7 ms·

"Lawmakers around the world have pushed Meta to compensate publishers for the stories that appear on the social network." Can somebody fill me in on what this m

by artninja1988 3y ago

"Lawmakers around the world have pushed Meta to compensate publishers for the stories that appear on the social network." Can somebody fill me in on what this means? Publishers want to get paid for people on facebook reposting their news stories? Or is it the embedding info you get from links?

granzymes 3y ago
Yes, see the laws in Canada and Australia. Meta actually now completely blocks all news links in Canada because if users posts them (or the news sites post them themselves) they would be obligated to pay for those links.
- artninja1988 3y ago
  Does that makes sense to anyone? I would assume they would be happy that someone posts a link to their article and drives traffic...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Kluggy 3y ago
    The claim is it doesn’t drive traffic. People read the embedded snippet or what the person said it says and doesn’t follow to the site. I have no idea how true that is though.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - Smoosh 3y ago
    It makes sense in Australia as NewsCorp (and to a lesser extent, the other trad media companies) has much influence over public opinion via TV and newspapers, so political parties are beholden to it, and thus the legislation to force internet companies to pay news sources. See also https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/01/10/rupert-murdoch-nbn-kevin-rudd https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/01/10/rupe...
    - incompatible 3y ago
      News Corp typically supports the National/Liberal coalition in Australia. But Labor ministers have "quickly slammed said the decision, stating it “represents a dereliction of its commitment to the sustainability of Australian news media”." https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/01/facebook-news-tab-shut-down-end-australia-journalism-funding-deals https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/01/faceb... Edit: the article has apparently been edited and the specific quote has vanished, but there is more along the same lines.
      - sundvor 3y ago
        From TLA: "Australian news publishers deserve fair compensation for the content they provide." I don't think this person quite understands that if Meta blocks all news, there's no "providing" at all! So it's fair enough that Meta makes this move. People might even venture outside the Facebook bubble, which would be a net positive.
      - latency-guy2 3y ago
        Just so everyone reads this correctly, ministers are -slammed- being very pissy and throwing a tantrum towards Meta, not the law, in fact they're tripling down on it. The piss poor words of "Rod Sims" demonstrates it all in that article. Glad Meta is leaving, maybe news publishers can demonstrate their value to the people to naturally bring them to their platform. I doubt it though. They want all the eyes to look at them and will pay Meta + Google top dollar for it, but then demand they get paid back for a bad bet, then get in bed with the government to enforce their terms. Sickening. All the more reason to never visit, turn ad-block on to its most aggressive if I ever am forced to interact with these news sites.
    - thr0waway302 3y ago
      This is a really bad look that media companies in Australia have so much lobbying power that they can introduce nonsense laws like this.
  - chrisfosterelli 3y ago
    As best as I can tell it only makes sense to the Canadian media lobbyists who found an angle to blame "big tech" for their sagging print revenues.
    - readthenotes1 3y ago
      Wasn't there some calamity in Canada not too long ago where they were begging Facebook to show the news?
      - chrisfosterelli 3y ago
        Yes, you may be thinking of last year's wildfires where some politicians where blasting meta for blocking Canadian news during the fires. Of course, this didn't mean they were repealing the law and they still expected Meta to pay whatever rate per link the media orgs wanted for the privilege.
  - chubs 3y ago
    I know i rarely read the articles, i just read the headlines and the small amount of blurb accompanying it. Perhaps a lot of people are like me, and the newspapers are supplying the headlines/blurbs/image and not even getting a clickthrough, and then people don't feel the need to visit the news sites to get 'up to date'. Perhaps that's why they feel they're missing out.
  - raffraffraff 3y ago
    In a world driven by advertising revenue, they would be happier if you visit their cesspit ad-filled website than if you converted the news into a headline, image and article summary. I guess significant% of people don't bother clicking on Facebook news links?
- gonzo41 3y ago
  This is really good news. Mostly because it will deprive legacy media of indirect income they leech from facebook. I certainly don't love facebook, but I hate protectionist laws that were written by the media companies in service of the media companies.
  - sirspacey 3y ago
    The only companies worse than social media companies are media companies lol
  - IntelMiner 3y ago
    Actually it's even more insidious than that, at least in Australia Facebook (I refuse to call them Meta) is obligated to pay NewsCorp for articles posted Facebook then writes this off as a tax deduction Meanwhile Facebook pays effectively $0 in tax as-is because of all the various loopholes they exploit As a result the Australian tax payer effectively is paying Newscorp to continue existing
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      If Facebook is avoiding taxes via legal loopholes but aren't taking any kind of government subsidies, is it really as though tax payers are paying Newscorp? No tax dollars are being spent to cover anything, the money is just never being paid by Facebook to the government because the government created carve-outs that let Facebook to reduce their liability. Caveat here, I'm neither a fan of Facebook or tax loop holes. In my opinion tax law should be exceedingly simple and easy to calculate. I don't want to defend Facebook here, but saying the public is paying for this feels like a slight of hand.
      - arrosenberg 3y ago
        Taxes not paid by private entities are, by definition, money out of the public coffer.
        ars 3y ago
vharuck 3y ago
Large discussion about a similar bill in Canada: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36524662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36524662
kirrent 3y ago
Yeah, the publishers want compensation for the headline, photo, and text excerpt that appear on the social network. While these are really small excerpts, the publishers contend that it's sufficient to reduce demand for the article itself from users who'll read the headline and preview, maybe interact, and continue scrolling on the social network. It's not surprising that users will do that to me. We see plenty of people commenting on HN without reading the article, and that's just based on a text only headline.
- bombcar 3y ago
  And these same corporations stop having comments on their own site, and then complain that commentators are using other sites. It all seems so silly to me.
- aussieguy1234 3y ago
  They could just drop their opengraph tags if they don't want their content shared in this way. Of course, a simple link will be much less appealing to click on for most users.
  - kirrent 3y ago
    Much less appealing to even read in the first place. Plus you're also in competition with other publishers who will happily gobble up the impressions you used to take. So even if you're willing to play hardball as a publisher, you don't have any real capacity to coerce the social media company. It's this imbalance in bargaining power that the Australian law at least aims to change (and it's why it's administered by the competition and consumer commission).
    - theamk 3y ago
      Seems like the real problem is "competition with other publishers who will happily gobble up the impressions", and the goal of the law is to reduce such competition? I hate Facebook, but I think laws to reduce competition are pretty stupid and do not benefit public.

granzymes 3y ago

Yes, see the laws in Canada and Australia. Meta actually now completely blocks all news links in Canada because if users posts them (or the news sites post them themselves) they would be obligated to pay for those links.

artninja1988 3y ago
Does that makes sense to anyone? I would assume they would be happy that someone posts a link to their article and drives traffic...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Kluggy 3y ago
  The claim is it doesn’t drive traffic. People read the embedded snippet or what the person said it says and doesn’t follow to the site. I have no idea how true that is though.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- Smoosh 3y ago
  It makes sense in Australia as NewsCorp (and to a lesser extent, the other trad media companies) has much influence over public opinion via TV and newspapers, so political parties are beholden to it, and thus the legislation to force internet companies to pay news sources. See also https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/01/10/rupert-murdoch-nbn-kevin-rudd https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/01/10/rupe...
  - incompatible 3y ago
    News Corp typically supports the National/Liberal coalition in Australia. But Labor ministers have "quickly slammed said the decision, stating it “represents a dereliction of its commitment to the sustainability of Australian news media”." https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/01/facebook-news-tab-shut-down-end-australia-journalism-funding-deals https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/01/faceb... Edit: the article has apparently been edited and the specific quote has vanished, but there is more along the same lines.
    - sundvor 3y ago
      From TLA: "Australian news publishers deserve fair compensation for the content they provide." I don't think this person quite understands that if Meta blocks all news, there's no "providing" at all! So it's fair enough that Meta makes this move. People might even venture outside the Facebook bubble, which would be a net positive.
    - latency-guy2 3y ago
      Just so everyone reads this correctly, ministers are -slammed- being very pissy and throwing a tantrum towards Meta, not the law, in fact they're tripling down on it. The piss poor words of "Rod Sims" demonstrates it all in that article. Glad Meta is leaving, maybe news publishers can demonstrate their value to the people to naturally bring them to their platform. I doubt it though. They want all the eyes to look at them and will pay Meta + Google top dollar for it, but then demand they get paid back for a bad bet, then get in bed with the government to enforce their terms. Sickening. All the more reason to never visit, turn ad-block on to its most aggressive if I ever am forced to interact with these news sites.
  - thr0waway302 3y ago
    This is a really bad look that media companies in Australia have so much lobbying power that they can introduce nonsense laws like this.
- chrisfosterelli 3y ago
  As best as I can tell it only makes sense to the Canadian media lobbyists who found an angle to blame "big tech" for their sagging print revenues.
  - readthenotes1 3y ago
    Wasn't there some calamity in Canada not too long ago where they were begging Facebook to show the news?
    - chrisfosterelli 3y ago
      Yes, you may be thinking of last year's wildfires where some politicians where blasting meta for blocking Canadian news during the fires. Of course, this didn't mean they were repealing the law and they still expected Meta to pay whatever rate per link the media orgs wanted for the privilege.
- chubs 3y ago
  I know i rarely read the articles, i just read the headlines and the small amount of blurb accompanying it. Perhaps a lot of people are like me, and the newspapers are supplying the headlines/blurbs/image and not even getting a clickthrough, and then people don't feel the need to visit the news sites to get 'up to date'. Perhaps that's why they feel they're missing out.
- raffraffraff 3y ago
  In a world driven by advertising revenue, they would be happier if you visit their cesspit ad-filled website than if you converted the news into a headline, image and article summary. I guess significant% of people don't bother clicking on Facebook news links?
gonzo41 3y ago
This is really good news. Mostly because it will deprive legacy media of indirect income they leech from facebook. I certainly don't love facebook, but I hate protectionist laws that were written by the media companies in service of the media companies.
- sirspacey 3y ago
  The only companies worse than social media companies are media companies lol
- IntelMiner 3y ago
  Actually it's even more insidious than that, at least in Australia Facebook (I refuse to call them Meta) is obligated to pay NewsCorp for articles posted Facebook then writes this off as a tax deduction Meanwhile Facebook pays effectively $0 in tax as-is because of all the various loopholes they exploit As a result the Australian tax payer effectively is paying Newscorp to continue existing
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    If Facebook is avoiding taxes via legal loopholes but aren't taking any kind of government subsidies, is it really as though tax payers are paying Newscorp? No tax dollars are being spent to cover anything, the money is just never being paid by Facebook to the government because the government created carve-outs that let Facebook to reduce their liability. Caveat here, I'm neither a fan of Facebook or tax loop holes. In my opinion tax law should be exceedingly simple and easy to calculate. I don't want to defend Facebook here, but saying the public is paying for this feels like a slight of hand.
    - arrosenberg 3y ago
      Taxes not paid by private entities are, by definition, money out of the public coffer.
      - ars 3y ago

vharuck 3y ago

Large discussion about a similar bill in Canada: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36524662 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36524662

kirrent 3y ago

Yeah, the publishers want compensation for the headline, photo, and text excerpt that appear on the social network. While these are really small excerpts, the publishers contend that it's sufficient to reduce demand for the article itself from users who'll read the headline and preview, maybe interact, and continue scrolling on the social network. It's not surprising that users will do that to me. We see plenty of people commenting on HN without reading the article, and that's just based on a text only headline.

bombcar 3y ago
And these same corporations stop having comments on their own site, and then complain that commentators are using other sites. It all seems so silly to me.
aussieguy1234 3y ago
They could just drop their opengraph tags if they don't want their content shared in this way. Of course, a simple link will be much less appealing to click on for most users.
- kirrent 3y ago
  Much less appealing to even read in the first place. Plus you're also in competition with other publishers who will happily gobble up the impressions you used to take. So even if you're willing to play hardball as a publisher, you don't have any real capacity to coerce the social media company. It's this imbalance in bargaining power that the Australian law at least aims to change (and it's why it's administered by the competition and consumer commission).
  - theamk 3y ago
    Seems like the real problem is "competition with other publishers who will happily gobble up the impressions", and the goal of the law is to reduce such competition? I hate Facebook, but I think laws to reduce competition are pretty stupid and do not benefit public.