60 ms·

Yes. It was of no value to them anyway. That's what the legislation is about: preventing platforms with market dominance capturing most of the advertising reven

Yes. It was of no value to them anyway. That's what the legislation is about: preventing platforms with market dominance capturing most of the advertising revenue with no real return to the organizations producing the content.

gambiting 6y ago
Sure, but now no one is getting the advertising revenue. So the domestic news companies are not better off, the best case scenario is that they are exactly as they were, but most likely they are worse off since they simply don't even get the traffic.
- clouddrover 6y ago
  They weren't getting it anyway. Both Google and Facebook represented poor deals for news media and their market power made it impossible to get a better deal. Miraculously, after the Australian government gets involved, Google is now making deals with news media. Facebook will do the same eventually.
MattGaiser 6y ago
I can easily see the outcome being that people simply read less news, or read more international news.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Under these new restrictions, Australians can't read or share even international news on Facebook.
pantsforbirds 6y ago
Facebook showed in their release the monetary value of they provided the news companies. I can't see how you could possible argue they do not provide value to the classic media companies by allowing them to be linked and discussed freely on their feeds.
- shock-value 6y ago
  Is it really any additive value? News companies and consumption certainly existed before social media.
  - rodonn 6y ago
    Any publisher already had the option of blocking their content from being linked on Facebook and Google, they chose not to do so because the traffic they get from F/G was valuable. Ben Thompson has a nice analysis of the situation: https://stratechery.com/2020/australias-news-media-bargaining-code-breaking-down-the-code-australias-fake-news/ https://stratechery.com/2020/australias-news-media-bargainin...
  - baash05 6y ago
    I'd say the only time I ever read SMH is when there's a link in my FB. When mates or groups I'm a part of drop a link in. To be honest, I don't remember the last time I read general news that wasn't in my feed. Apart from a few other aggregators (hackers news included)
- DevKoala 6y ago
  Facebook can say a lot of things, but I bet the publishers also have their own numbers and they are the ones who pushed for this deal.
  - anonymousab 6y ago
    They could have blocked Google and Facebook at any time. They didn't because they know the value is important if not existential. What they want is for Facebook and Google to be forced to list them, but also forced to pay for the privilege. If they failed to craft or pay for legislation to that end, it was nothing more than a mistake.
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      > What they want is for Facebook and Google to be forced to list them, but also forced to pay for the privilege. If they failed to craft or pay for legislation to that end, it was nothing more than a mistake. Such legislation is impossible given that Google/Facebook are not Australian companies. At the end of the day, if the legislation makes their involvement in those countries a net negative for their bottom lines, they can and will take their ball and go home.
sbierwagen 6y ago
>It was of no value to them anyway. We have something of a natural experiment here on how much FB traffic is worth to news sites. We'll learn the results in a year if Australia repeals or maintains the law.
- 2muchcoffeeman 6y ago
  This is probably the only reason why as an Australian resident, I’m not in a rush to get the law changed. I’m not sure how discoverability is going to be effected and that may take a while to see the effects given how locals probably know the locals news sources.
- centimeter 6y ago
  It’s generous of you to assume that laws are passed and repealed based on benefit. We already had a natural experiment, in which Australian publishers were free not to share their content on fb.
  - rjmunro 6y ago
    Except that they weren't free to stop others from doing so.
6nf 6y ago
So then Facebook did us all a favour? Is this what the legislation was meant to do, stop all news on FB?

gambiting 6y ago

Sure, but now no one is getting the advertising revenue. So the domestic news companies are not better off, the best case scenario is that they are exactly as they were, but most likely they are worse off since they simply don't even get the traffic.

clouddrover 6y ago
They weren't getting it anyway. Both Google and Facebook represented poor deals for news media and their market power made it impossible to get a better deal. Miraculously, after the Australian government gets involved, Google is now making deals with news media. Facebook will do the same eventually.

MattGaiser 6y ago

I can easily see the outcome being that people simply read less news, or read more international news.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Under these new restrictions, Australians can't read or share even international news on Facebook.

pantsforbirds 6y ago

Facebook showed in their release the monetary value of they provided the news companies. I can't see how you could possible argue they do not provide value to the classic media companies by allowing them to be linked and discussed freely on their feeds.

shock-value 6y ago
Is it really any additive value? News companies and consumption certainly existed before social media.
- rodonn 6y ago
  Any publisher already had the option of blocking their content from being linked on Facebook and Google, they chose not to do so because the traffic they get from F/G was valuable. Ben Thompson has a nice analysis of the situation: https://stratechery.com/2020/australias-news-media-bargaining-code-breaking-down-the-code-australias-fake-news/ https://stratechery.com/2020/australias-news-media-bargainin...
- baash05 6y ago
  I'd say the only time I ever read SMH is when there's a link in my FB. When mates or groups I'm a part of drop a link in. To be honest, I don't remember the last time I read general news that wasn't in my feed. Apart from a few other aggregators (hackers news included)
DevKoala 6y ago
Facebook can say a lot of things, but I bet the publishers also have their own numbers and they are the ones who pushed for this deal.
- anonymousab 6y ago
  They could have blocked Google and Facebook at any time. They didn't because they know the value is important if not existential. What they want is for Facebook and Google to be forced to list them, but also forced to pay for the privilege. If they failed to craft or pay for legislation to that end, it was nothing more than a mistake.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    > What they want is for Facebook and Google to be forced to list them, but also forced to pay for the privilege. If they failed to craft or pay for legislation to that end, it was nothing more than a mistake. Such legislation is impossible given that Google/Facebook are not Australian companies. At the end of the day, if the legislation makes their involvement in those countries a net negative for their bottom lines, they can and will take their ball and go home.

sbierwagen 6y ago

>It was of no value to them anyway. We have something of a natural experiment here on how much FB traffic is worth to news sites. We'll learn the results in a year if Australia repeals or maintains the law.

2muchcoffeeman 6y ago
This is probably the only reason why as an Australian resident, I’m not in a rush to get the law changed. I’m not sure how discoverability is going to be effected and that may take a while to see the effects given how locals probably know the locals news sources.
centimeter 6y ago
It’s generous of you to assume that laws are passed and repealed based on benefit. We already had a natural experiment, in which Australian publishers were free not to share their content on fb.
- rjmunro 6y ago
  Except that they weren't free to stop others from doing so.

6nf 6y ago

So then Facebook did us all a favour? Is this what the legislation was meant to do, stop all news on FB?