Following Facebook's News Ban in Australia, Posts Disappear From Pages of Some Government Agencies, Also Some Restaurant and Humor Sites (abc.net.au) 177
Facebook has restricted access to news in Australia, and so far the tech giant seems to have taken a pretty broad definition of news. From a report: Some pages that don't fit the traditional news genre have been stripped out as part of the stoush between Facebook and the federal government over whether the social media company should pay for Australian content it runs on its site. In response to the outages, Facebook said government pages should not be hit by the changes. A spokesperson said any inadvertently impacted pages would be fixed. "As the law does not provide clear guidance on the definition of news content, we have taken a broad definition in order to respect the law as drafted," the spokesperson said in a statement. [...] Post are down for the Bureau of Meteorology, the government agency responsible for providing weather service updates. [...] The health departments for the ACT, South Australia and Queensland have had posts taken down. [...] Law enforcement has also been caught by the ban. Content under the "latest news" tab for the Victoria Police Facebook page is unavailable. [...] Domestic, family and sexual violence services 1800RESPECT and DVConnect have had posts taken down. Also affected is the Australian Council of Trade Unions. [...] Other pages which have been stripped of their content include Urban List, which offer restaurant reviews, satire sites like the The Betoota Advocate and The Shovel, and even homemaker magazines like Home Beautiful.
Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you are misunderstanding who is shooting themselves in the foot here.
Re:Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't use social media, nor do I care for the controversy industrial complex which is modern media, so they can both die in a ditch.
It looks like a Mexican standoff and everyone is pulling the trigger. This is win-win in my book.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah I have zero sympathy for the old media companies. They had 10 YEARS to embrace the Internet and make their news papers digital and available online and bring all their existing advertisers with them. Did they do that? Fuck no. They did nothing. Like a thousand industries before them that couldn't adapt to change they collapsed, and in the process abandoned credibility for controversy and easy clicks. And now we get to listen to them spout their propaganda as Rupert Murdoch flexes his last ounce of power over his bought and paid for politicians. And as you say, if Facebook loses influence in Australia it will be a win win. Fuck them both.
Are you a sixteen years old? They've had way more than '10 YEARS' to figure out the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a sixteen years old? They've had way more than '10 YEARS' to figure out the internet.
Please. Don't make me cry remembering the eternal September.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah I have zero sympathy for the old media companies. They had 10 YEARS to embrace the Internet and make their news papers digital and available online and bring all their existing advertisers with them. Did they do that? Fuck no.
eh? 10 years? didn't figure it? Wut.
They all have websites. What Facebook wants to do is have people sharing content with just enough context that people read the context on facebook, reach a conclusion and never leave the ecosystem. That way Facebook can get the benefit of the content, sell advertising and the other providers get nothing. Facebook lose out if anyone actually leaves the site so they have a strong incentive to avoid that.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know what to say about that, because I don't have stats. But Fb shows less of an article than say Google does, and way way less than Slashdot does, so I would bet they actually have a higher conversion ratio.
Re: (Score:2)
"It looks like a Mexican standoff and everyone is pulling the trigger. This is win-win in my book."
The Media-sites have now no traffic and Facebook is still Facebook.
To me it sounds more like a ricochet from a steel wall than a Mexican standoff.
Re:Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you are just uninformed. Facebook and similar platforms collect 80% of digital ad revenue from news articles in Australia despite contributing 0% towards the costs of generating the content. This is not just "Murdoch" companies pushing for shared ad revenue. Its also the ABC, SBS, The Guardian, all of whom spend money on journalists to create original content, for Facebook to turn around and take all the money.
The ACCC and multiple successive governments have warned Google and Facebook for years they needed to work out revenue sharing with content creators. This legislation - as flawed as it might be - didn't spring out of thin air. There was plenty of warning, plenty of opportunity, plenty of time for Facebook and Google to work out fair deals. They could have negotiated on their own terms without government intervention. But they did nothing. So now they get legislation.
Google has stepped up and paid the piddling sums for a company with the resources of Google - a few million in shared ad revenue per year - whereas Facebook is still pretending they are indispensable. Well, they're not, and Facebook has no leverage here.
Re:Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
MySpace much? What does Facebook actually DO again?
Re:Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they should be happy they're being blocked, right? Should lead to increased revenue for them. If what you say is true.
Big if.
Re:Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
No. This is "they are making money, help us take it away from them" without specific regard for traffic.
You should look at the text of the law itself. [aph.gov.au] IIRC, a significant piece of it was "don't you dare ignore us!" ... if they offer news "of interest to Australians", they can't differentiate between registered (Australian) news businesses and unregistered news businesses.
The Facebook move is only a partial success in this regard, since they differentiate between the two by not allowing the Australian links.
Re:Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah makes perfect sense. That's why in Spain the group which lobbied for payment laws are now lobbying to revoke them after being blocked, and in Germany where publishers secured an opt in law to participating with affiliate linking madly dashed to actually opt in...
Mind you if "enough of the article" is the headline and the summary sentence, and that these two sentences (well one isn't even a proper sentence) means that viewers either have all information they need or are simply not inticed to read further then maybe you should question your worth as a news provider.
Facebook summary version of this post:
Yes they do drive traffic.
No the world doesn't revolve around you.
Re: Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:3)
How many people click the "view in browser" button when they're already viewing a a third party page in the Facebook app? And what about ads that Facebook inserts in to those pages when there aren't ads like that if you do go to the third party's website? They might indeed drive traffic to third party websites through a page load, but they take all the revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
There's an app for Facebook?
I just use the web page on my phone - it works, has few ads and by uninstalling the app (yes, I did use it in the past) my battery life literally doubled.
Messenger still works - just tell the tab you use it in to use the desktop site, not mobile. Some zooming may be required.
Result is less tracking, few ads and longer battery life on your phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhh no, Google and Facebook drive significant traffic to to websites, why should they have to pay to give news sites customers.
People keep saying that, but traffic isn't worth much if Google and Facebook are keeping all the revenue. Google and Facebook are throwing hysterical temper tantrums like two only children who each just got a new sibling and are getting a lesson from their respective parents in why they have to share their toys.
Re: (Score:3)
People keep saying that, but traffic isn't worth much if Google and Facebook are keeping all the revenue. Google and Facebook are throwing hysterical temper tantrums like two only children who each just got a new sibling and are getting a lesson from their respective parents in why they have to share their toys.
What happened to "It's their platform and they can decide whoever they want to allow access?"
Re:Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They are not happy enough with Google providing its service for free
What nonsense. Google would not exist if their services were free.
Re: Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:3)
Re:Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
So?
There's plenty the "news content generators" can do if they don't like it, most importantly paywalls. Instead, they design their "news content" TO be shared and discussed in social media.
It's even more brazen than blank media levies.
What's the world coming to when people defend link taxes on Slashdot?
Re: Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:3)
Three words:
Rupert Fucking Murdoch
Re:Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would you expect Facebook to willingly pay news media when THEY (the media) choose to post on Facebook?
Re: (Score:3)
That's right, Facebook didn't do it willingly so now they are being forced. That's because an imbalanced market where Facebook contributes nothing and reaps all the profits is not sustainable.
Putting your product on a shelf doesn't mean you want all the profits to go to the owner of the shelf. Think of how supermarkets work; both parties get paid. The revenue has to be shared fairly.
Re:Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
Except they aren't being forced.
They are opting to just not show any news.
Why are people upset? facebook were given a choice, and they selected one of the choices. But suddenly people are like, "what? You can't do that!"
Re: Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:3, Insightful)
Facebook has never added anything of value to the internet experience, they just corral amateur internet users for easy monetisation.
Australians would be better off in every possible way without Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
The news media is most certainly upset, and on Twitter I see plenty of Facebook-haters outright call for handcuffs on Zuckerberg for this.
There are legitimate reasons to hate Facebook, but that they don't like private levies on linking isn't one of them.
Re: Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:2)
Plenty of people think they can benefit by trashing Facebook, but that's not the same as actual real world users caring.
Re: (Score:2)
"and nothing of value was lost."
Actually that's a narrow minded view. If actual news is pushed out the platform will degenerate into a cesspool of conspiracy whackjobbery. ... I mean even more so than it already is.
Australians would be better off in every possible way without Facebook.
What about the Australians who keep in touch with friends and family the world over? Do you go out into the gazebo with your quill and write in your diary: "Dear Diary, Today was another exhausting day. Mother insisted I once again prepare 200 Christmas cards which I shall send upon an audience composed largely of people lackin
Re: (Score:2)
There's no such thing as an unbiased point of view. At least with newspapers you know what you're getting and are able to read the bias from all sides of the spectrum to actually get a balanced view.
What's your alternative, blindly trust whatever your crazy aunt tells you? Did you know vaccines have mercury and cause teh autisms!
Re: (Score:2)
Supermarkets are a similar monopoly, where the margin they pay to product producers is very small, because if you're not in Coles or Woolworths then you're not anywhere (some products. e.g. Coke/Cadbury have enough consumer demand to shift the balance of power).
This sort of proves your point except you're overstating it - Facebook don't produce nothing, they put a lot of resources into creating a 'shelf' that a lot of people browse. But they are close to a monopoly and, like much of the modern internet, try
Re:Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Insightful)
If you shove a newspaper I didn't subscribe to and didn't ask you for into my hand and then hold your hand out for money, don't be surprised when you get your paper back instead.
Google spiders for news, then posts an excerpt. It (sorta kinda) makes sense that they will have to pay something for it. News organisations post to Facebook themselves. It makes no sense that they can do that AND demand to be paid. TFA just says Facebook is handling the newspaper back instead.
I'm no fan of Facebook or it's business practices, but fair's fair.
Re: (Score:2)
Some product makers actually do pay supermarkets to place their products on the most visible shelves, though, so they get seen and sell more product.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder why FB didn't just stop "link previews" for the news outlets? That way there'd be no way to see what useless drivvel it was before clicking on the link - just to ignore it, and the ads on the page and get back to FB for your fix of cat videos?
More seriously, a plain link (possibly even minified) gives nothing of the original content away. If the poster chooses to cut and paste some of the text or whatever, then surely it is they who should be paying?
All said and done, I'm no fan of FB so I'd like t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Facebook is doing themselves no favours. They had ample opportunity to hammer out deals with content creators and share ad revenue. Google is stepping up. Facebook is throwing a tantrum. Blocking the Health and Fire Emergency facebook feeds is going to end very badly for Facebook.
That stuff should never have been on Facebook anyhow. Australia can make their own "Facebook-like" App. Problem solved. People getting news from Facebook is a sign of stupidity anyhow.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, they also have the option to not show news and not pay.
Not sure why people are so upset. A law was passed to make someone pay if they did a thing. Instead of paying they just stopped doing the thing. So what?
Re:Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
...toxic political conversations will disappear from people's feeds and conversations between people will become more civil.
Someone please mod the above funny, not insightful!
I’m an Aspie, and even I can see that this must be sarcasm. Nothing can fix the rotting cesspool that is Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
By removing news content, toxic political conversations will disappear from people's feeds and conversations between people will become more civil.
Not sure what fantasy world you live in, but toxic bullshit is largely started by sharing bullshit conspiracy garbage rather than actual news. This is Australia we're talking about, not the streaming series Red vs Blue.... err I mean the USA.
Re: Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:4, Interesting)
This is not how any of this works. Nornally you pay services such as search and social media to drive traffic to your site. Expecting them to pay for something they normally themselves get paid to do simply isnâ(TM)t going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Expecting them to pay for something they normally themselves get paid to do simply isnâ(TM)t going to happen.
This is the only true part of your statement. The government is trying to shift Facebook, Google et. el. towards a YouTube model where content creators do get paid this seems quite a reasonable situation except for the fact that they aren't currently getting paid. The only downside is that the legislation is being written by the established media to entrench their positions rather than having proper consideration for independent content creators but nothing new there.
Re: (Score:2)
So I could for example host a site on Amazon's web servers and then demand that THEY pay ME for the privelege of hosting my content, I like that idea. I think I'm going to demand my landlord pay me $$$$ for having me as a speaker.
Re: Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:3)
This is neither how this does nor how it will ever work. Content providers PAY others to drive traffic to their sites. Trying to CHARGE these entities for doing that is hilariously absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is doing themselves no favours. They had ample opportunity to hammer out deals with content creators and share ad revenue. Google is stepping up. Facebook is throwing a tantrum. Blocking the Health and Fire Emergency facebook feeds is going to end very badly for Facebook.
In other words: WAAHHHH!! Zuckerberg entitled ....
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is doing themselves no favours.
What makes you think Facebook is doing itself disfavours? It makes money by selling your data on to others, not by affiliate clicks to news sites.
You may be too young to remember this, but there was a time when Facebook was actually full of updates from people rather than links to shit you could read on news.com.au
Re: Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Blocking the Health and Fire Emergency facebook feeds is going to end very badly for Facebook.
Why?
a) that is not "news"
b) who is so dumb to look on FB for health or fire related issues?
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook is doing themselves no favours. They had ample opportunity to hammer out deals with content creators and share ad revenue. Google is stepping up. Facebook is throwing a tantrum. Blocking the Health and Fire Emergency facebook feeds is going to end very badly for Facebook.
Not that I'm looking to defend Facebook here (far from it), but why the hell are Health and Fire Emergency anything, tied to Facebook in any way? How did these services exist before social media? Is it now the responsibility of Facebook to provide emergency alerts or updates?
Damn. Might as well turn them into a government at this rate.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no fan of Facebook, but I don't think Facebook in this instance is solely to blame, nor do I think the Australian government is entirely wrong.
But these sorts of things are bound to happen when assumptions are made, and it's horrible when it goes on for as long.
I mean, like most things, there should be a sort of precedence. For example, if something is done a certain way for 10 years (random established time), nobody makes any noise and nobody complains; but one day somebody says wait a second, you sho
That's one thing a free market is for. (Score:3)
Facebook is doing themselves no favours. They had ample opportunity to hammer out deals with content creators and share ad revenue. Google is stepping up. Facebook is throwing a tantrum. Blocking the Health and Fire Emergency facebook feeds is going to end very badly for Facebook.
Looks like one of the advantages of a free market is still in effect: Different vendors of competing products can make different decisions, take different actions, and reap different benefits or take different losses. In the extr
"stoush" (Score:2)
Thank you for that. Filed away for Scrabble.
Re: (Score:3)
"Stoush" falls somewhere between chuckin' a tanty and havin' a barney.
Re:"stoush" (Score:5, Funny)
"Throwing a wobbly" would be a pretty good, and authentically Aussie, description of events.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps bracketed by "spit the dummy" and "have a paddy": https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Or "getting a bit aggro".
now we will see how far the tendrils go... (Score:2)
.... FB reminds me of the alien facehugger a bit
try to remove it and it shits acid destruction so you hold off, hoping it'll just get better
nuke the phukker from orbit, it's the only way to be sure
what if australia bans facebook (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps Zuk may find paying for the media much cheaper than paying taxes in Australia
Re:what if australia bans facebook (Score:5, Informative)
Australia is not China, it cannot just decide to ban or censor for no or arbitrary reason.
Lol...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You mean they didn't want to be forced to pay for a user posting a URL?
Great outcome (Score:4, Insightful)
What will Facebook do when people realise they don't need Facebook as much as they thought?
Re: (Score:2)
What will Facebook do when people realise they don't need Facebook as much as they thought?
If you think people used Facebook to get updates from the Australian government and to look for businesses then you have a very very peculiar view of what is on Facebook.
Hell Facebook themselves said the blocked posts made up the low single digit percentages of linked content, to say nothing of overall posts.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish Facebook would just delete themselves from Australia.
Why? You don't need to be on Facebook. You can just adblock all of Facebook's URLs and you're Facebook free.
You don't get to decide which websites are accessible and not.
Re: (Score:3)
When was Facebook NOT in the business of skimming off user's information? IIUC it was doing that when it was still a college project.
Re: (Score:2)
betsuin$ cat
127.0.0.1 www.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 facebook.com
127.0.0.1 login.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 www.login.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 static.ak.connect.facebook.com
127.0.0.1 connect.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 www.connect.facebook.net
127.0.0.1 apps.facebook.com
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook let it in? It sounds like you are associating with people who are pushing it in. Actual promoted content makes up a small portion of the site.
Block people who make it a cesspool and move on with your life.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think promoted content is the only way Facebook influences what you see, you have not been keeping up.
Doing Aussie's a Favor (Score:2)
Country attempts to assert itself against Facebook [twitter.com]
Facebook responds by canceling the country.
Public agencies shouldn't be using FB (Score:2)
For emergency or critical communications, or for public notices that need to be accessed by everyone, public agencies shouldn't use a private, subscription-based service. That's just laziness. Not everybody has (or wants) a FB subscription. Our (US) county does that, and it makes supposedly public announcements harder to access.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't - FB is just one of the communications methods used in Australia including News Sites, their own sites, Twitter, SMS etc.
They don't hate news. They hate paying for it. (Score:5, Insightful)
The worldwide headline about Facebook banning news articles from its pages in Australia suggests that Facebook has something against the news. In fact, Facebook loves news stories. Facebook has grown and thrived on reposted news stories from its subjects. What Facebook hates is the idea of paying the people who are writing the news for the privilege of republishing it for their own benefit and profit. And they are afraid that if they pay any news sources in Australia it will set a worldwide precedent that would force them to pay for the news they republish everywhere. (This is probably correct.) Of course, it would be fair for them to pay content originators for the stuff they republish (without permission, I might add) but this has no relation to Facebook's business model.
no news=good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One could dream, but I think the last year of US hysteria indicates that waking up is not what the people who need the waking up are prone to do.
Thanks to Facebook... (Score:4, Funny)
I had never, ever heard of Australia before; then someone send me a link about it, and when I clicked it I was all "HOLY SHIT THERE'S STUFF OUTSIDE FACEBOOK NOW?!??"
And they say Zuckerberg is a robot... (Score:2)
A robot with HUMOR, clearly! ^^
Spiteful (Score:2)
Re: Spiteful (Score:2)
Is there an English translation for that?
So u can only share unofficial or private stories? (Score:3, Interesting)
FB is a user supplied content platform, consisting of user supplied drivel and external links, much as is /.
There is no re-publishing, it is user supplied content or public links that are being shared/blocked. The sites being shared that are complaining are not paupers slaving for the community being abused by big tech.
There is no blocking of "news", everyone can still go direct to whatever "news" source they prefer to consume, it is the sharing of third party content that is currently being prevented in some cases. WTF is the definition of news anyway?
To carry it further, what would be a reasonable line between what FB does vs places like /., ISPs, government media pages, a sole trader website, an email provider etc etc - does this mean anyone who provides a vehicle to share an official news article needs to pay Murdoch et al? What is the difference between "news" and other paid for content?
To limit what people can share due to legislative enforced costs changes things. If I share some loony conspiracy story, no one can share an official news link that may de-bunk that story on FB. Or if there is some agreement made between FB and the "News" consortium, then there is a costing difference between sharing stories from some sources compared to other sources that will also change what content is displayed.
Effectively an indirect tax on some organisations to support other organisations based on some very rubbery concepts, which I imagine will be the source of some messy legal processes for years to come.
Time to open the popcorn..
I know what happened (Score:4, Funny)
They used their ad targeting ai to get rid of the news agencies.
The one that never worked right, but they still charge as if it does
Opportunity for local news (Score:2)
So local news companies should provide a way for the police, government, etc., to post their news on other websites.. could become a revenue maker and no ads necessarily needed.
A view from Australia (Score:3)
In Australia we have two native Eagles, the Wedge tailed and Sea Eagle. Both are about a meter high when they are standing, so they are pretty big animals. This incredible rare photo is of a Wedge tail and Sea Eagle fighting. [abc.net.au]
I live near the coast and I have a family of Sea Eagles (three birds) that live near me. I'm sharing this because it's the coolest fucking thing I've seen in a long time. Enjoy!
Facebook deleted their own Facebook page. (Score:2)
I didn't see it on a scroll through these posts, but Facebook also deleted their OWN page in Australia...
At least they're being fair and consistent? :)
https://www.abc.net.au/news/20... [abc.net.au]
There's an image of it in this news article.
It's good news for all in Australia (Score:2)
I visited /. 1st time in years, because I need to exit FB for news. Many sites will benefit from this ban.
'News' on FB was crap. It was all outrage, tabloid, rag. Rehashes from sites like reddit. Clickbait. Full of uneducated comments and trolls. Now I can visit a news site and read stuff they'd actually print.
Saddest thing is idiot politicians screaming censorship and death to democracy. From both left & right sides. You told FB not to link to news w/o paying, so they made sure to do just that.
I think
Targeted advertising? (Score:2)
So is Facebook saying they're very bad at profiling data that they collect again? Makes me wonder how well their targeted advertising works. You know, if you buy 100,000 ads exclusively for white supremacists & some of them end up getting served to ACLU members or human rights lawyers...
Asking for my online friend, "Igor the Bear."
In other news... (Score:2)
Australian news become significantly less left-biased and citizens average IQ immediately increases.
Facebook creates nothing so nothing is lost. (Score:3)
No one "needs" their shit on Facebook and government agencies should not have pages or content there is doing so is an economic subsidy for Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good (Score:2)
So the gdpr is at least an attempt to make the companies with the data responsible for it. Not a great attempt. But your argument of self choice does
Re: (Score:2)
Just because someone sides with big business in one particular case does not mean they thing "users should have no rights." Users do not have the right to demand Facebook and Google pay them money just because they use those services. Printing an excerpt and a link to the original story is the same thing /. does. If anything, Facebook and Google are providing these media outlets with free clicks.
I fail to see how users' rights are being negatively impacted here. If anything, a law that states that I cannot
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about user's rights this time - at least not the way you think.
The whole thing AUS media is crying bloody murder over, is Facebook allowing its users to discuss the news they print without Facebook paying them.
Re: (Score:2)
What moron goes to Facebook for news? For that matter why am I still on Slashdot for geek news? How long has it been since I read quality? Bye my friends. Good riddance to me.
See you tomorrow.