4 ms·

Reading the article, it seems like facebook is actually the one who has capitulated: > Going forward, the government has clarified we will retain the ability t

Reading the article, it seems like facebook is actually the one who has capitulated: > Going forward, the government has clarified we will retain the ability to decide if news appears on Facebook so that we won’t automatically be subject to a forced negotiation. So they will still pay, only be able to back out if they cant reach a deal. Off course this gives them EXTREME leverage over smaller outlets: “accept our deal or we’ll legally ban you on facebook...”

imperfectcats 6y ago
It was never about pay, it was about all the other conditions. I am sure there is a model that provides some revenue that works for all concerned, but when you demand algorithm updates for a few, it is just plain silly. This is modern political reporting - a binary focus on one single element that ignores the multitude of other things tacked on.
simonh 6y ago
The previous situation was that news outlets could post their own links on facebook, that facebook would have no say in it, and facebook would have to pay for the links. So news organisations could link spam facebook to extract revenue and FB would just have to sit there and take it. This way both sides need to come to an agreement, you know, the way it works in every other free market ever.
rstuart4133 6y ago
The article was written by an organisation who petitioned the pollies to risk their political capital to the organisation some favours. Before this, the act specifically banned a digital platform (ie Google/Facebook) from changing a newspapers ranking based on whether the newspaper forced them to pay, or how much they paid. The act says the arbitrator is forced to accept one of the bargains offered (and no other amount), be it from Facebook or the newspaper, but the considerations in the act heavily biased it towards using the newspaper's offer. So the newspaper was free to drive a pretty hard bargain. Here is what an Associate professor in regulation and governance, UNSW said changed [0]: > the non-discrimination provisions (crafted as an anti-avoidance mechanism) will not be triggered in respect to remuneration amounts or commercial outcomes that arise in the course of usual business practice So, now Facebook can tie the rankings (think: how many newsfeeds will a newspaper link will appear on) to how much the newspaper forced them to pay during bargaining. Still think it was a capitulation? [0] 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...

imperfectcats 6y ago

It was never about pay, it was about all the other conditions. I am sure there is a model that provides some revenue that works for all concerned, but when you demand algorithm updates for a few, it is just plain silly. This is modern political reporting - a binary focus on one single element that ignores the multitude of other things tacked on.

simonh 6y ago

The previous situation was that news outlets could post their own links on facebook, that facebook would have no say in it, and facebook would have to pay for the links. So news organisations could link spam facebook to extract revenue and FB would just have to sit there and take it. This way both sides need to come to an agreement, you know, the way it works in every other free market ever.

rstuart4133 6y ago

The article was written by an organisation who petitioned the pollies to risk their political capital to the organisation some favours. Before this, the act specifically banned a digital platform (ie Google/Facebook) from changing a newspapers ranking based on whether the newspaper forced them to pay, or how much they paid. The act says the arbitrator is forced to accept one of the bargains offered (and no other amount), be it from Facebook or the newspaper, but the considerations in the act heavily biased it towards using the newspaper's offer. So the newspaper was free to drive a pretty hard bargain. Here is what an Associate professor in regulation and governance, UNSW said changed [0]: > the non-discrimination provisions (crafted as an anti-avoidance mechanism) will not be triggered in respect to remuneration amounts or commercial outcomes that arise in the course of usual business practice So, now Facebook can tie the rankings (think: how many newsfeeds will a newspaper link will appear on) to how much the newspaper forced them to pay during bargaining. Still think it was a capitulation? [0] 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...