4 ms·

A few months back Facebook announced that they would respond to the draft code becoming law by just not allowing news stories to be shared in Australia: "Assum

A few months back Facebook announced that they would respond to the draft code becoming law by just not allowing news stories to be shared in Australia: "Assuming this draft code becomes law, we will reluctantly stop allowing publishers and people in Australia from sharing local and international news on Facebook and Instagram.” [1] Google has also threatened/promised that it would pull Google Search from Australia if the code passes (though, like FB, it suggested this was a worst-case scenario. [2] As an Aussie ex-pat, I'm fascinated to see what happens if both FB and Google go through with these worst case scenarios. It would make for a different Facebook experience, I imagine, and it would radically change the search market in Oz where Google has around 90% of the market. [3] Personally, I think that it will hurt the media in Oz a lot more than it will hurt FB or Google. People looking for news will find ways to get around the 'Google/FB blackout' just like people in Oz have been finding ways to watch US TV shows and VPN/proxy into foreign Netflix sites for years. Maybe everyone will be back to the bargaining table after the 12 month review with a little more honesty about how much of their traffic comes because of Google and FB, and not how much they believe is lost to them. [1]: https://about.fb.com/news/2020/08/changes-to-facebooks-services-in-australia/ https://about.fb.com/news/2020/08/changes-to-facebooks-servi... [2]: https://mumbrella.com.au/withdrawal-isnt-a-threat-its-a-worst-case-scenario-google-and-facebook-respond-to-senate-committee-queries-668274 https://mumbrella.com.au/withdrawal-isnt-a-threat-its-a-wors... [3]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/220534/googles-share-of-search-market-in-selected-countries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/220534/googles-share-of-...

soco 6y ago
I agree media consume will be affected by the lack of FB stories, and search habits will have to adapt to DDG or more likely to Bing. But why should will affect that dramatically the media? It's not like their websites are taken down or some firewalls will block outside outlets.
Talanes 6y ago
>Personally, I think that it will hurt the media in Oz a lot more than it will hurt FB or Google. People looking for news will find ways to get around the 'Google/FB blackout' One doesn't seem to follow logically from the other. Surely people going around FB/Google and still getting the news would be good for media and bad for FB/Google?
- docdeek 6y ago
  I think they’ll go for news that they can access through an overseas Google portal - instead of going to Google.com.au to get news, they’ll go to another English language portal (.com, .co.uk, .ca) and grab the news there. I guess my thinking is that it is easier for someone to replace Google News Australia with Google News or Google News UK to get a range of stories than it is to go to a (mostly paywalled) local news site. With regards to Facebook, I think that the media companies will miss the traffic from FB/Instagram alot more than FB and Instagram will miss Australian news sources on their Platform.
  - Natfan 6y ago
    You're running on the assumption that a regular person knows what a URL is, or what a ccTLD is. Most people don't know or care, which is why Google's AMP project has never really made waves in mainstream media. People just click on links, they don't go to URLs. Personally, I blame smartphones for this, however I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing. Provided that sites such as Google, Facebook and even HackerNews don't have dynamic content, that is. Why remember a URL when you can just click on a link? On websites that aren't content aggregators (like this one), one can assume that the position of links won't change too much over time. With an aggregation website, however, that simply isn't true. Content on the front page changes over time, which is why noting down URLs or at least bookmarking stuff is important so that one can cite one's sources and re-read articles/information. If one just relies on clicking things on an aggregation website, one can't always be sure that the link you click will be there tomorrow.
aneemzic 6y ago
What I don't understand, is why the government is trying to push through a law and seem ok with a result of the complete removal of access to news from peoples two largest sources. During a pandemic, with continually occurring lockdowns. It's baffling.
- hpoe 6y ago
  You just answered your own question mate

soco 6y ago

I agree media consume will be affected by the lack of FB stories, and search habits will have to adapt to DDG or more likely to Bing. But why should will affect that dramatically the media? It's not like their websites are taken down or some firewalls will block outside outlets.

Talanes 6y ago

>Personally, I think that it will hurt the media in Oz a lot more than it will hurt FB or Google. People looking for news will find ways to get around the 'Google/FB blackout' One doesn't seem to follow logically from the other. Surely people going around FB/Google and still getting the news would be good for media and bad for FB/Google?

docdeek 6y ago
I think they’ll go for news that they can access through an overseas Google portal - instead of going to Google.com.au to get news, they’ll go to another English language portal (.com, .co.uk, .ca) and grab the news there. I guess my thinking is that it is easier for someone to replace Google News Australia with Google News or Google News UK to get a range of stories than it is to go to a (mostly paywalled) local news site. With regards to Facebook, I think that the media companies will miss the traffic from FB/Instagram alot more than FB and Instagram will miss Australian news sources on their Platform.
- Natfan 6y ago
  You're running on the assumption that a regular person knows what a URL is, or what a ccTLD is. Most people don't know or care, which is why Google's AMP project has never really made waves in mainstream media. People just click on links, they don't go to URLs. Personally, I blame smartphones for this, however I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing. Provided that sites such as Google, Facebook and even HackerNews don't have dynamic content, that is. Why remember a URL when you can just click on a link? On websites that aren't content aggregators (like this one), one can assume that the position of links won't change too much over time. With an aggregation website, however, that simply isn't true. Content on the front page changes over time, which is why noting down URLs or at least bookmarking stuff is important so that one can cite one's sources and re-read articles/information. If one just relies on clicking things on an aggregation website, one can't always be sure that the link you click will be there tomorrow.

aneemzic 6y ago

What I don't understand, is why the government is trying to push through a law and seem ok with a result of the complete removal of access to news from peoples two largest sources. During a pandemic, with continually occurring lockdowns. It's baffling.

hpoe 6y ago
You just answered your own question mate