas, and, more often than not, it does that better and faster than them too. And when it can’t do that, it just buys them outright. There is a lot of building, but the ideas are outsourced. But what Facebook is really good at is actually doing all this while fighting what seems to be a never-ending, at least since 2016 or so, PR battle while not giving an inch. > With all the negative press around, you might think they are not doing a good job at avoiding criticism, but consider the alternative that they’ve been able to weather all this because they’ve been able to deflect the criticism and avoid scrutiny and accountability. I know this all sounds pretty unhinged right now, but, stay with me. This is a company who hires conservative politicians to its highest ranks in multiple countries, while maintaining a veneer of political neutrality. The same company pretends its not the arbiter of truth while employing tens of thousands of people to do exactly that. Ask yourselves: What has changed at Facebook?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- arthens 6y agoA week ago back some friends and I looked at the draft of the law... it's honestly terrifying. They basically want Google/fb/? to be upfront with all changes. The goal is clearly to give aussie media outlet an unfair advantage and let them use this information to manipulate the ranking algorithm and/or bypass whatever restrictions are put in place. These info need to be "in terms that are readily comprehensible". IANAL, but here's a few (reformatted) articles from the draft: 52M: Google/fb/? will need to give aussie media companies access to: - a list and explanation of the data that the digital platform service collects (whether or not it shares the data with the registered news business) about the registered news business’ users through their engagement with covered news content made available by the digital platform service; - a list and explanation of the data that the digital platform service currently has a practice of making available to registered news businesses; My interpretation: these companies will be required by law to share more user data than they currently do. 52N: - if: changes are planned to be made to an algorithm of the digital platform service; and the changes are likely to have a significant effect on the ranking of the registered news business’ covered news content made available by the digital platform service. - then: notice of the change is given to the registered news business corporation for the registered news business at least 28 days before the change is made My interpretation: The government wants aussie media companies to be able to be proactive and change their site/service so that ranking changes are minimised 52O: - if: the changes are specifically designed to have an effect on the ranking or display of content behind a paywall. - then: notice of the change is given to the registered news business corporation for the registered news business; and the notice is given at least 28 days before the change is made; My interpretation: media companies don't like when Google penalises paywalls. This will give them a 28 day window to change how they do paywall so that Google won't be able to detect it. Like a whack a mole where you have to announce what you are about to hit and this keeps going: - 52P: 28 days notice for changes to how news items are displayed - 52Q: 28 days notice for changes to advertising (if it affects news) - 52S: media outlet must be able to moderate comments on their items (does that include comments on shared items? surely not?) Draft: https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill%20-%20TREASURY%20LAWS%20AMENDENT%20%28NEWS%20MEDIA%20AND%20DIGITAL%20PLATFORMS%20MANDATORY%20BARGAINING%20CODE%29%20BILL%202020.pdf https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill...
- 6y ago
- Wolfenstein98k 6y agoAustralian here... Not sure who to trust on this.
- ropable 6y agoWithout reading the legislation in detail, I have to say that I'm inclined to just take the side of whoever News Corp is upset at.
- judge2020 6y agoIf you change your mind, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24337359 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24337359
- throwaway13337 6y agoSocial media sharing helps accelerate the sensationalism of news. Which in turn has been creating very bad situations in our reality. Without social sharing of news, maybe it would be more tame. The quality of discussions on those platforms would also very likely benefit. Hopefully other laws are passed with similar responses from tech companies in other countries. It would be a great sort of reverse-monkey-paw fate. The world could certainly use some good luck right now.
- ryan-allen 6y agoI'm no fan of the Murdoch media and the damage it has done to Australia in terms of our internet infrastructure, but if Facebook are to block news media from their platform it will not affect me in the slightest, I don't trust _any_ of them to provide me the correct information. I don't trust Facebook to serve me news, and I don't go there for news, and I don't think anyone should go to Facebook (or Google) for news. I don't think Australians have a lot to lose from any big tech company blocking all news media on their platforms, and if they do so as a result of this legislation, and if it furthers the bleeding of these conglomerates, it sounds like a win/win situation. There are probably negative follow on effects I'm not considering, though.
- brokenmachine 6y agoI agree with your assessment.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- chris_wot 6y agoWhat I find funny about this reaction is that most Australians are actually either quite blase about this situation, or actually are quietly enjoying the fact that massive multinationals who will do anything to avoid paying taxes in Australia have finally discovered that their power is quite limited in Australia. Most Australians have seen what Facebook was up to during the 2016 election. They have seen the rise of Trumpism and, despite the incredibly conservative government, don't want that sort of crazy in their nation.
- brokenmachine 6y agoI'm Australian and I see this law as confirmation of dementia in the government. This is all kinds of unrealistic. Having to notify Murdoch of any changes to search algorithm 28 days in advance? I wonder if that is even possible - it's probably a magic ML algorithm that they tweak here and there. I can't imagine that google/facebook would continue linking to news under these conditions. The small return is not worth the cost.
- grecy 6y agoIt really does feel like Murdoch has reached Bond villain status with this one. He's has made the Australian government write a law that specifically and only targets two multi-billion dollar global companies (Facebook and Google) and forces them to give him more money. It specifically isn't going after other online companies that don't have a huge net worth, and it specifically isn't even attempting to hide the intent by also giving money to the not-for-profit news outlets in Australia (ABC, SBS). Because he controls the very vast majority of media in Australia he can obviously force the government to do his bidding - one by ensuring all his government buddies stay rich, and two by promising not to publish anything that would result in them getting voted out. A fiction writer couldn't come up with such an outrageous idea. As an Aussie, I can confidently say Australia has utterly lost the plot, and I applaud Facebook for standing up to them. I sincerely hope Google follow suit, and they both refuse to come back even if the legislation is scrapped. I hope News Corp. dies a rapid death without the 2.3B clicks
- jb775 6y agoThis is a good thing. Media content quality has primarily been garbage the past 10+ years (and getting progressively worse), mostly due to the advertisement click-bait business model forced on them in order to survive. Social media kind of naturally fell into position to reap the benefits...they shouldn't be the gatekeeper to news without paying a fair price.
- justsee 6y agoThis is the right move by Facebook (and Google) in the face of naked crony capitalism. It's an effort by the Morrison government to engage in rent-seeking on behalf of Rupert Murdoch's News (which essentially operates as the communications arm of Morrison's government), Nine (which held a fundraiser after the last national election for Morrison) and other media groups. Yes, there are many valid criticisms of and concerns we should have with tech giants, but this proposed code doesn't deal with any of those concerns. Australia's former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who has stepped up his war against Murdoch's influence on Australian Democracy in recent years, was incredibly perceptive and scathing of this proposed code recently [1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiFTT_QgqIc&feature=youtu.be&t=351 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiFTT_QgqIc&feature=youtu.be...