4 ms·

They only don't have to pay for it because the Treasurer doesn't currently require them to. Based on my reading of the law, those are all things that Facebook

They only don't have to pay for it because the Treasurer doesn't currently require them to. Based on my reading of the law, those are all things that Facebook could be forced to pay for. From the code: > core news contentmeans content that > (a)is created by a journalist; and (b) that records, > investigates or explains issues that are of public > significance for Australians; or are relevant in engaging > Australians in public debate and in informing democratic > decision-making; or relate to community and local events. The code doesn't define what constitutes a "journalist" (unless Australia has some kind of pre-existing qualification system for journalists), but I think one could certainly argue that publishing the information in (b) automatically makes you a journalist. Facebook blocked everything the law said they could be charged for, not everything they would currently be charged for. It's a bold move, and I think they failed at communicating that this was meant to demonstrate how broad the law is. Or they were just boasting about how powerful they were, but I tend to think corporations are a little more emotionless than that.

tomhoward 6y ago
Until yesterday, nobody, including staunch critics of the law, had claimed that Facebook/Google may be required to pay when users shared content from sources like the Bureau of Meteorology or indigenous health services. Nobody lobbying for the laws or voting for the incumbent government would have supported the law being written that way. And now that they've backtracked on blocking that kind of content, Facebook doesn't seem to believe it either, or they've realised it was a losing move to block that kind of content without further discussion. A winning move would have been for Facebook to run an information campaign pointing out that the law was written badly and that it could have had unintended consequences. Separately, they could also have said it's not worthwhile to pay when users share commercial news content in their feed, so they would be blocking that. It could easily have been done in a way that people would understand and respect, and would have allowed Facebook to seem reasonable and for the AU government to seem unreasonable. The move they've made instead does seem to have been an emotion-driven, and possibly directed by Zuckerberg himself, as he'd been in direct communications with senior AU government figures shortly before the ban was applied. The move is obviously not designed to protect Facebook commercially/legally in the short term, as the laws haven't even been passed by both houses of parliament yet, let alone come into effect. So it's just intended to make a political point, but making it a very unclear, petulant and counter-productive way. Or, hey, given how much we’re taking about it now, maybe Facebook knew exactly what they were doing.

tomhoward 6y ago

Until yesterday, nobody, including staunch critics of the law, had claimed that Facebook/Google may be required to pay when users shared content from sources like the Bureau of Meteorology or indigenous health services. Nobody lobbying for the laws or voting for the incumbent government would have supported the law being written that way. And now that they've backtracked on blocking that kind of content, Facebook doesn't seem to believe it either, or they've realised it was a losing move to block that kind of content without further discussion. A winning move would have been for Facebook to run an information campaign pointing out that the law was written badly and that it could have had unintended consequences. Separately, they could also have said it's not worthwhile to pay when users share commercial news content in their feed, so they would be blocking that. It could easily have been done in a way that people would understand and respect, and would have allowed Facebook to seem reasonable and for the AU government to seem unreasonable. The move they've made instead does seem to have been an emotion-driven, and possibly directed by Zuckerberg himself, as he'd been in direct communications with senior AU government figures shortly before the ban was applied. The move is obviously not designed to protect Facebook commercially/legally in the short term, as the laws haven't even been passed by both houses of parliament yet, let alone come into effect. So it's just intended to make a political point, but making it a very unclear, petulant and counter-productive way. Or, hey, given how much we’re taking about it now, maybe Facebook knew exactly what they were doing.