3 ms·

So we're now at a point where Big Tech can overtly strong-arm a nation into changing legislation proposed by their democratically elected government. Facebook

by berndi 6y ago

So we're now at a point where Big Tech can overtly strong-arm a nation into changing legislation proposed by their democratically elected government. Facebook didn't bat an eye before blocking the pages of food banks and emergency service providers in the middle of a pandemic for an entire county, all in service of avoiding a drop in their advertising revenue [1]. That should tell you a lot. You might not like the proposed laws but Facebook's reckless conduct is indefensible. If you compare this to Facebook's history in Myanmar, you will find that they have no issue with subsidising the spread of their platform while it is being used to incite a literal genocide [2]. But they draw the line and take swift action when their profits are endangered. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-australia-news-ban-emergency-services-charities-government-accounts-crossfire-2021-2?r=DE&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-australia-news-ban-... [2] https://www.wired.com/story/how-facebooks-rise-fueled-chaos-and-confusion-in-myanmar/ https://www.wired.com/story/how-facebooks-rise-fueled-chaos-...

johnnyYen 6y ago
"Facebook didn't bat an eye before blocking the pages of food banks and emergency service providers..." No, FB obeyed the law. The legislation of what constitutes a "news organisation" is opaque. The legislation said pay for links or don't show them. FB complied with the law and elected not to show them. I cannot see the problem here - FB obeyed the law.
- berndi 6y ago
  The alternative would have been for FB to clarify what you say is opaque about the legislation. The fact that FB would rather outright ban charities and emergency service providers instead of clarifying the spirit of the law shows you that they are not operating in good faith and will maximize their profits at all societal costs.
gorgoiler 6y ago
Big News used to be the strong men. IT’S THE SUN WOT WON IT https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_The_Sun_Wot_Won_It https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_The_Sun_Wot_Won_It We are merely spectators watching the giants fight it out, ironically, by following news media’s coverage of events.
jsnell 6y ago
I just don't get that viewpoint at all. Removing all news content was one of the two possible outcomes of that law. And the drafters of that law very intentionally made the definition of news content as vague and broad as possible, to maximize the damage and thus minimize the odds of Facebook actually doing it. If you're outraged that "Facebook did this in the middle of a pandemic", why not be at least as outraged at the government for trying to pass such a law "in the middle of a pandemic"? Australia: We're going to draft a law that requires Facebook to do X or Y. Facebook: If those are the options. we're going to do Y. Australia: You're bluffing, you'd never dare to do Y. We're going to pass that law soon, and we're sure you'll do X instead. Facebook: Ok, we'll start doing Y right now. Australia: Outrageous! How dare you try to strongarm a democracy by doing Y.
- berndi 6y ago
  Its more like FB decided to go with the nuclear option, Z, instead of X or Y. This is reminiscent of mob-like extortion tactics, not of good-faith engagement with the legislative process of a democracy. >And the drafters of that law very intentionally made the definition of news content as vague and broad as possible, to maximize the damage and thus minimize the odds of Facebook actually doing it. Did you get that narrative straight from FB's PR department?

by berndi 6y ago

johnnyYen 6y ago

"Facebook didn't bat an eye before blocking the pages of food banks and emergency service providers..." No, FB obeyed the law. The legislation of what constitutes a "news organisation" is opaque. The legislation said pay for links or don't show them. FB complied with the law and elected not to show them. I cannot see the problem here - FB obeyed the law.

berndi 6y ago
The alternative would have been for FB to clarify what you say is opaque about the legislation. The fact that FB would rather outright ban charities and emergency service providers instead of clarifying the spirit of the law shows you that they are not operating in good faith and will maximize their profits at all societal costs.

gorgoiler 6y ago

Big News used to be the strong men. IT’S THE SUN WOT WON IT https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_The_Sun_Wot_Won_It https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_The_Sun_Wot_Won_It We are merely spectators watching the giants fight it out, ironically, by following news media’s coverage of events.

jsnell 6y ago

I just don't get that viewpoint at all. Removing all news content was one of the two possible outcomes of that law. And the drafters of that law very intentionally made the definition of news content as vague and broad as possible, to maximize the damage and thus minimize the odds of Facebook actually doing it. If you're outraged that "Facebook did this in the middle of a pandemic", why not be at least as outraged at the government for trying to pass such a law "in the middle of a pandemic"? Australia: We're going to draft a law that requires Facebook to do X or Y. Facebook: If those are the options. we're going to do Y. Australia: You're bluffing, you'd never dare to do Y. We're going to pass that law soon, and we're sure you'll do X instead. Facebook: Ok, we'll start doing Y right now. Australia: Outrageous! How dare you try to strongarm a democracy by doing Y.

berndi 6y ago
Its more like FB decided to go with the nuclear option, Z, instead of X or Y. This is reminiscent of mob-like extortion tactics, not of good-faith engagement with the legislative process of a democracy. >And the drafters of that law very intentionally made the definition of news content as vague and broad as possible, to maximize the damage and thus minimize the odds of Facebook actually doing it. Did you get that narrative straight from FB's PR department?