4 ms·

Didn't they say the same thing to Australia when they tabled their version of this bill? And then did not Facebook cave? How is this statement at all credible

Didn't they say the same thing to Australia when they tabled their version of this bill? And then did not Facebook cave? How is this statement at all credible in light of this?

zaltekk 4y ago
From the first paragraph: > the experience in Australia was that [Facebook's] removal [of news link sharing] had little impact on user engagement.
- HappySweeney 4y ago
  Serves me right for commenting on the headline alone.
- sourcecodeplz 4y ago
  But it did have a major impact on the traffic of those sites.
  - timbit42 4y ago
    Good or bad?
clouddrover 4y ago
Yes, Facebook restored news content in Australia. Dropping news content was a negotiating tactic: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56165015 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56165015 And Facebook knowingly and grubbily caused extra chaos as part of their effort to get their way: https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-deliberately-caused-havoc-in-australia-to-influence-new-law-whistleblowers-say-11651768302 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-deliberately-caused-ha...
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  > And Facebook knowingly and grubbily caused extra chaos as part of their effort to get their way There is exceptionally little merit to this claim. They blocked links news outlets that would have subjected them to the link tax, and this block wasn't perfect. There was nothing to indicate that blocking sites that wouldn't have incurred the link tax was deliberate.
  - clouddrover 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      Nothing in the article contradicts my comment. Facebook deliberately took down links subject to the link tax, that much is not disputed. The notion that they also deliberately took down links to NOGs, government sites, and other sites not subject to the link tax is not substantiated. Facebook knew false-positives existed, but there's no evidence to suggest that they wouldn't have deployed a perfect filter were it feasible to to do.
  - sourcecodeplz 4y ago
    They also blocked NGOs and some gov agencies people were relying on to get critical alerts. It was a super shady move and some think it was intentional.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      Their filter for blocking sites subject to the link tax caught some NGOs and government agencies, there was zero evidence that this was intentional. "Some think X happened" is a vastly weaker claim. Some think the earth is flat. Some think the 2020 election was stolen.
- tqi 4y ago
  *WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who was a vocal proponent of the bill[1][2] [1] https://www.vox.com/recode/22287971/australia-facebook-news-ban-google-money https://www.vox.com/recode/22287971/australia-facebook-news-... [2] https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/media-bargaining-code-will-entrench-murdoch-dominance-rudd-20210219-p573xn.html https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/media-bargaining-cod...
  - clouddrover 4y ago
    And Facebook was a vocal opponent of the bill, but you're happy to believe them?
    - tqi 4y ago
      You're choosing who to believe based on what, max outrage?
      - clouddrover 4y ago
        You're choosing who to believe based on what, a single source with a direct conflict of interest?
    - xvector 4y ago
      The bill is straightforward and mandates paying for simply linking to a website. It's completely absurd. Facebook was in the right here, if you have any value for an open internet and free flow of information.
  - grecy 4y ago
    For clarity, Murdoch was a proponent of the bill because the bill forced Google and Facebook to pay Murdoch for links. The Australian government literally wrote a bill that forced money to be paid to a media tycoon. Incredible, but true.
    - actually_a_dog 4y ago
      Why is that incredible? It sounds like simple crony capitalism, and we all know that’s alive and well.

Didn't they say the same thing to Australia when they tabled their version of this bill? And then did not Facebook cave? How is this statement at all credible in light of this?

zaltekk 4y ago

From the first paragraph: > the experience in Australia was that [Facebook's] removal [of news link sharing] had little impact on user engagement.

HappySweeney 4y ago
Serves me right for commenting on the headline alone.
sourcecodeplz 4y ago
But it did have a major impact on the traffic of those sites.
- timbit42 4y ago
  Good or bad?

clouddrover 4y ago

Yes, Facebook restored news content in Australia. Dropping news content was a negotiating tactic: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56165015 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56165015 And Facebook knowingly and grubbily caused extra chaos as part of their effort to get their way: https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-deliberately-caused-havoc-in-australia-to-influence-new-law-whistleblowers-say-11651768302 https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-deliberately-caused-ha...

Manuel_D 4y ago
> And Facebook knowingly and grubbily caused extra chaos as part of their effort to get their way There is exceptionally little merit to this claim. They blocked links news outlets that would have subjected them to the link tax, and this block wasn't perfect. There was nothing to indicate that blocking sites that wouldn't have incurred the link tax was deliberate.
- clouddrover 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Nothing in the article contradicts my comment. Facebook deliberately took down links subject to the link tax, that much is not disputed. The notion that they also deliberately took down links to NOGs, government sites, and other sites not subject to the link tax is not substantiated. Facebook knew false-positives existed, but there's no evidence to suggest that they wouldn't have deployed a perfect filter were it feasible to to do.
- sourcecodeplz 4y ago
  They also blocked NGOs and some gov agencies people were relying on to get critical alerts. It was a super shady move and some think it was intentional.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Their filter for blocking sites subject to the link tax caught some NGOs and government agencies, there was zero evidence that this was intentional. "Some think X happened" is a vastly weaker claim. Some think the earth is flat. Some think the 2020 election was stolen.
tqi 4y ago
*WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who was a vocal proponent of the bill[1][2] [1] https://www.vox.com/recode/22287971/australia-facebook-news-ban-google-money https://www.vox.com/recode/22287971/australia-facebook-news-... [2] https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/media-bargaining-code-will-entrench-murdoch-dominance-rudd-20210219-p573xn.html https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/media-bargaining-cod...
- clouddrover 4y ago
  And Facebook was a vocal opponent of the bill, but you're happy to believe them?
  - tqi 4y ago
    You're choosing who to believe based on what, max outrage?
    - clouddrover 4y ago
      You're choosing who to believe based on what, a single source with a direct conflict of interest?
  - xvector 4y ago
    The bill is straightforward and mandates paying for simply linking to a website. It's completely absurd. Facebook was in the right here, if you have any value for an open internet and free flow of information.
- grecy 4y ago
  For clarity, Murdoch was a proponent of the bill because the bill forced Google and Facebook to pay Murdoch for links. The Australian government literally wrote a bill that forced money to be paid to a media tycoon. Incredible, but true.
  - actually_a_dog 4y ago
    Why is that incredible? It sounds like simple crony capitalism, and we all know that’s alive and well.