Facebook Strikes Last-Minute Deal With Australia Around News Content (axios.com) 96
Facebook on Monday said it had struck a deal with Australian lawmakers to pay local publishers for their news content, after the government finally agreed to change some of the terms within its new media code. From a report: The agreement ends Facebook's temporary ban on sharing news links on its platform in the country. Data showed that the link-sharing ban caused news traffic to plummet in the region. It also ends Facebook's global ban on users' sharing links to Australian news publishers. Facebook's decision to stop link-sharing was made in response to a new law that would have forced Google and Facebook to pay Australian news publishers for content, including headlines and links, with terms set by a third party, if they weren't able to come up with payout agreements with local publishers themselves. Google struck last-minute payout deals with big Australian publishers last week so that it wouldn't have to skirt the law and pull Google Search from the country. Facebook did not. The law was intended to benefit publishers, but the impact of Facebook's link ban showed the power the tech giants have over publishers, who lost a large volume of traffic during the confrontation.
Still banned. (Score:5, Funny)
I just tried to share this on facebook but it was blocked.
Re:Still banned. (Score:5, Funny)
That's ok, this isn't really news.
Re: (Score:2)
Disappointing (Score:1, Insightful)
This is the start of a very slippery slope, gets steeper every day.
Re: Disappointing (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm disappointed FB gave in.
But
1. The publishers are by definition are greedy leeches. So they will raise the price whenever they can, until it becomes unbearable.
2. FB is gonna recoup those costs from its customers. And they will take it from its livetock. And at some point, those will fimd the costs / displayed ads unacceptable too.
In other words: It isn't a qustion of if it will burst and implode, but when.
Re: (Score:2)
I was hoping FB would have a fit and just back out of all countries' news, then start claiming that "Internet is just a small part of FB".
Sort of like AOL tried to do back in the day. Uf they shared the same fate as AOL, I'd feel satisfied.
(I may still have some of those coasters that looked like CDs AOL used to flood my mailbox with, BTW)
Re: (Score:3)
Aussie here, didn't notice any lack of news of FB - I don't get my news from FB.
Didn't notice any adverts either, Firefox with privacy mode on, FB in an FB tab, and running adblocker plus and ghostery pretty much take care of most ads apart from the 'sponsored posts', and those daft posts usually offer me a house & land package for more money than I've been paying to my mortgage for the last 18 years, plus want me to live in a location that'd be adding at least 2 hours and $20/day to my commute!
I mark t
Re: Disappointing (Score:4, Informative)
> apart from the 'sponsored posts'
You should install Social Fixer, then you can manipulate your Facebook feed to be as clean as you want:
https://socialfixer.com/downlo... [socialfixer.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Ooh, thanks, I'll check it out!
I wonder if it works on phones as well?
It ... might tell me if I read the page, eh? :)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm disappointed FB gave in.
But 1. The publishers are by definition are greedy leeches. So they will raise the price whenever they can, until it becomes unbearable. 2. FB is gonna recoup those costs from its customers. And they will take it from its livetock. And at some point, those will fimd the costs / displayed ads unacceptable too.
In other words: It isn't a qustion of if it will burst and implode, but when.
No, the publishers may be greedy but they're not stupid. They will set their prices just low enough that this "bursting" or "implosion" won't happen, but they'll still rake in tons of cash.
That's what governments do. (Score:2)
This is very disappointing. They are now opening themselves up for every shithole country to start creating silly laws.
They were always open to it. That's what governments do.
They can always back out again if things get too damagingly silly.
Publishers. (Score:2, Insightful)
Not creators, authors, etc.
Not sure why anyone needs publishers nowadays, when you can just put up your own blog, . . . but anyway . . .
Thank you for at least being honest about that.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying Facebook should be the only publisher.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying Facebook should be the only publisher.
That's what you say. He said something else. While you may not care for the distribution system, all the publishers are still there, publishing away.
Re: Publishers. (Score:2)
Not sure why anyone needs publishers nowadays, when you can just put up your own blog
One of the surprising answers to this question has turned out to be that generally people don't know how to be journalists so content just turns to garbage, and fake news, conspiracy theories, defamation, bullying and even foreign interference abounds. Compare the old newspaper letters to the editor section to YouTube or Facebook comments. Sure, the newspaper editor adds bias, but he also filters out much of the garbage.
People having their own blogs is great, but there's still a need for professional publis
Obey (Score:3, Interesting)
You will obey big tech, or else. People are looking at the wrong slope and calling it slippery.
Re:Obey (Score:5, Insightful)
the impact of Facebook's link ban showed the power the tech giants have over publishers, who lost a large volume of traffic during the confrontation
That doesn't just show the power of the tech giants. It shows who exactly benefits from free linking on the Internet. Google and FB drive traffic to these news site; without linking, they'd have less. But hey, these companies have money, and the publishers could use some, because a Free Press is Important. There is nothing just about this; it's a tax levied on specific entities just because they are wealthy.
Personally I think the tech giants have way too much power, especially over whet gets published and what doesn't, literally over what makes the news. And I think that power should be limited. But not by killing free hyperlinking, the thing that keeps the Internet together. Not by by expecting FB and Google to index other news sites and having to pay those sites for the privilege.
Re: Obey (Score:4, Interesting)
The notion that Australia negotiated with Facebook about a general law is really scary, and just tells me that Facebook needs to be broken up.
Re: Obey (Score:4, Interesting)
I am default with the relative smaller publishers
What smaller publishers? News Corp? My heart bleeds for them and their owner Rupert Murdoch who is the 96th richest man in the world. Those poor guys who bought and paid for this law, what will they do now! I guess they'll be eating from gold plates instead of diamond encrusted platinum.
The notion that Australia negotiated with Facebook about a general law is really scary, and just tells me that Facebook needs to be broken up.
No. The absurdity of this law existing is scary and shows that news company* needs to be broken up. Yes I used the singular noun on purpose here. This has nothing to do with the little guy.
Actually you just gave me an idea. Elon Musk has money. Maybe we should pass laws so that Tesla needs to pay us to drive their cars...
Re: Obey (Score:5, Insightful)
This. As much I hate the social detritus Facebook enables, they were absolutely right to initially say 'Get Fucked' to the aussie government about this ill thought out law, for exactly the reasons you state.
A news company lobbied for this law. This is the real danger people seem to have completley missed. Not facebook saying no, but that fact a news corporation was able to make its own law pass through government. Absolutely. Fucking. Abhorrent.
Re: Obey (Score:1)
Free market within fair rules is what makes us rich. Not unfair rules making a single company rich, nor total deregulation giving free range to monopo
Re: Obey (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Google and Facebook are not "publishing others content" without consent. All of these media companies allow the Facebook and Google spiders to scan their content and actually provide excepts for Facebook and Google to display so that users of those platforms will be directed to the media company website.
If they wanted to they could block Google and Facebook spiders, but they get too much financial benefit from those platforms directing users to their websites.
I am surprised that I actually agree with Malco
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How are Facebook going to get those people to come back once they realize they don't need Facebook for news?
Kitten! Shiny! Squirrel!
Re: (Score:2)
And before the tech giants existed, the three TV networks had "way too much power, expecially over what gets published and what doesn't".
And before TV, newspapers had same awesome powers.
And then there's AP and UPI....
Re:Obey (Score:5, Interesting)
Big tech? Facebook is the underdog here. They are fighting a law written bought and paid for by News Corp and Rupert Murdoch. "Big Tech" Simply said we want no part of it.
This isn't a demonstration of power by Facebook. It's a demonstration of the absurdity of a self-defeating law that unintentionally destroys the very industry which paid for the law in the first place.
Re: Obey (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Rupert had very little say or input. The regulations were drafted by the ACCC, they have no love or influence from Rupert.
Bahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Yeah nah.
Re: (Score:2)
Here where I live Rupert Murdoch doesn't have a lot of influence. So I despise facebook more.
But I recognize that those media empires are quite problematic in these times. But still, so is facebook; quite problematic in these times.
The Germans say in such a situation that "it's like choosing between pest and cholera".
The best would be to rid the world of both.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, though for the non Germans here "pest" means black death in German.
I have no love for Facebook, but I have less love for stupidly written legislation that supports a different monopoly.
As an Aussie I’m torn (Score:5, Informative)
Re:As an Aussie I’m torn (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think it's as simple as mainstream media not trying hard enough. They're not competing with a real media outlet. They're competing with a cesspool that substitutes journalism with dopamine fixes, taking eyeballs away from journalism and engaging them so much that they have little time for it, because it turns out many Facebook-addicted readers didn't really want to read journalism as much as they wanted to read anything... including unstructured conversations and opinions that were produced for free by other readers.
There's not much to like about the Murdoch press, but if you're going to root for something then maybe root for some of the smaller, more local, papers which compete with Murdoch?
We're in a world where subscriptions are drying up because they're competing with people giving away opinions for free, where classifieds have dried up because everyone's flocked to central sites like eBay, and where other advertising has dried up because it's all going to the global megacorporation portals that've sucked masses of people in for spending most of their eyeball time. Newspapers can put up a paywall but unless they have a massive globalesque readership or a very specific niche, it's difficult to compete with random people making crap up and saying it on the internet, unless you're willing to produce increasingly outrageous headlines.
It's not a perfect arrangement, but some of those smaller publications, which want to do real useful journalism, might even find an avenue to stay afloat and keep their journalism alive if the entities that have positioned themselves in front of the content they publish will pay something for them to produce and publish it.
Re: As an Aussie I’m torn (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem is the (lie about the) niche.
"Journalism" was more about entertaning the unwashed masses than it was about well-researched, serious, valuable information all along. The traditional press were occupying that niche all alng, while claiming to serve the other.
Now that Facebook has come along and is obviously doing a better job of entertaining the stupid, it's difficult to keep up that narrative. I hear "quality journalism is threatened" cries all day long from all over the place, and the inevitable answer is always, true and devastating, "but you don't provide 'quality journalism' worth saving".
Re: (Score:2)
"Journalism" was more about entertaning the unwashed masses than it was about well-researched, serious, valuable information all along. The traditional press were occupying that niche all alng, while claiming to serve the other.
Actually, it wasn't. But the major networks THOUGHT it was and switched their news operations from actual journalism to news-like entertainment product. This left those looking for news (or an important-to-them subset of it) unserved, leaving the niche open for the creation and suc
Re: As an Aussie I’m torn (Score:2)
You're probably right, I've heard rumors that it must've been different sometime around the mid 20th century. But I'm generation X/Y, so essentially all (mainstream) news I've ever known was sensationslist and/or propagandistic BS.
There were exceptions - still are today - but not enough to save the face of "journalism" in general.
Journalism does focus on the important stories (Score:2)
I note that just today, most sites had the latest sex scandal involving someone in federal parliament. Apparently some women may or may not be pressing a rape claim against some party apparatchik.
Riveting stuff, really important to the running of the country.
There was also something on page 9 about media policy, but who cares about stuff like that.
Re: (Score:1)
MSM is far from perfect, but still better than "Troll Net" for news.
Re: As an Aussie I’m torn (Score:2)
> They're not competing with a real media outlet. They're competing with a cesspool
And yet they still lose. I guess they know what Hillary felt like.
Re: (Score:1)
> They're not competing with a real media outlet. They're competing with a cesspool
And yet they still lose. I guess they know what Hillary felt like.
Which is what Trump got to experience not that long ago (hint: you need to find a better shtick ... Hoss. Dragging Hillary into everything has lost its bite)
Re: (Score:1)
So we have established that Biden might be slightly less bad than Trump.
I guess it's at least a minor milepost. We will have to hold our noses and keep at it.
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying Biden is a cesspool? How so?
Not "liberals", mind you, Biden.
Ironic, yet true (Score:3)
... a cesspool that substitutes journalism with dopamine fixes, taking eyeballs away from journalism and engaging them so much that they have little time for it, because it turns out many Facebook-addicted readers didn't really want to read journalism as much as they wanted to read anything... including unstructured conversations and opinions that were produced for free by other readers.
I can't help but think there's a certain irony in this description, considering where you've posted it, and the history of this site.
But perhaps it's only irony because it's true. The most useful and interesting aspect of /. is, for me, the opinions of its users (yup, that would be all of you - thanks!). Sure, sometimes the site provides (links to) genuine 'new news', but more often than not the stories are either not new, or not 'news', however 'engaging' they may be. That's ok, I don't come here for news,
Re: (Score:2)
> We're in a world where subscriptions are drying up because they're competing with people giving away opinions for free
The underlying problem is that "news" media are now conflating opinion with fact and are playing a game they can't win. If they stuck to real journalism they would--over time--have a competitive advantage.
Re: (Score:1)
Read _Earth_ and _Existence_ by David Brin.
I agree with his theory that journalism will devolve into millions of 24/7 reality Vloggers and the tech infrastructure evolves so that everything is real time and tied to eyeballs watching and not ads or clicks.
You're in the right place at the right time to see a plane crash or a riot --> you'll jump to the top trending spot and make millions in a few minutes.
You produce excellent niche content --> that niche will keep you afloat in lean times
The big news co
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that Facebook steals nothing from media websites.
How does stuff get on FB?
People post it.
How does news media stuff get on FB?
News media companies post it to FB.
Then, it seems, news media companies want FB to pay the news media companies?
Or for Google to pay the news media company for the customers sent to them by Google? When news media companies can very easily stop Google indexing them and therefore stop Google sending customers to their websites?
It's a messed up situation that 'the entitl
Nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Bought and paid for Australian legislators got bitch slapped by reality. Nice to see. I have no love for Zuckerberg or the rest of the Big Tech oligopoly, but I have even less love for corrupt autocrats.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean corrupt autocrats will always exist. This is a question of Big Tech vs Bit News, and while Facebook is quite powerful, at least in Australia it isn't remotely the kingmaker that News Corp is.
Re: (Score:1)
It's good to see that some entity is powerful enough to bitch slap the Zuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Except clearly they weren't.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean corrupt autocrats will always exist.
As will my hate for them.
i figured facebook would roll over (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Agree to Australia's Misinformation-Fighting Code (Score:1)
'Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Twitter Agree to Australia's Misinformation-Fighting Code"
What kind of agreement it was? "Everybody is on their own and you are free to use those Aussies to set global precedents and mess up with each other business."
What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Data showed that the link-sharing ban caused news traffic to plummet in the region.
Why the hell aren't the news organizations paying Facebook and Google for the traffic they're sending rather than charging them to send traffic? I really don't understand why either one would agree to this bull shit.
Re: (Score:3)
Because the news organisations can't afford to, don't want to, and can't admit that they should do so because it destroys their entire argument that Google and FB should pay THEM for the free eyeballs that Google and FB send to the news organisations.
The spin on this story in Australia (and elsewhere that I've noticed) is incredible, just about every mainstream media source that I've glanced at is casting the G & FB as the bad guys, and the Aussie news media as the poor, down-trodden, put-upon victims,
Re: (Score:3)
Why would Facebook have any eyeballs without all the free content?
Admittedly I don't use Facebook, but my understanding of their primary content was updates from friends and loved ones.
* New parents are hardly going to try to charge their friends to look at pictures of their newborn.
* No one is going to try to charge their contacts to look at the pictures they took of their child's play.
* No one wants to pay money to look at the dinner you just made for yourself
* No one is going to charge people to see their annual Christmas letter
* No one is going to charge their friends
Re: (Score:2)
Data showed that the link-sharing ban caused news traffic to plummet in the region.
Why the hell aren't the news organizations paying Facebook and Google for the traffic they're sending rather than charging them to send traffic? I really don't understand why either one would agree to this bull shit.
If what you are so authoritatively stating is true, It seems to me that if Google/Facebook really were sending these news sites apocalyptic torrents of traffic then there would be no dispute about ad revenue. So, do you have any concrete data showing that Facebook+Google are sending these sites any traffic and not just scraping the sites for their content, presenting it to Facebook+Google users and pocketing the ad revenue like a pair of gigantic digital parasites without generating traffic for the source o
Re: (Score:2)
News organisations post stories to Facebook directly with links back to their own site (not tech company scraping). Google obeys publisher instructions about scraping and what is displayed, and the
Re: (Score:2)
Data showed that the link-sharing ban caused news traffic to plummet in the region.
Why the hell aren't the news organizations paying Facebook and Google for the traffic they're sending rather than charging them to send traffic? I really don't understand why either one would agree to this bull shit.
... So, do you have any concrete data showing that Facebook+Google are sending these sites any traffic and not just scraping the sites for their content, presenting it to Facebook+Google users and pocketing the ad revenue like a pair of gigantic digital parasites without generating traffic for the source of the data?
In case you missed it in my comment and your own in quoting it, I've highlighted it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
They AREN'T sending tons of traffic through. Someone posts a link with an often out of context blurb. The reader reads the blurb, and sees the link citation and then moves on. Facebook and Google gets all the money from ads, etc. How many people do you think on slashdot actually RTFA and clicks on the link?
However what Australia should have simply done is tax the ad revenue, and simply distributed a portion of it to news organizations.
Unfortunate (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or simply, pass the cost to the user. A payment page should pop up when posting a news article link. Nothing illegal in that and allows publishers to monetize.
Soon, it seems, putting links on discussion sites (reddit, twitter, you're next) will get as bad as music streaming on twitch.
From the Axios Article... (Score:4, Insightful)
Translation: "We have successfully threatened and intimidated a sovereign government and reminded them that we are only ever subject to the laws that we agree to. We have also successfully dominated the local news companies that provide us with the content that maintains our local revenue stream, thus reminding other tin-pot countries and local news agencies that they play by our rules - or else. Looking forward, we see that our strategy here - holding our services in blackout until our ransom demands were met - was completely successful. Whilst we do see opportunities for improvement in the approach, we are confident that it can be applied elsewhere in the world if needed. To avoid similar difficulties in future, other countries would do well to remember that we write their laws, not them."
Re:From the Axios Article... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is probably the only time I'll agree with Facebook here. The way Google and Facebook are linking to news sites is very different and classifying them under the same law was moronic.
Google harvests links and presents them in a way that a user may never end up going the news site. It potentially deprives the news site of revenue.
Facebook does not harvest links -- the news sites themselves are sharing their articles. Facebook doesn't summarize the links in a way that would cause users to never visit the actual news site -- instead, the news sites are writing their own summaries.
The law should be written so that if Facebook starts doing the former, it will apply to them. It shouldn't be some blanket "if you have a link to our site and you make more than $X/year you must pay us".
Re: (Score:2)
What if Facebook offered a slightly different structure for commercial entities wishing to host content via Facebook - in other words to treat that content a bit like an advertisement.
With some reasonably sensible XML tagging and a bit of automation, a link could be created by which the external news agency got to select which news would be collected by the Facebook spider, and it would appear, in Facebook, in a curated form. This would completely remove any liability from
Re: (Score:2)
Google harvests links and presents them in a way that a user may never end up going the news site. It potentially deprives the news site of revenue.
How? By including a one sentence snippet from the article? If that's all it takes for someone to be satisfied with what they've read, maybe the news sites aren't actually providing value deserving of ad revenue. Personally, I read the articles which lands me on the news sites directly.
Unfortunate (Score:4, Insightful)
I knew Australia would cave (Score:3)
after the government finally agreed to change some of the terms within its new media code.
A dingo stole my integrity!!
More "some animals are more equal than others" (Score:4, Insightful)
Please explain why a media outlet that has ads on its site is entitled to a cut of the money from Facebook promoting the page, but other content producers are not entitled.
Oh right because "journalists," ie professional bloggers (since 99% of them are real investigative journalists) are the essential guardians of democracy.
Write a viral blog post that gets 500k hits from Facebook, you're on your own. Do nothing but regurgitate corporate and government talking points with a little something on top and you have the Australian government demanding Facebook share money with you.
Scary stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary (and probably article) seem to have a pro-news-publisher slant. This was a very bad, very dangerous idea by the government of Australia. What this shows is insane extent that governments will go to control *everything* if they have the technical ability to do so. Hell, they'd charge a fee for people to even discuss these articles amongst themselves if there was a mechanism that allowed them to do so.
Just because communication that occurs online is more conducive to control and monitoring (and thus regulation, taxation and fees) does not mean the government should do so.
A perfect example of this kind of thing are used vehicle sales taxes in various states. If I were to sell you my $3000 computer, through a private sale, person-to-person, there is no sales tax. Why not? Because the government does not have any reasonable manner to track or enforce that sale. It would require self-policing and people to report it out of the goodness of their hearts towards their state government. So why must we pay sales tax on used cars in private person-to-person sales? Because the person that bought that car is almost certainly going to title and register it with the state DMV so they can drive it on the road. And there you go... the government now has a mechanism to track that a private sale did occur, and thus you must pay sales taxes on it again.
It is totally unreasonable that a car that is sold 5 times in its lifetime has resulted in sales taxes being paid 5 times. That is flat-out wrong. But government will end up doing whatever the government can get by with given enough time, because politicians feel their job is to write more and more laws, not strike down existing laws.
Re: Scary stuff, indeed (Score:3)
Dan East opined:
This was a very bad, very dangerous idea by the government of Australia. What this shows is insane extent that governments will go to control *everything* if they have the technical ability to do so. Hell, they'd charge a fee for people to even discuss these articles amongst themselves if there was a mechanism that allowed them to do so.
You're wrong.
What this clusterfuck shows is the extent to which Rupert Murdoch controls the Australian government. He and he alone was responsible for the original rule being passed (and the horseshit excuse that it was mandated by "an independent board" flies in the face of the reality that Aussie politicians live in mortal fear of his displeasure - just because its members are appointed, rather than elected to their positions doesn't immunize them from political pressure from their own pol
Bugger! (Score:2)
I was hoping Facebook would pack up and go home.
fuck australia (Score:1)
I never thought it'd be possible for any entity to act in such a way that I would possibly support Facebook on anything.
No wonder Aussies call each other cunts all the time.
I don't understand (Score:2)
News sites didn't want links posted to Facebook. Facebook complied. Now they are pissed off? They got what they wanted!
Also, if news sites post links to Facebook, do they have to pay Facebook?
Didn't impact me (Score:1)
I live Australia and never noticed anything amiss or different when FB blocked news. I have never used FB for news and not sure why you would want to.
Also, all the major news sites in Australia are paygated as well.