6 ms·

FB: We provide you reach and you get advertising revenue because of it. Why would we pay you for something you benefit from? AU: Because. FB: We'll just stop

FB: We provide you reach and you get advertising revenue because of it. Why would we pay you for something you benefit from? AU: Because. FB: We'll just stop giving you reach... AU: Like to see you try FB: ... AU: Yeah, maybe that doesn't work for us after all. I wonder what would have happened if this had been in the US. I'm guessing that Australia's news content is a nice-to-have, and not (yet) part of their core revenue. Some consumers probably enjoyed having fewer news items appear in their feed. It hurt Facebook a little, but it hurt news providers more.

hestefisk 6y ago
Revenue from news sources is a very small part of FBs revenue base. At least according to the episode of Pivot podcast where Prof Scott Galloway covered that question.
thaumasiotes 6y ago
> Some consumers probably enjoyed having fewer news items appear in their feed. Compare the comment from the other thread on the same topic, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26234376 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26234376 > the only evidence of backlash has been from reports in mass media, we were all loving the new newsless Facebook.
tonyedgecombe 6y ago
I was quite surprised Google backed down, they might be kicking themselves now.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  Someone on the other thread pointed out that search engine users are often specifically seeking news in a way that Facebook users aren't. That makes this an area where competition between search engines matters, even if what link targets want doesn't matter at all. It's entirely possible that Google's internal position was "this is a tax on search engines, and the higher the taxes on search engines are, the better for us".
  - gundmc 6y ago
    But it didn't apply to search engines generally, just Google specifically.
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      Oh? How did Facebook get involved?
      - austhrow743 6y ago
        Google as a search engine specifically. The legislation targeted Google and Facebook.
      - postingawayonhn 6y ago
        It applied initially to Google and Facebook. The Treasurer has the power to apply it to other companies in the future.
    - fatsdomino001 6y ago
      not yet, but you'd be a fool if you thought it's only going to target Google and Facebook.
- rstuart4133 6y ago
  They didn't back down. Back in June 2020, before the draft code was released, Google said they were prepared to share revenue from news.google. But not search. They demonstrated "good faith" by entering into agreements with some news providers, paying them money for news. [0] The AU government then specifically included search in the act's explanatory memorandum. Google then threatened to ban search from Australia. In response to Google threat, the government and Google talked. After the talks, Google withdrew it's threat. The Government claimed Google backed down. Now we read search is excluded. [1] How do you know a politician is lying: his lips are moving. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/business/media/australia-google-pay-for-news.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/business/media/australia-... [1] https://theconversation.com/this-weeks-changes-are-a-win-for-facebook-google-and-the-government-but-what-was-lost-along-the-way-155865 https://theconversation.com/this-weeks-changes-are-a-win-for...
offby37years 6y ago
What percentage of all Australian user engagement is driven by the sharing and discussion of Australian news media content?
mjevans 6y ago
If this happened in the US, then hacker news would suddenly be way more about personal blogs and product announcements and links to only primary sources than it currently is. Depending on the wording of the law, links to relevant stories in the comments might be auto-killed by a filter. I'd see a whole lot less news period. Either the publishers would yield to indexing and aggregation, or the market would outright die.
- batmenace 6y ago
  And to the larger point about there being too much "news content" much of which isn't news at all of course, I would much rather read one good article a week (or insert preferred time period here) than reading 10, but all of them being so light on content that there isn't a takeaway from them anyway.
- indymike 6y ago
  HN would be better without the big media links. Mostly.
2muchcoffeeman 6y ago
I never noticed anything different in my Facebook feed. Granted I’m only on it for specific reasons. But the whole thing was over blown from my perspective. Still got my news from the regular places.
Ensorceled 6y ago
> FB: We provide you reach and you get advertising revenue because of it. Why would we pay you for something you benefit from? Well, the story went into fiction right there ... if FB was actually providing reach and not "reach", nobody would be complaining.
- postingawayonhn 6y ago
  The issue is that nobody wants to pay for news anymore, not that news sites aren't generating enough traffic.
  - Ensorceled 6y ago
    Well, that too. But FB and Google skimming from that shrinking revenue is certainly not helping matters.
ehnto 6y ago
If by AU you mean Murdoch's media companies, then yeah.
colinmhayes 6y ago
You're thinking about it wrong. 1. People have short attention spans 2. Aggregators provide easy access to summaries of news 3. People read the summary on the aggregator and never visit publisher site, let alone subscribe to the publisher. 4. High quality news will cease to exist because no one pays or even looks at it's ads 5. Australian people have good reason to want high quality news to exist without the current tragedy of the commons 6. Therefore news needs to be subsidized by the government 7. What better way to subsidize than by forcing the aggregators that have sucked all the value up to pay publishers?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ahepp 6y ago
  How is the comment you replied to "thinking about it wrong"? It sounds like you simply disagree on the point in question (whether aggregators provide value, or leech it). And it seems like the parent comment makes a bulletproof argument, while you're simply stating "I think it's the other way" If what you're saying is true, the Australian government should have rejoiced at the departure of Facebook. The fact that they went back to the negotiating table suggests otherwise.
  - colinmhayes 6y ago
    Aggregators provide value to consumers and leech it from content creators, I don't see how that is contradictory. They are overall value creators. The OP and most others in this thread are trying to think about this as a consensual business transaction when it's actually just a tax on the externality that is created by the tragedy of the commons that aggregators use.
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  > 3. People read the summary on the aggregator and never visit publisher site, let alone subscribe to the publisher. > 4. High quality news will cease to exist because no one pays or even looks at it's ads If everyone is happy to read just the summary, then why don't news publishers produce only summaries? That would be cheaper for them, and it would also make it unambiguous that Facebook hosting the summary on (or in) their pages would be copyright infringement. I suspect the situation is more complicated than the way you want us to think about it.

hestefisk 6y ago

Revenue from news sources is a very small part of FBs revenue base. At least according to the episode of Pivot podcast where Prof Scott Galloway covered that question.

thaumasiotes 6y ago

> Some consumers probably enjoyed having fewer news items appear in their feed. Compare the comment from the other thread on the same topic, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26234376 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26234376 > the only evidence of backlash has been from reports in mass media, we were all loving the new newsless Facebook.

tonyedgecombe 6y ago

I was quite surprised Google backed down, they might be kicking themselves now.

thaumasiotes 6y ago
Someone on the other thread pointed out that search engine users are often specifically seeking news in a way that Facebook users aren't. That makes this an area where competition between search engines matters, even if what link targets want doesn't matter at all. It's entirely possible that Google's internal position was "this is a tax on search engines, and the higher the taxes on search engines are, the better for us".
- gundmc 6y ago
  But it didn't apply to search engines generally, just Google specifically.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    Oh? How did Facebook get involved?
    - austhrow743 6y ago
      Google as a search engine specifically. The legislation targeted Google and Facebook.
    - postingawayonhn 6y ago
      It applied initially to Google and Facebook. The Treasurer has the power to apply it to other companies in the future.
  - fatsdomino001 6y ago
    not yet, but you'd be a fool if you thought it's only going to target Google and Facebook.
rstuart4133 6y ago
They didn't back down. Back in June 2020, before the draft code was released, Google said they were prepared to share revenue from news.google. But not search. They demonstrated "good faith" by entering into agreements with some news providers, paying them money for news. [0] The AU government then specifically included search in the act's explanatory memorandum. Google then threatened to ban search from Australia. In response to Google threat, the government and Google talked. After the talks, Google withdrew it's threat. The Government claimed Google backed down. Now we read search is excluded. [1] How do you know a politician is lying: his lips are moving. [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/business/media/australia-google-pay-for-news.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/business/media/australia-... [1] https://theconversation.com/this-weeks-changes-are-a-win-for-facebook-google-and-the-government-but-what-was-lost-along-the-way-155865 https://theconversation.com/this-weeks-changes-are-a-win-for...

offby37years 6y ago

What percentage of all Australian user engagement is driven by the sharing and discussion of Australian news media content?

mjevans 6y ago

If this happened in the US, then hacker news would suddenly be way more about personal blogs and product announcements and links to only primary sources than it currently is. Depending on the wording of the law, links to relevant stories in the comments might be auto-killed by a filter. I'd see a whole lot less news period. Either the publishers would yield to indexing and aggregation, or the market would outright die.

batmenace 6y ago
And to the larger point about there being too much "news content" much of which isn't news at all of course, I would much rather read one good article a week (or insert preferred time period here) than reading 10, but all of them being so light on content that there isn't a takeaway from them anyway.
indymike 6y ago
HN would be better without the big media links. Mostly.

2muchcoffeeman 6y ago

I never noticed anything different in my Facebook feed. Granted I’m only on it for specific reasons. But the whole thing was over blown from my perspective. Still got my news from the regular places.

Ensorceled 6y ago

> FB: We provide you reach and you get advertising revenue because of it. Why would we pay you for something you benefit from? Well, the story went into fiction right there ... if FB was actually providing reach and not "reach", nobody would be complaining.

postingawayonhn 6y ago
The issue is that nobody wants to pay for news anymore, not that news sites aren't generating enough traffic.
- Ensorceled 6y ago
  Well, that too. But FB and Google skimming from that shrinking revenue is certainly not helping matters.

ehnto 6y ago

If by AU you mean Murdoch's media companies, then yeah.

colinmhayes 6y ago

You're thinking about it wrong. 1. People have short attention spans 2. Aggregators provide easy access to summaries of news 3. People read the summary on the aggregator and never visit publisher site, let alone subscribe to the publisher. 4. High quality news will cease to exist because no one pays or even looks at it's ads 5. Australian people have good reason to want high quality news to exist without the current tragedy of the commons 6. Therefore news needs to be subsidized by the government 7. What better way to subsidize than by forcing the aggregators that have sucked all the value up to pay publishers?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ahepp 6y ago
How is the comment you replied to "thinking about it wrong"? It sounds like you simply disagree on the point in question (whether aggregators provide value, or leech it). And it seems like the parent comment makes a bulletproof argument, while you're simply stating "I think it's the other way" If what you're saying is true, the Australian government should have rejoiced at the departure of Facebook. The fact that they went back to the negotiating table suggests otherwise.
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  Aggregators provide value to consumers and leech it from content creators, I don't see how that is contradictory. They are overall value creators. The OP and most others in this thread are trying to think about this as a consensual business transaction when it's actually just a tax on the externality that is created by the tragedy of the commons that aggregators use.
dane-pgp 6y ago
> 3. People read the summary on the aggregator and never visit publisher site, let alone subscribe to the publisher. > 4. High quality news will cease to exist because no one pays or even looks at it's ads If everyone is happy to read just the summary, then why don't news publishers produce only summaries? That would be cheaper for them, and it would also make it unambiguous that Facebook hosting the summary on (or in) their pages would be copyright infringement. I suspect the situation is more complicated than the way you want us to think about it.