6 ms·

I live in Australia and while I'm excited to see less Facebook use, I see a lot of comments saying things like, "good, Facebook monetized an addiction model and

by jjcm 6y ago

I live in Australia and while I'm excited to see less Facebook use, I see a lot of comments saying things like, "good, Facebook monetized an addiction model and this curbs that". While true, the proposed law that has pushed them to do this is incredibly dangerous. The law doesn't just apply to Facebook, it applies to whoever the Treasurer of Australia[0] says it applies to - it isn't metrics/rules based: https://i.imgur.com/7RSqXDJ.png https://i.imgur.com/7RSqXDJ.png This means you as a business owner may wake up one day to find that you are now classified as a designated digital platform corporation and are on the hook to now negotiate contracts with every registered news business corporation, AND provide each of them with the secret sauce behind your ranking algos. The only thing that needs to be done to do this is for the Treasurer to file a decision in the Federal Register of Legislation[1]. It's a shocking amount of overreach, lack of visibility to the process, and a single point of failure in the system. Overall I'm very curious to see how this plays out. Facebook took the nuclear option here, and I highly suspect that news corporations will feel quite a sting from the loss of traffic / platform. I truly feel like Facebook "winning" here and having the law dropped is the lesser of two evils. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasurer_of_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasurer_of_Australia [1] https://www.legislation.gov.au/Browse/Results/ByRegDate/LegislativeInstruments/Asmade/201/0/0/Principal https://www.legislation.gov.au/Browse/Results/ByRegDate/Legi...

catmanjan 6y ago
While that is probably technically true, in reality the Australian government is unlikely to make Australian businesses comply, giving them a competitive advantage - I think this is a protectionist policy, but the right won't admit to that because it goes against their "free market" ideals.
- echevil 6y ago
  Does Australia have businesses in similar model like Facebook? Or are you talking about completely different models?
  - catmanjan 6y ago
    I don't believe we do, but I think the government may be thinking that now would be an excellent opportunity for someone to give it a go (our prime minister has a funny saying "if you have a go, you will get a go")
    - biztos 6y ago
      > if you have a go, you will get a go OT and I do understand the meaning, but as a matter of language isn’t this in the wrong order?
      - sjy 6y ago
        Yes, if you assume that both parts refer to the same “go.” But “have a go” here means something like “work hard and contribute to the economy.” It doesn’t refer to possessing the thing you “get” in exchange, ie. money.
    - jfoster 6y ago
      I haven't read the legislation so I don't know for sure, but from what I understand about it, it might be an even better time to start a news media company. Just by publishing, Google are compelled to negotiate with you on the price to license something that they are being forced to license? I can only imagine that there is or will be some mechanism that allows them off the hook, otherwise it's only a matter of time until they have to leave Australia.
    - incompatible 6y ago
      It would be a big risk, considering defamation laws in Australia, not to mention being at the mercy of the government for your business model. I suppose it has worked in Russia and China though.
- csomar 6y ago
  What's probably going to happen, however, is that small times bloggers will take over the news scene in Facebook. It won't bother me, since major news outlet have become crap already.
bobnamob 6y ago
Fb may have overshot. They've not only blocked news pages but gov pages as well. Most people I know in aus have been getting covid updates purely through government body social media posts. These are now blocked.
- incompatible 6y ago
  I guess these sites aren't news organizations that would be covered by the proposed media law. Facebook is probably just trying to emphasise its point. Likewise, in restricting the availability of non-Australian news sites to users in Australia.
  - nitemice 6y ago
    They're not news organisations covered by the code, but what they publish is news content, according to the code: core news content means content that reports, investigates or explains: a) issues or events that are relevant in engaging Australians in public debate and in informing democratic decision-making; or b) current issues or events of public significance for Australians at a local, regional or national level This just proves how misguidedly sweeping the legislation is. 52A: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r6652_first-reps/toc_pdf/20177b01.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi...
- evad3r 6y ago
  Worth noting that at least major ones like BOM, Queensland Health, Queensland Police and Betoota Advocate were blocked but that has been reverted now.
  - SilverRed 6y ago
    Those pages were probably in the news category.
- g42gregory 6y ago
  >> They've not only blocked news pages but gov pages as well. Couldn't this be a viewed as a criminal act by the Australian government? Could they arrest FB employees in Australia for FB HQ blocking their pages, especially with the vital COVID-19 information?
echevil 6y ago
I'm not familiar with news media consumption in Australia, but I wonder would this push users to news aggregators like "News Break" or "Apple News"?
- jjcm 6y ago
  Potentially, but under this law these are likely to also encounter the same issues that Facebook and Google are facing right now. Facebook and Google are only the first named companies affected by this, though the rules are far reaching. I highly suspect things like Apple News would be next on the block to be classified as a "designated digital platform".
  - sangnoir 6y ago
    I think going after all aggregators would have weakened the government position. The current approach forces Facebook to weigh the likelihood of other orgs getting onto FBs turf, once FB is onboard, the government can go after the others, one at a time. It works better via divide and rule vs having all providers presenting a united front and dropping Australia _en masse_ (which would have a high political cost, vs FB alone which doesn't have a lot of political capital)
- incompatible 6y ago
  Twitter is a big one that doesn't seem to be included at present.
hilbert42 6y ago
"I live in Australia and while I'm excited to see less Facebook use, I see a lot of comments saying things like, "good, Facebook monetized an addiction model and this curbs that". While true, the proposed law that has pushed them to do this is incredibly dangerous." You're absolutely right and I'm also horrified by the implications, and I would be even more so if the circumstances were more normal. The trouble is that Facebook is anything but a normal player and so is Google. These corporations are not normal given that they've usurped normal business practices when both governments and normal ethical businesses weren't looking and they have deliberately and opportunistically profiteered off the backs of millions—billions—of unsuspecting people who haven't a clue what has happened to their data, let alone their privacy! This is NOT a normal situation, as these carpetbagger corporations have essentially declared 'war' on us by raiding our data without permission—and no one believes all that malarkey stuff about EULAs actually authorizing them to do so. Instead, they did do by sleight-of-hand and deceit alone, everyone knows that. This means we've little choice but to respond the best we can and in kind—and that means we have to play as dirty as them. We not only have to grovel in the ethical dirt and mud but also play by their rules or they'll retaliate and 'mincemeat' us—no questions asked. Let's not be fooled: any corporation that can not only rival the two most dreadful corporations in all of history—The Dutch East India Company and the [British] East India Company—in its enormous stock value but also that it make profits even more quickly than they did is more than suspect, for their growth as has far, far exceeded the expectations of any normal lawful business—even the most brilliant of them by orders of magnitude! These companies are either engaged in unethical practices, or they are working in a lawless and unregulated domain, and or it's both of these. I'd contend that it's both. Moreover, Facebook is now threatening us with blackmail, and without compunction they'll play off users as disposable pawns in this dirty war, as we can clearly see here: "In response to Australia’s proposed new Media Bargaining law, Facebook will restrict publishers and people in Australia from sharing or viewing Australian and international news content." It's time we acted, and the Australian Government has taken the first step. I grit my teeth to say it, but it needs our support this time around.
- tomComb 6y ago
  So the law is horrifying, but you really hate these companies so it's OK. Even if I agree with you about these companies isn't this an excess of 'ends justify the means'?
baash05 6y ago
I agree 100% The tech community gives solid and reasoned warnings against the law, and they are ignored. Google warns against the law, and caves. Facebook warns against the law and stands up. I think FB and Google and Twitter are the only companies that can really win this. Facebook didn't back down. Good on them.
- ma2rten 6y ago
  I have not been following this closely, but if I understand correctly google would have to leave australia altogther if they didn't strike deals. It sounds like facebook had the option of just removing news.

by jjcm 6y ago

catmanjan 6y ago

While that is probably technically true, in reality the Australian government is unlikely to make Australian businesses comply, giving them a competitive advantage - I think this is a protectionist policy, but the right won't admit to that because it goes against their "free market" ideals.

echevil 6y ago
Does Australia have businesses in similar model like Facebook? Or are you talking about completely different models?
- catmanjan 6y ago
  I don't believe we do, but I think the government may be thinking that now would be an excellent opportunity for someone to give it a go (our prime minister has a funny saying "if you have a go, you will get a go")
  - biztos 6y ago
    > if you have a go, you will get a go OT and I do understand the meaning, but as a matter of language isn’t this in the wrong order?
    - sjy 6y ago
      Yes, if you assume that both parts refer to the same “go.” But “have a go” here means something like “work hard and contribute to the economy.” It doesn’t refer to possessing the thing you “get” in exchange, ie. money.
  - jfoster 6y ago
    I haven't read the legislation so I don't know for sure, but from what I understand about it, it might be an even better time to start a news media company. Just by publishing, Google are compelled to negotiate with you on the price to license something that they are being forced to license? I can only imagine that there is or will be some mechanism that allows them off the hook, otherwise it's only a matter of time until they have to leave Australia.
  - incompatible 6y ago
    It would be a big risk, considering defamation laws in Australia, not to mention being at the mercy of the government for your business model. I suppose it has worked in Russia and China though.
csomar 6y ago
What's probably going to happen, however, is that small times bloggers will take over the news scene in Facebook. It won't bother me, since major news outlet have become crap already.

bobnamob 6y ago

Fb may have overshot. They've not only blocked news pages but gov pages as well. Most people I know in aus have been getting covid updates purely through government body social media posts. These are now blocked.

incompatible 6y ago
I guess these sites aren't news organizations that would be covered by the proposed media law. Facebook is probably just trying to emphasise its point. Likewise, in restricting the availability of non-Australian news sites to users in Australia.
- nitemice 6y ago
  They're not news organisations covered by the code, but what they publish is news content, according to the code: core news content means content that reports, investigates or explains: a) issues or events that are relevant in engaging Australians in public debate and in informing democratic decision-making; or b) current issues or events of public significance for Australians at a local, regional or national level This just proves how misguidedly sweeping the legislation is. 52A: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r6652_first-reps/toc_pdf/20177b01.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi...
evad3r 6y ago
Worth noting that at least major ones like BOM, Queensland Health, Queensland Police and Betoota Advocate were blocked but that has been reverted now.
- SilverRed 6y ago
  Those pages were probably in the news category.
g42gregory 6y ago
>> They've not only blocked news pages but gov pages as well. Couldn't this be a viewed as a criminal act by the Australian government? Could they arrest FB employees in Australia for FB HQ blocking their pages, especially with the vital COVID-19 information?

echevil 6y ago

I'm not familiar with news media consumption in Australia, but I wonder would this push users to news aggregators like "News Break" or "Apple News"?

jjcm 6y ago
Potentially, but under this law these are likely to also encounter the same issues that Facebook and Google are facing right now. Facebook and Google are only the first named companies affected by this, though the rules are far reaching. I highly suspect things like Apple News would be next on the block to be classified as a "designated digital platform".
- sangnoir 6y ago
  I think going after all aggregators would have weakened the government position. The current approach forces Facebook to weigh the likelihood of other orgs getting onto FBs turf, once FB is onboard, the government can go after the others, one at a time. It works better via divide and rule vs having all providers presenting a united front and dropping Australia _en masse_ (which would have a high political cost, vs FB alone which doesn't have a lot of political capital)
incompatible 6y ago
Twitter is a big one that doesn't seem to be included at present.

hilbert42 6y ago

"I live in Australia and while I'm excited to see less Facebook use, I see a lot of comments saying things like, "good, Facebook monetized an addiction model and this curbs that". While true, the proposed law that has pushed them to do this is incredibly dangerous." You're absolutely right and I'm also horrified by the implications, and I would be even more so if the circumstances were more normal. The trouble is that Facebook is anything but a normal player and so is Google. These corporations are not normal given that they've usurped normal business practices when both governments and normal ethical businesses weren't looking and they have deliberately and opportunistically profiteered off the backs of millions—billions—of unsuspecting people who haven't a clue what has happened to their data, let alone their privacy! This is NOT a normal situation, as these carpetbagger corporations have essentially declared 'war' on us by raiding our data without permission—and no one believes all that malarkey stuff about EULAs actually authorizing them to do so. Instead, they did do by sleight-of-hand and deceit alone, everyone knows that. This means we've little choice but to respond the best we can and in kind—and that means we have to play as dirty as them. We not only have to grovel in the ethical dirt and mud but also play by their rules or they'll retaliate and 'mincemeat' us—no questions asked. Let's not be fooled: any corporation that can not only rival the two most dreadful corporations in all of history—The Dutch East India Company and the [British] East India Company—in its enormous stock value but also that it make profits even more quickly than they did is more than suspect, for their growth as has far, far exceeded the expectations of any normal lawful business—even the most brilliant of them by orders of magnitude! These companies are either engaged in unethical practices, or they are working in a lawless and unregulated domain, and or it's both of these. I'd contend that it's both. Moreover, Facebook is now threatening us with blackmail, and without compunction they'll play off users as disposable pawns in this dirty war, as we can clearly see here: "In response to Australia’s proposed new Media Bargaining law, Facebook will restrict publishers and people in Australia from sharing or viewing Australian and international news content." It's time we acted, and the Australian Government has taken the first step. I grit my teeth to say it, but it needs our support this time around.

tomComb 6y ago
So the law is horrifying, but you really hate these companies so it's OK. Even if I agree with you about these companies isn't this an excess of 'ends justify the means'?

baash05 6y ago

I agree 100% The tech community gives solid and reasoned warnings against the law, and they are ignored. Google warns against the law, and caves. Facebook warns against the law and stands up. I think FB and Google and Twitter are the only companies that can really win this. Facebook didn't back down. Good on them.

ma2rten 6y ago
I have not been following this closely, but if I understand correctly google would have to leave australia altogther if they didn't strike deals. It sounds like facebook had the option of just removing news.