6 ms·

to clarify for all who only read the headline "Going forward, the government has clarified [Facebook] will retain the ability to decide if news appears on Face

by crowf 6y ago

to clarify for all who only read the headline "Going forward, the government has clarified [Facebook] will retain the ability to decide if news appears on Facebook so that [Facebook] won't automatically be subject to forced negotiation," so it looks like Facebook won in the game of chicken between them and the Australian government.

jonny383 6y ago
Despite the Australian Government's big scary words about not backing down last week. What an embarrassment.
- throwaway69123 6y ago
  Old media saw their traffic stats crater, I think.
  - King-Aaron 6y ago
    I would be interested to know what the net loss in click/ad revenue was over this period
    - stubish 6y ago
      I don't know about revenue, but Chartbeat said a drop in total traffic of 13% https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-media-facebook-traffic-idUSKBN2AJ028 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-media-facebook-...
  - aneemzic 6y ago
    I think more importantly, the government realized how badly Facebook could hurt their influence in the Asia Pacific region. Without Australian news on Facebook, people in nearby developing countries would be getting their international news from from other countries (china).
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      Do the people in nearby developing countries speak English? Or Chinese? Which countries are we talking about? It seems far more likely to me that people in nearby developing countries will get their international news from locals who follow international news for professional reasons, which would be impacted not at all by whether Australian news links can be shown on Facebook.
      - aneemzic 6y ago
        >Do the people in nearby developing countries speak English? In most pacific island, yes. In places like East Timor English it's not uncommon at all, news is also often shared via relatives who live abroad. Do you really think china doesn't have multiple news outlets written in English to promote their power abroad, just look at the South China morning Post. >It seems far more likely to me that people in nearby developing countries will get their international news from locals who follow international news for professional reason I'm confused why you would think that? A lot of these countries have specific phone plans which exclude Facebook data and they like a large amount of people get their news on social media. Here's a few articles on the very subject [0][1] [0]https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-19/pacific-media-warns-facebook-ban-on-australian-news-serious/13167232 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-19/pacific-media-warns-f... [1]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/19/facebooks-australia-ban-threatens-to-leave-pacific-without-key-news-source https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/19/facebooks-aust...
        thaumasiotes 6y ago
        >> It seems far more likely to me that people in nearby developing countries will get their international news from locals who follow international news for professional reasons > I'm confused why you would think that? Simple; it's true everywhere. Most people do not care about international news; they do not ever seek it out.
        aneemzic 6y ago
        Maybe you feel that way because you live in a country with significant independent media and don’t need to rely on international news outlets reporting on news that directly effects you.
  - wutbrodo 6y ago
    There's no way they didn't know that was going to happen, though. I think they probably just miscalculated how the PR reaction would shake out.
- King-Aaron 6y ago
  > What an embarrassment. I expect nothing less of this government.
- SllX 6y ago
  A well fought for and earned humiliation. They went the extra mile.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
fossuser 6y ago
FB was right on the merits here. The news has no leverage, they want to shakedown FB for driving traffic to their own sites? I'm glad FB told them to fuck off. Meanwhile Google decided to pay Murdoch's extortion fee: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56101859 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56101859 Google did the wrong thing.
- clouddrover 6y ago
  > I'm glad FB told them to fuck off. Facebook is negotiating deals with media companies. The Australian government got what they wanted.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    Well we’ll see what the deal ends up being. I hope FB’s offer is nothing. Maybe FB will charge the media for the referral traffic that FB directs to them. That’d be where I’d start negotiations. This isn’t what the Australia government wanted, they just realized that FB not showing news hurts the news more than it hurts FB.
    - clouddrover 6y ago
      > I hope FB’s offer is nothing. That's a futile hope. It won't be nothing. > This isn’t what the Australia government wanted Yes it is. > they just realized that FB not showing news hurts the news more than it hurts FB No. Facebook has realized that they just strengthened the Australian government's resolve to introduce the legislation, that they increased support for the media bargaining code within Australia, and that they gained Australia the support of governments all over the world. Facebook has successfully convinced governments that Facebook is a problem that needs to be solved. It was a massive own goal for Facebook. More governments will introduce similar legislation now.
      - fossuser 6y ago
        I'm not following - the Australia government can introduce this if they want, FB can just block news on their platform (as they did).
ZephyrBlu 6y ago
> so it looks like Facebook won in the game of chicken between them and the Australian government From my understanding of the situation, there was no game. FB didn't give a shit about pulling news from Australia because it was a tiny proportion of their content. The government/politicians were trying to strong arm FB into coughing up with zero leverage. It was insanely stupid. Here's FB's post for context: https://about.fb.com/news/2021/02/changes-to-sharing-and-viewing-news-on-facebook-in-australia/ https://about.fb.com/news/2021/02/changes-to-sharing-and-vie...
- Clewza313 6y ago
  Why did Google blink when FB didn't then?
  - franklampard 6y ago
    Google actively indexes the news sites and offer present them in its search results. But on Facebook the news publishers voluntarily share their stories. That’s the biggest difference in my opinion.
    - sjwright 6y ago
      I don't agree. Explicitly permitting Googlebot to continually scour your site for decades—including letting it through the paywalls—also constitutes voluntary sharing of stories. The distinction is really just a technicality of whether the ongoing relationship is push or pull.
    - alfiedotwtf 6y ago
      A simple robots.txt is all that was needed. But that wasn’t used by News Corp, so that suggests to me that they were just trying to ride on Google’s coat tails
  - nickpp 6y ago
    Cowardness.
  - Aunche 6y ago
jeeeb 6y ago
It’s not clear what this actually means in practice. Most news source I searched are reporting small (but logical) tweaks to the law, to the point that it seems Facebook largely conceded and then put out some face saving PR. In practice the government has achieved their goal of both FB and Google paying for news content. Both have backed down. The total (industry wide) payments seem likely to reach about $200 million AUD. Further the government’s legislation is going to pass with cross-party support. Overall the government probably considers this a resounding success.
- jeeeb 6y ago
  To clarify, by face saving PR I mean that yes of course Facebook can take down its entire news service going forward. That wasn’t really in doubt. What doesn’t seem to be the case is that Facebook can discriminate against content from bargaining code participants (companies that ask for money for content). It seems likely they’ll now follow Google’s path and strike individual deals ahead of the legislation.
- mjgs 6y ago
  I’ve read several reports, they all speak about ‘amendments’ but so far I haven’t found an article that lists what they actually are. It’s weird. They make this huge media circus for several days, then things change and nobody bothers to explain the new info that changed the situation.

by crowf 6y ago

jonny383 6y ago

Despite the Australian Government's big scary words about not backing down last week. What an embarrassment.

throwaway69123 6y ago
Old media saw their traffic stats crater, I think.
- King-Aaron 6y ago
  I would be interested to know what the net loss in click/ad revenue was over this period
  - stubish 6y ago
    I don't know about revenue, but Chartbeat said a drop in total traffic of 13% https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-media-facebook-traffic-idUSKBN2AJ028 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-media-facebook-...
- aneemzic 6y ago
  I think more importantly, the government realized how badly Facebook could hurt their influence in the Asia Pacific region. Without Australian news on Facebook, people in nearby developing countries would be getting their international news from from other countries (china).
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    Do the people in nearby developing countries speak English? Or Chinese? Which countries are we talking about? It seems far more likely to me that people in nearby developing countries will get their international news from locals who follow international news for professional reasons, which would be impacted not at all by whether Australian news links can be shown on Facebook.
    - aneemzic 6y ago
      >Do the people in nearby developing countries speak English? In most pacific island, yes. In places like East Timor English it's not uncommon at all, news is also often shared via relatives who live abroad. Do you really think china doesn't have multiple news outlets written in English to promote their power abroad, just look at the South China morning Post. >It seems far more likely to me that people in nearby developing countries will get their international news from locals who follow international news for professional reason I'm confused why you would think that? A lot of these countries have specific phone plans which exclude Facebook data and they like a large amount of people get their news on social media. Here's a few articles on the very subject [0][1] [0]https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-19/pacific-media-warns-facebook-ban-on-australian-news-serious/13167232 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-19/pacific-media-warns-f... [1]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/19/facebooks-australia-ban-threatens-to-leave-pacific-without-key-news-source https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/19/facebooks-aust...
      - thaumasiotes 6y ago
        >> It seems far more likely to me that people in nearby developing countries will get their international news from locals who follow international news for professional reasons > I'm confused why you would think that? Simple; it's true everywhere. Most people do not care about international news; they do not ever seek it out.
        aneemzic 6y ago
        Maybe you feel that way because you live in a country with significant independent media and don’t need to rely on international news outlets reporting on news that directly effects you.
- wutbrodo 6y ago
  There's no way they didn't know that was going to happen, though. I think they probably just miscalculated how the PR reaction would shake out.
King-Aaron 6y ago
> What an embarrassment. I expect nothing less of this government.
SllX 6y ago
A well fought for and earned humiliation. They went the extra mile.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

fossuser 6y ago

FB was right on the merits here. The news has no leverage, they want to shakedown FB for driving traffic to their own sites? I'm glad FB told them to fuck off. Meanwhile Google decided to pay Murdoch's extortion fee: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56101859 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56101859 Google did the wrong thing.

clouddrover 6y ago
> I'm glad FB told them to fuck off. Facebook is negotiating deals with media companies. The Australian government got what they wanted.
- fossuser 6y ago
  Well we’ll see what the deal ends up being. I hope FB’s offer is nothing. Maybe FB will charge the media for the referral traffic that FB directs to them. That’d be where I’d start negotiations. This isn’t what the Australia government wanted, they just realized that FB not showing news hurts the news more than it hurts FB.
  - clouddrover 6y ago
    > I hope FB’s offer is nothing. That's a futile hope. It won't be nothing. > This isn’t what the Australia government wanted Yes it is. > they just realized that FB not showing news hurts the news more than it hurts FB No. Facebook has realized that they just strengthened the Australian government's resolve to introduce the legislation, that they increased support for the media bargaining code within Australia, and that they gained Australia the support of governments all over the world. Facebook has successfully convinced governments that Facebook is a problem that needs to be solved. It was a massive own goal for Facebook. More governments will introduce similar legislation now.
    - fossuser 6y ago
      I'm not following - the Australia government can introduce this if they want, FB can just block news on their platform (as they did).

ZephyrBlu 6y ago

> so it looks like Facebook won in the game of chicken between them and the Australian government From my understanding of the situation, there was no game. FB didn't give a shit about pulling news from Australia because it was a tiny proportion of their content. The government/politicians were trying to strong arm FB into coughing up with zero leverage. It was insanely stupid. Here's FB's post for context: https://about.fb.com/news/2021/02/changes-to-sharing-and-viewing-news-on-facebook-in-australia/ https://about.fb.com/news/2021/02/changes-to-sharing-and-vie...

Clewza313 6y ago
Why did Google blink when FB didn't then?
- franklampard 6y ago
  Google actively indexes the news sites and offer present them in its search results. But on Facebook the news publishers voluntarily share their stories. That’s the biggest difference in my opinion.
  - sjwright 6y ago
    I don't agree. Explicitly permitting Googlebot to continually scour your site for decades—including letting it through the paywalls—also constitutes voluntary sharing of stories. The distinction is really just a technicality of whether the ongoing relationship is push or pull.
  - alfiedotwtf 6y ago
    A simple robots.txt is all that was needed. But that wasn’t used by News Corp, so that suggests to me that they were just trying to ride on Google’s coat tails
- nickpp 6y ago
  Cowardness.
- Aunche 6y ago

jeeeb 6y ago

It’s not clear what this actually means in practice. Most news source I searched are reporting small (but logical) tweaks to the law, to the point that it seems Facebook largely conceded and then put out some face saving PR. In practice the government has achieved their goal of both FB and Google paying for news content. Both have backed down. The total (industry wide) payments seem likely to reach about $200 million AUD. Further the government’s legislation is going to pass with cross-party support. Overall the government probably considers this a resounding success.

jeeeb 6y ago
To clarify, by face saving PR I mean that yes of course Facebook can take down its entire news service going forward. That wasn’t really in doubt. What doesn’t seem to be the case is that Facebook can discriminate against content from bargaining code participants (companies that ask for money for content). It seems likely they’ll now follow Google’s path and strike individual deals ahead of the legislation.
mjgs 6y ago
I’ve read several reports, they all speak about ‘amendments’ but so far I haven’t found an article that lists what they actually are. It’s weird. They make this huge media circus for several days, then things change and nobody bothers to explain the new info that changed the situation.