4 ms·

We already went though this in Australia. It was a negotiating tactic, where they blocked news for a while before reaching a deal to pay news companies. https:

We already went though this in Australia. It was a negotiating tactic, where they blocked news for a while before reaching a deal to pay news companies. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-23/facebook-reverses-news-ban-on-australian-sites-media-code/13173984 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-23/facebook-reverses-new...

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Isn't that what you would expect? Facebook has to pay news companies to allow their users to share news articles, Facebook doesn't want to pay a lot of money for that, so if the news companies say "too much" they just block their users from sharing news articles. If the news companies want Facebook to pay them, they have to specify a price Facebook is willing to pay, and so each party has agency in this decision. Forcing either party to give up their agency seems wrong (like France saying Facebook has to pay and can't just leave the news content sharing market if the price is too high).
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  > ... like France saying Facebook has to pay and can't just leave the news content sharing market if the price is too high Is this a typo? Did the French government really say Facebook CAN'T leave the 'news content sharing market'?
  - harrisoned 3y ago
    i don't know if this is real in France, but here in Brazil, there is a bill trying to do the same thing (hasn't passed yet). Social media would be obligated to pay news outlets, and on the Chapter VII, Article 32, § 6º it says: > "The provider may not promote the removal of journalistic content made available in order to exempt themselves from the obligation referred to in this article, except for the cases provided for in this Law, or by court order specific."
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      "The provider may not promote the removal of journalistic content" might have a different meaning hinging on the word 'promote'. If Facebook simply shuts down the ability to post all external links for the Brazilian site, then that could plausibly fall outside.
grecy 3y ago
They're not "paying news companies", The Australian Government passed a law so they collect money from Facebook and give it directly to Rupert Murdoch. The law, as written, will only ever apply to Facebook, and will only ever result in money going to Murdoch. It's really impressive.
- incompatible 3y ago
  Sounds like the law the Coalition would try to write, but apparently even the ABC is collecting from it, and not just from Facebook. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/26/abc-does-deals-with-google-and-facebook-that-could-see-millions-spent-on-regional-news https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/26/abc-does-deals... Although in that article they are supposedly going to "make new and significant investments in regional services", today it seems they are back to cutting.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

Isn't that what you would expect? Facebook has to pay news companies to allow their users to share news articles, Facebook doesn't want to pay a lot of money for that, so if the news companies say "too much" they just block their users from sharing news articles. If the news companies want Facebook to pay them, they have to specify a price Facebook is willing to pay, and so each party has agency in this decision. Forcing either party to give up their agency seems wrong (like France saying Facebook has to pay and can't just leave the news content sharing market if the price is too high).

MichaelZuo 3y ago
> ... like France saying Facebook has to pay and can't just leave the news content sharing market if the price is too high Is this a typo? Did the French government really say Facebook CAN'T leave the 'news content sharing market'?
- harrisoned 3y ago
  i don't know if this is real in France, but here in Brazil, there is a bill trying to do the same thing (hasn't passed yet). Social media would be obligated to pay news outlets, and on the Chapter VII, Article 32, § 6º it says: > "The provider may not promote the removal of journalistic content made available in order to exempt themselves from the obligation referred to in this article, except for the cases provided for in this Law, or by court order specific."
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    "The provider may not promote the removal of journalistic content" might have a different meaning hinging on the word 'promote'. If Facebook simply shuts down the ability to post all external links for the Brazilian site, then that could plausibly fall outside.

grecy 3y ago

They're not "paying news companies", The Australian Government passed a law so they collect money from Facebook and give it directly to Rupert Murdoch. The law, as written, will only ever apply to Facebook, and will only ever result in money going to Murdoch. It's really impressive.

incompatible 3y ago
Sounds like the law the Coalition would try to write, but apparently even the ABC is collecting from it, and not just from Facebook. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/26/abc-does-deals-with-google-and-facebook-that-could-see-millions-spent-on-regional-news https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/may/26/abc-does-deals... Although in that article they are supposedly going to "make new and significant investments in regional services", today it seems they are back to cutting.