Facebook Blocks All News In and From Australia (protocol.com) 129
Facebook said Wednesday that it would no longer allow Australian publishers to share news on Facebook or allow Australian people to view or share international news sources. From a report: The change comes as Australia prepares to pass a law that would require companies like Facebook and Google to pay news publishers to carry their stories. "The proposed law fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between our platform and publishers who use it to share news content. It has left us facing a stark choice: attempt to comply with a law that ignores the realities of this relationship, or stop allowing news content on our services in Australia," Facebook's managing director of Australia and New Zealand, William Easton, wrote in a blog post. "With a heavy heart, we are choosing the latter." Before Facebook's announcement Wednesday, Google and News Corp struck a deal through which Google will pay the company -- which owns The Wall Street Journal, Barron's, MarketWatch and The New York Post -- to feature their stories in Google News Showcase. Facebook addressed the companies' divergent responses in the blog post. "Our platforms have fundamentally different relationships with news. Google Search is inextricably intertwined with news and publishers do not voluntarily provide their content," Easton wrote. "On the other hand, publishers willingly choose to post news on Facebook, as it allows them to sell more subscriptions, grow their audiences and increase advertising revenue." Easton went on to describe the "business gains" of news on Facebook as "minimal," writing that it accounts for 4% of all content on the platform.
Aren't we forgetting someone??? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you a couple words.
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone??? (Score:4, Insightful)
It has left us facing a stark choice: attempt to comply with a law that ignores the realities of this relationship
The "reality" of the relationship is that Facebook wants everything for free.
Good for Facebook (Score:3)
this is the Internet, if something isn't available on Facebook then some place else is only a click away.
Facebook should do even more to encourage people to click away.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Facebook isn't a good site for news anyway.
There are plenty of other news sites. It's the internet.
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone??? (Score:5, Informative)
They don't. The media companies couldn't care less if FB provides a link. Most of the chatter is obtained from people just reading the headline and launching full pelt into a rant. Net effect to the content originator, one page pull, except with advertising stripped, so FB makes its money regardless of whether the content producers themselves actually get funded.
What a content producer is most interested in is someone posting a link that is followed directly to a full page impression, including advert placement, such that the transfer is funded by the advertising stream. Now, if FB did that (blind link, a la Slashdot), then I think they'd view FB more favourably. However, FB does the integration of the news header, which is what most people read and don't bother to go further (yes, it's been studied), so depriving the source of its funding while FB makes the money on the content it direct links to while not triggering an ad placement for the source (while presenting its own ad).
Essentially, this is similar to a copyright problem, that someone produces some content, with the general deal that you read the content, you view an ad, which covers the cost of producing the content, and you get the content for free.
Quite a few use ad-blockers, so they get to use content for free. Not enough do this to drastically affect the financial model.
However, a bulk reproducer that monetizes your content while not paying you for it is a bit of a kick in the nethers. Which is why they're upset about it.
Re: (Score:1)
Well if the majority are just reading the headers, why should any claim be made for the rest of the unread story. See, journalists, especially the crap corporate kind, can just right the headers and not bother with the rest of their corporate propaganda shite.
In a time of catastrophic climate change, should not ads that promote wasteful consumption be banned. Kind of make no sense to keep advertising what is causing the fucking problem but hey, stupid is as stupid does and the majority be stupid so, only to
Re:Aren't we forgetting someone??? (Score:5, Informative)
This is another example of the power News Corp has in Australia. They are so powerful they can force governments to pass legislation that advantages them, which is what has happened here.
Yes, Facebook are terrible too and in an ideal world both Facebook and News Corp would burst into flames.
Scott Morrison owes his job as Prime Minister to News Corp, and he knows it.
Headlines only (Score:2)
> Most of the chatter is obtained from people just reading the headline and launching full pelt into a rant.
Just like Slashdot.
But then again, very few media articles contain any more information than what is in the headline anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook runs ads on other people's news content (Score:3)
No coffee today. What am I missing? (Score:2)
I skipped my coffee today, so I'm not seeing it.
I assume that means Google has a deal with News Corp, which is a big newspaper company that runs the Wall Street Journal, Market Watch, and 142 Australian newspapers through its subsidiary News Corp Australia.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
If it were someone else who posted that I might guess they meant they should should say "those evil bastards at News Corp", but I don't know.
It's probably something obvious and I'm just not seeing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you're suggesting they should have said:
News Corp, a company which owns some newspapers that used to be owned by a different company that now owns Fox News.
???
Nah, I'm probably missing something silly.
Simply put.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hardly. What's the bet that actual reputable news will be blocked and instead the system will be inundated with links to garbage bullshit sites promoting anti-vaxx conspiracy theories.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm, that's the purpose of the law, to add financial headwinds to real news. There is no intended balancing for fake news, or non-news, to prevent it from dominating.
This is what Australia voted for; tariffs on their own access to news.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no intended balancing for fake news, or non-news, to prevent it from dominating.
I didn't say there was. Follow the conversation including the comment I was replying to.
This is what Australia voted for
No it's not. Precisely none of this was even talked about during election. Stop pretending that an incredibly obvious powerful corporate lobbying effort by Murdoch had anything remotely to do with voters, or that any change at the ballot box would prevent Murdoch from running the country.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't sound like Australia's access changed any, just Facebook's.
Though if Facebook is your gatekeeper, your arbiter of truth, I feel your pain. I hope you find treatment somewhere and start on the path to recovery. You don't have to live like that anymore.
Reputable (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I don't do I? Considering I presented it as an opposite to anti-vaxx conspiracy bullshit may I invite you to go get your head examined? Australia has a good medical system and we take care of mental health issues.
Re: (Score:2)
No, NYT, Duh
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.amazon.ca/Archie-M... [amazon.ca]
Glad to see experimentation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Glad to see experimentation (Score:5, Informative)
Australia has new laws that require payment simply for linking to an article. That's what this whole thing is about. News sites are asking to be paid so that FaceBook, Google, and other can simply link to their sites. I really hate FaceBook, but I think that they are in the right on this one.
Re:Glad to see experimentation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If thats not the law that was passed, then perhaps the aggregators are to blame, because there should be some remuneration going on here without the need for a law to enforce it. That the law turned out to be badly written is still on the party that made it necessary to write any law at all.
Re:Glad to see experimentation (Score:5, Informative)
The law has not passed yet. It has the support of both major voting blocs, so it will pass in some form.
Here is the bill before our Parliament: Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2020 [aph.gov.au] (PDF [aph.gov.au]). It is in the usual bunch-o-amendments form but because this a large slab of new content it is mostly self-contained. Most importantly it is not simply related to publishing summaries but also covers basic linking (52B 1(b) of pp. 5), or even providing ranked search results including (52D 1 on pp. 6), of "core news." It places the determination of who this applies to in the hands of an elected Minister.
To my mind this is way too broad and controlled by individuals with skin in the game.
Re:Glad to see experimentation (Score:5, Interesting)
"Australia has new laws that require payment simply for linking to an article. That's what this whole thing is about."
No, that's not what this is about. Why does Australia want this law? It's quite simple; the lawmakers are making it. Why are they making it? Because they want to be reelected. What does one have to do with the other? News Corp owns the media in Australia. Anyone seeking election has to be nice to News Corp (Rupert Murdoch). News Corp wants money from internet companies and so they tell the government to make it so.
He also owns Fox news in the US. Imagine if Fox controlled 75% of US media and Fox wanted a law passed in the US--Do you think they would get what they want?
News Corp is the greater evil in this case, and largely because stupid Australia allowed them a monopoly.
I can't speak for FB, but the Google news I looked at this morning only had headlines from and links to various publications. No articles were published. What's the world coming to if you can't show people headlines?!?!?
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, if Google and Facebook didn't want to have to pay to link to the article, they shouldn't have devoted tons of resources to extracting all the interesting information from the article and displaying it to the user before they clicked the link. They did everything possible to keep people in their ecosystems while scraping information from news sources. I'm sorry if the payback is overreaction, except I'm not.
Re: (Score:2)
Australia has new laws that require payment simply for linking to an article. That's what this whole thing is about.
More deeply I think it's really about the disintegration of reliable independent journalism and news media as a viable business model. It seems a real problem because although most people think that's an important industry to have, nobody's really figured out how to do it well in modern times with so much advertising and subscription revenue having been siphoned away.
There are at least a co
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than "FB is right" my stance is to defend facebook (google &c) taking their ball and going home. This should be the approach to any country using their own traffic for hostage demands, on any number of topics news or otherwise. Don't like my website, piss off, it's my website. If you want to argue my website exists in your country's territory (if so, only because your citizens keep requesting it) I'll generously help you prevent that from happening entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
and index it
I thought they generate no value. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim they are a non-value adding middleman and then list off some very real value they add.
Ask Spanish publishers how much value they think Google adds simply on account of indexing content for Google users. You know, the same Spanish publishers who are lobbying to repeal the law that they originally lobbied for which ultimately caused them to be blocked by Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Middlemen can suck all the value out but they can also add value to both ends.
A store is a middleman just like hundred plus years ago the peddler was a middleman. I don't want to have to deal with twenty separate vendors for my groceries. I don't want to have to contract with a plantation in India to get tea, a rancher in Nebraska for a rib roast, truck farm in Georgia for veggies, and a dairy in New Hampshire and then figure out the transport of all them. A middlemen can facilitate the process increasing o
And Australia became a slightly better place (Score:5, Interesting)
I wish FB would ban all news postings everywhere. In fact, it should ban sharing external links completely. You should only be able to post stuff you create, or share stuff that other FB users have created. Then FB can get back to an innocuous vision of being a place where you keep old friends and relatives up-to-date on what's happening in your life without having to send a million letters or emails.
Re: And Australia became a slightly better place (Score:2)
Nobody is forcing you to participate in the Facebook. Since you find it offensive, simply donâ(TM)t use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever hear of Network Effect? I do comedy as a hobby. If you want to get onto amateur comedy shows, you have to be on Facebook. There is no realistic alternative for getting booked.
This happens in thousands of little ways. My daughter's music teacher had a group for her students where she posted announcements. Facebook is super-useful for these kinds of things; if we could block all the crap, it'd be great.
You can block all the crap (Score:2)
This results in Facebook’s real customers making no money from you whatsoever, wh
Re: (Score:2)
I'm forced into a fb account for "official support" on a few products, or certain event bookings ect. They really found a way to insert themselves into peoples lives. There are enough users enjoying the situation that I simply don't think it's going to change any time soon.
Re: And Australia became a slightly better place (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe shitty facebook should stop tracking people without even an account through 1x1 pixels, and all those facebook sign in buttons. Then you can say they aren't forcing you to participate in shitty facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
As interesting as your complaint is, it has nothing to do with "participating" in Facebook. And at best you're likely to see a slightly different set of ads on the internet... Assuming you don't use an ad blocker. So in essence your comment has zero to do with this comment thread.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
As an Australian and UK citizen, the sooner it happens here the better.
Will stamp out all the fake news because the only places that will publish news will have to stand by their stories.
[Posting as AC because I don't want all the facebook shills ruining my life]
Re: (Score:2)
Will stamp out all the fake news because the only places that will publish news will have to stand by their stories.
Surely fake news will run rampant on Facebook because it can be shared without breaching the law, due to being not actual news.
Meanwhile the facts that could dispel the fake news will not be available, as they've been posted on news sites.
Of course, it'll be interesting to read the Australian law's definition of 'news'. There's a lot of propaganda, intentional misreporting and flat out lying going on across almost all of the media; it could be fun seeing which articles can and can't be shared according to t
Re: (Score:2)
So, should /. also ban all news postings everywhere? If not, why not?
Re: (Score:3)
/. postings are curated by editors. They don't post all the submissions they receive. So the model is completely different from Facebook.
Sure, you can post links in comments, but they don't appear inline like they do in Facebook, and /.'s moderation system is pretty decent.
Re: (Score:2)
/. does post all submissions, click the Firefhose link up the top. /. if you can be bothered.
You can vote up and down stories and the best make it to the main page.
You are a potential editor of
Re: (Score:2)
You should only be able to post stuff you create
What if I want to upload the stuff I create to places other than Facebook but share it with my friends? Do I have your blessing to post a link then? You know things like not have Facebook's video compression destroy the video I created of this week's events, or not have Facebook scan the faces of everyone in the photo I took?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, post the link, but it should appear like this: http s://mysite.example.com/coolthingimade (I had to put the space in because /. linkifies URLs automatically, apparently.)
That will let people get at it, but make them work a bit. :P (It also prevents Facebook from tracking exits by quietly rewriting the URL under the hood.)
Re: (Score:2)
So demote it to not having a preview visible for ... reasons? Are you some kind of hyperlinkist? Hyperlinked content matters!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised Google backed down (Score:3)
Also this is getting kinda close to charging for Hyperlinking. Though I guess with how much info gets put inline in a post it's not quiet that. Nonetheless I don't care much about corporate owned news outlets to begin with. So I can't bring myself to root for either side.
Re: (Score:3)
Depending on the news source, their sites can be paywalled as well..interesting to consider if some news organizations would 'double dip', collecting from FB, and then charging to view the story on their site as well..?
Also wonder if Australia will see a downtick in FB use with this, if users are viewing a fair bit of news on it and won't bother logging in as much. But I guess FB would know this, and that may also be why they're making this decision..
Lots of interesting elements to this.
Re: (Score:2)
If they were double-dipping, is there some reason why it'd be considered unfair? If someone's paying the news outlet directly, then that's up to them in order to be allowed to read content of an article. Part of the logic behind all of this, though, is that social media corps like Facebook are still selling advertising off the back of content produced by others.
That's why a corporation like Facebook typically encourages the spreading of references to media reports amongst all its other content. Even when
You can get most of the information (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is your knife edge and likely a source of never-ending disagreements. Maybe it's something that can be seen more in actual user activity and how the revenue flows. Do Facebook e.g. truly generate significant revenue simply by having headlines, links and an image with very low numbers of click-through? How much revenue? What is that worth per banner item? I guess that what they are trying to get at here hence the term "negotiation", but I just can't see how there will ever be a workable arrangement. Wh
Good an ya mate... but (Score:1)
Good first step but the void could easily be filled with "alternative news and facts" from any number of fine purveyors of crap.
Maybe we need to define the word "News" as a legal term as well.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Good first step but the void could easily be filled with "alternative news and facts" from any number of fine purveyors of crap.
Maybe we need to define the word "News" as a legal term as well.
In history there was something called yellow journalism. News papers were lying, like they are today. In Lincoln's time they lied a lot about him, his wife and all kinds of things and he had a few papers shut down over it. To bring it to today he'd shut down the NY Times and Washington Post for sure. They're liars.
Over the years they've eroded the standards again. They're supposed to do their best, then it kept going down to absolute BS. The "Anonymous source" or "Un-named source." We know there was no sour
Re: (Score:1)
In history there was something called yellow journalism. News papers were lying, like they are today. In Lincoln's time they lied a lot about him, his wife and all kinds of things and he had a few papers shut down over it. To bring it to today he'd shut down the NY Times and Washington Post for sure. They're liars.
And every media outlet owned by News Corp would have been shut down as well.
Re: (Score:2)
https:/// [https] parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r6652_first-reps/toc_pdf/20177b01.pdf;fileType= application%2Fpdf
52A
core news content means content that reports, investigates or explains:
(a) issues or events that are relevant in engaging Australians in public debate and in informing democratic decision-making; or
(b) current issues or events of public significance for Australians at a local, regional or national level.
covered news content means content that is any of the following:
(a) cor
Because... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They can do that only because it is the Anglosphere. There is a hell of a lot of news content from non-Australian sources. As a result they can play hard-ball. They can play that with Spanish (for similar reasons), Russian (you would be surprised how much content is generated outside Russia in places like Israel), etc.
Languages where the majority of the content maps to a single country (f.e. French) - not so much. There they quie
Re: (Score:3)
Wont work. Machine translation is plenty good for most news articles which are generally deliberately written with simple structure, common vocabulary and avoidance of idiom. Most articles are target to a (US) fourth grade reading level.
While the tone might be a little off machine translation between from English language sources to the rest of Western Europe's languages will be perfectly acceptable to most readers when the choice is free vs non-free, and of course many if not most of those eyeballs can re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't think Facebook is going to come out of this looking good. Certainly not in Australia.
Facebook didn't just nuke news publisher pages. It also wiped out Australian government pages, including health agencies, in the middle of a pandemic. If anything, this is clearly demonstrating to the average Facebook-addicted Australian, who previously didn't know and didn't care about any of this, just how much power and influence Facebook has over their daily lives, and also exactly why this is a very ba
Re: (Score:2)
https:/// [https] parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r6652_first-reps/toc_pdf/20177b01.pdf;fileType= application%2Fpdf
52A
core news content means content that reports, investigates or explains:
(a) issues or events that are relevant in engaging Australians in public debate and in informing democratic decision-making; or
(b) current issues or events of public significance for Australians at a local, regional or national level.
covered news content means content that is any of the following:
(a) cor
Re: (Score:2)
... throwing a tantrum like a spoiled brat of a 6-year-old always works.
The problem is - it often DOES work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... throwing a tantrum like a spoiled brat of a 6-year-old always works.
Yep. It always works when you are an all powerful spoiled brat with more coverage than Rupert Murdoch and with very little to lose with your protest.
Wait ... you were serious in thinking a giant monopolistic megacorp wields no power? Strange world you live in.
Good riddance (Score:2)
Corporations vs. Government (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait, thats news, guess Zuk won't get to read it....
He may just find out too late that it would have been cheaper to pay for the news...oh well...
Re: (Score:2)
This is Facebook complying with the law in Australia. The law gives them a choice: pay up, or don't link. They choose "don't link", and that choice is perfectly valid.
Even if it looks a lot like a temper tantrum.
Re: (Score:1)
Hold on. Are you not in favor of regulating big tech? Who are you trying to hold them account to, if not the people? How else do you plan to stop them from (allegedly) suppressing conservatives if not by the same means?
In this case, it's a financial issue - Newscorp saw big tech as a threat to their business - but if you are conservative, these are still your people. Are you arguing against their case?
Re: (Score:2)
Good Riddance to Bad Rubbish (Score:3)
As an Australian who occasionally uses Facebook, I'm happy to say good riddance! I wish Google would do the same.
Their position makes sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
Take the name, and the emotional baggage it carries, out of the equation and consider the implications and fairness:
I want to promote my content on your platform to your audience. But instead of me paying you for the service... basically advertising 101... this new law says that you have to pay me. Not just that, but your platform allows anyone, including me, to post and have that content promoted. If some rando posts a link to my content, they don't pay and I don't pay, you pay. And I can *force* you to pay me... even though we have no established business relationship and you are not getting any reciprocal consideration... by posting my own content either from my own account or from an alternate account I set up for the purpose.
That's absurdly unfair. And I would not blame you, or anyone else, for walking away and blocking me in that situation.
Re:Their position makes sense. (Score:4, Insightful)
I tend to agree with this. It's nuanced, because it's definitely possible for platforms to simply skim news headlines and never have users actually click-through to the complete content. But what really confuses me is that this only seems to apply to news, and in practice it could only ever apply to media organizations big enough to be able to get a seat at the negotiating table. The internet is so much more than just news. There is all kinds of content, and people work to create that content. If Facebook/Google are required to pay to link to news, why not for that other content? Why is only journalists and media organizations that get to dip into the advertising kitty? I'm being rhetorical because of course the answer is that their business model depends on it. News outlets used to have a monopoly on advertising dollars. It was big business and could be very lucrative if you did it right. First radio took some of that away. Then TV took some more. Now search platforms and social media are taking the rest. So these dinosaurs of media have seen their revenue stripped and their business model destroyed and now they are acting like they are somehow entitled to it. I don't agree with that. Yes journalism is important but I don't agree that modern journalism and all of the garbage that it encapsulates is somehow sacrosanct and must be protected at all costs. A puff piece on a celebrity is not more "valuable" if it's done through News Corp vs through a casual blogger, but according to the Australian laws only the big media company would get a piece of the pie.
Re: (Score:2)
And things like realestate.com.au / domain.com.au takes away their advertising dollars. (Coincidentally they are owned by the same newspaper companies)
And nobody noticed (Score:3)
How deluded is FB to think this is a big deal?
And? (Score:1)
So the few remaining conspiracy nuts relying on FB for their news have to look elsewhere for it.
Satire sites also blocked (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The laws have been written to be so vague, that they would also cover sites like the Chaser and Betoota - these Laws are so bad, I'm surprised that google decided to play ball...
I hate FB with a passion - however I do think they have done the right thing...
Re: (Score:2)
But sure, you go right ahead and show us that you'd rather side with big commercial spy agencies than the common people.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if you wish to disbelieve FB and prefer conspiracy theories, sure. FB has publicly stated that the laws are vague and broad as to what is defined as "news", so they are proactively blocking a LOT, and are willing to unblock anything they are told they wont have to pay for. I fail to see any reason not to believe that, especially as the whole "the laws are vague about what constitutes news" has been bandied about quite a bit recently.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Gone too far (Score:5, Interesting)
Facebook has gone nuclear on this, and blocked loads of sites that are not news media.
Satire sites are just the start, Government health departments, the Bureau of Meterology, AFLW, Unions, businesses and even Facebooks own corporate page.
Re: (Score:2)
as we saw with Fox News, you just can't tell satire from "honest" commentary these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Watch the back peddle when the stats start rolling in about retention on Facebook has dropped and advertising revenue has also dropped.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its just Facebook that will loose the money.
Facebook has too much power (Score:2)
Please shutdown facebook while your at it. (Score:3)
seriously... (Score:2)
If you're going to Facebook for unbiassed news reporting it's you that has the problem.
Backlash (Score:2)
Agriculture Minister David Littleproud declared “The Australian people and its government will not be bullied by some big tech company that is putting people’s lives at risk and putting profits ahead of people.”
Former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce compared Mark Zuckerberg to Kim Jong-un, proclaiming “This is a North Korean policy agency being pursued by Facebook.”
Re: Yay (Score:2)
Google doesnâ(TM)t own Facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. this is them following the law.
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/pa... [aph.gov.au]
52a
core news content means content that reports, investigates or explains:
(a) issues or events that are relevant in engaging Australians in public debate and in informing democratic decision-making; or