[Merged] Facebook removes news in Aus /Google threatens to remove search engine from Australia - Page 5

smartcooky · 19th February 2021, 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

Was thinking of examples and here is one:

Starbucks set up shop inside a Wal-mart to take advantage of the foot traffic there. Both parties benefit.
Starbucks then makes a claim that their 'coffee loving' customers are bringing extra revenue to Wal-mart.
So Starbucks now wants a piece of Wal-marts store revenue- or maybe just the adjacent area product sales.
So Wal-mart says they don't agree, and are better without Starbucks there as it is a small part of why their customers are there. So maybe pack up and go elsewhere.

This is somehow painted as unfair and undemocratic because Wal-mart shoppers lose the convenience of their grande double mocha while in the store.

(Except in the real world Starbucks would be paying for their space.)

Having been the owner of a retail business, located in a shopping mall, I can promise you that reality is the exact opposite if that. Not only did I have to pay a base rent figure (which was very high, $1100 per week for a 64.5 sqm shop), I had to provide annual accounts, and the Mall management would levy me 10% of my turnover (yes, not my profit, my turnover) in rent.

This is called BOMA lease, and pretty much all Malls throughout NZ and Australia use this rort!

smartcooky · 19th February 2021, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

If people want the news and cannot get it from Facebook they can get it by other means. If they don't then it means they don't actually want the news. That 13% is people who only consumed news because it was there in their preferred store. Nobody has prevented the product from being sold anywhere else. Facebook doesn't owe the news media distribution any more than the news media owes Facebook free content.

But they aren't... that is the point

Australians are only getting a tiny part of their news from Facebook anyway... its pretty obvious that, before the ban, Australian news media organistions were getting a much larger share of the pie than Facebook - they were getting free advertising and traffic driven to their websites by Facebook users posting links to their news sites. But apparently, that was not enough for them, the greedy bastards want the Australian government to get the whole pie for them. Facebook said no, and banned them - this move has cost Facebook essentially nothing (a miniscule fraction of 4% of Facebook's global news content), while the greedy Australian RNOs have lost big time... 1/6th of their traffic gooooone!

It's become readily apparent that the Aussie RNO's need for Facebook is greater than Facebook's need for them. I really hope Facebook stay the course here, and let the Aussie government flail and rail and get nowhere.

smartcooky · 19th February 2021, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

As to Facebook not owing to the News Media distribution, the Australian Government is now looking into forcing that on them too because of the ban. If that goes ahead then not only would Facebook be forced to allow users to link to Australian Media, they would be forced to have to pay for those links being posted.

Ultimately, Australian law is unenforceable on Facebook, which is a US entity. If the Aussie government try this, I can see Facebook just saying "**** it", pulling any interest they have in Australia out of the country, and blocking Facebook in Australia completely. Australian users would lose access to their accounts.

TragicMonkey · 19th February 2021, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

But they aren't... that is the point

My sympathy for the lazy and stupid is limited. If baby wants his bottle but only the one with the cartoon duck on it, baby can go hungry until he learns sense. Facebook is basically meth, and I see no reason to cultivate its usage.

lomiller · 19th February 2021, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Neither is. Having read the explanatory notes... Sites such as Facebook, Google, and Reddit would be considered a "responsible digital platform corporation." A "Registered News Organisation" has a bunch of things it needs to do such as register, have a primary business of creating news articles, be owned in Australia, have a set of professional guidelines. There's quite a bit in there, but basically, it's the media who meet the criteria and register.

Now a digital platform is only considered as "responsible" if the Government arbitrarily decided that they are. Basically, the Government gets to say that a site is now covered by the law and they would then have to take the actions proscribed in the law, including negotiating to have to pay for any content that they host and a bunch of other things. For instance, if they use a search function and want to change it in a way that would affect the number of clicks a Registered News Organisation would get, they would have to alert that Registered News Organisation and explain how that change works 14 days before the change was made. i.e. forcing an advantage to those Registered News Organisations by law.

Now here is the answer to the big question. What is hosted content?

1.160 As explained above in relation to the general requirements, a digital platform service makes available covered news content if it:
• allows for covered news content to be reproduced, or otherwise placed on the digital platform service, in whole or in part (including in the form of snippets); or
• allows for links to covered news content to be placed on the service.
[Schedule 1, item 1, section 52B]
1.161 As explained above in relation to the general requirements, covered news content is a broader category than core news content and includes:
• core news content; and
• any other content that reports, investigates or explains current issues or events of interest to Australians.

So there you have it. If as a site you allow users to post links to articles on Australian sites for a Registered News Organisation and the Australian Government decides that you have to pay for that, then you have to pay for it and are bound by all the other requirements too. We're not even talking about a requirement of having to have actual excerpts or snippets of the article here, merely allowing someone to post a link to the site means you would be in jeopardy of having to pay that site to link to them and your only recourse is to ban your users from posting those links.

That is just plain ridiculous.

Keep in mind that that standard posting etiquette on these forums could violate these rules. Some asks you for a source, you provide a link an a snippet of relevant text. According to these new regulations ISF would be required to pay a fee to these Australian media companies every time you do this.

lomiller · 19th February 2021, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Facebook news ban drops reader traffic to news stories by 13 per cent within Australia, Chartbeat data shows

This is interesting:

Link to Australian news site with a snippet of text. Looks to me like ISF now owes abc money.

Darat · 19th February 2021, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Facebook has many sins to answer for in regards to "The Algorithm" (scare chord) but Facebook never presented itself as some sort of one stop get all your news here place.

There is no such thing as any source of any information that doesn't have some level of duty to not spread known falsehoods,but Facebook isn't (fully) to blame for becoming people's bubbles.

Sort off agree. But remember they want you to stay in front of their adverts as long as possible, so they have really been making it “easier ” to stay within its pages and they know letting people read news whilst showing their adverts is one way of doing that.

PhantomWolf · 19th February 2021, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by plague311

You're kind of making my point here. Google is making concessions to help those people without being forced to do so, yet. As you said, they have the ability to pull out of any market they would like to and with much less damage to them than to those that use it. Good on Google for making that decision, it sucks FB won't do the same, yet.

There is a difference between Google and FB. Google is wanting to start a service that will allow users to remain on the Google Platform, but access any news article in the world in its entirely, even those behind paywalls. This is what they have come to an agreement over, and that's as it should be, Google wants to use the news media's work and display it all on its own platform. Yup, no problems there.

FB is different. Here news organisations can add a share button to their page that allows users to upload that link and an extract to FB. They opt in to FB displaying that content by doing so. Not only that, they themselves post links to their works, both staff and the RNO's themselves. Even if a user posts a naked link this helps the RNO because people will follow it. This is all essentially free advertising for the RNO's but that's not enough, they are demanding that FB has to pay them for their free advertising on FB's platform. Yeah, that's a rort.

PhantomWolf · 19th February 2021, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by lomiller

Keep in mind that that standard posting etiquette on these forums could violate these rules. Some asks you for a source, you provide a link an a snippet of relevant text. According to these new regulations ISF would be required to pay a fee to these Australian media companies every time you do this.

Originally Posted by lomiller

Link to Australian news site with a snippet of text. Looks to me like ISF now owes abc money.

Yeah, this isn't quite true and so is one of the other issues I have with the whole thing. ISF would not be affected by this law... unless the Australian Government decided to declare that ISF was a responsible digital platform. And the thing is that there is nothing in the code that defines how they do that, it's simply left up to the Minister's discretion, and there is no appeal to that process. They declare you are an RDP and you now have to abide by their code and negotiate payment with Australia's RNOs for how much you are going to pay them each time someone posts a link to an article, along with all the other stuff that RDPs have to do under the Code. Your only other choices are to ban links to RNOs and/or to totally ban Australians.

psionl0 · 19th February 2021, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

It's become readily apparent that the Aussie RNO's need for Facebook is greater than Facebook's need for them. I really hope Facebook stay the course here, and let the Aussie government flail and rail and get nowhere.

I agree with you. The way the Australian government (doesn't matter which party) sucks up to the media organizations is sickening.

The only consolation is that Australia is a nothing nation in the global scale of things. I just hope that idiots like Boris Johnson or Joe Biden don't get it in their heads that this is a good thing and copy it.

PhantomWolf · 19th February 2021, 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by lomiller

Keep in mind that that standard posting etiquette on these forums could violate these rules. Some asks you for a source, you provide a link an a snippet of relevant text. According to these new regulations ISF would be required to pay a fee to these Australian media companies every time you do this.

Under the law, you wouldn't even have to have this part, the naked link is enough to be considered "coverage" and thus activate the need to pay if you have been declared a RDP.

Sherkeu · 19th February 2021, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Having been the owner of a retail business, located in a shopping mall, I can promise you that reality is the exact opposite if that. Not only did I have to pay a base rent figure (which was very high, $1100 per week for a 64.5 sqm shop), I had to provide annual accounts, and the Mall management would levy me 10% of my turnover (yes, not my profit, my turnover) in rent.

This is called BOMA lease, and pretty much all Malls throughout NZ and Australia use this rort!

Wow....very high rent and 10% seems so high! I can understand the occasional capital spending pass through, like I have with my HOA...but that is mostly fixed for years, and I have the ability to have my say in a meeting.
I wonder how the grocery stores at those malls survive. Having worked product supply in consumer products, those margins are pretty thin...it's the volume that makes up for it.
It would kill such a store over here. (but our grocers are not inside the mall)

Perhaps a farmers market using the mall parking lot might be a better analogy, except both examples are sort of little guy vs big guy and these big media companies aren't exactly small kiosks.

Whatever is used to describe it, the current strategy is to bite the hand that feeds them and hope a shakedown through public outrage works in their favor.

PhantomWolf · 19th February 2021, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

I wonder how the grocery stores at those malls survive. Having worked product supply in consumer products, those margins are pretty thin...it's the volume that makes up for it.
It would kill such a store over here. (but our grocers are not inside the mall)

For the most part nor are ours, supermarkets have their own stores, as do smaller grocery stores.

Malls tend to have smaller shops such as clothing, electronics, and the like and then a bigger department store such as Farmers or Kmart.

rjh01 · 19th February 2021, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Yeah, this isn't quite true and so is one of the other issues I have with the whole thing. ISF would not be affected by this law... unless the Australian Government decided to declare that ISF was a responsible digital platform. And the thing is that there is nothing in the code that defines how they do that, it's simply left up to the Minister's discretion, and there is no appeal to that process. They declare you are an RDP and you now have to abide by their code and negotiate payment with Australia's RNOs for how much you are going to pay them each time someone posts a link to an article, along with all the other stuff that RDPs have to do under the Code. Your only other choices are to ban links to RNOs and/or to totally ban Australians.

I wonder what would happen if ISF, Facebook, or anyone else just said we will ignore Australian law? No banning of Australian media, no payments to Australian media? How can the Australian Government enforce the law?

Sherkeu · 19th February 2021, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by rjh01

I wonder what would happen if ISF, Facebook, or anyone else just said we will ignore Australian law? No banning of Australian media, no payments to Australian media? How can the Australian Government enforce the law?

I imagine that because the larger companies like Facebook and Google have offices in major cities, they could take action on ad sales and contracts that way? Just take away their business license.

Facebook has offices in Sydney, Melbourne and Auckland. Unlike ISF or smaller platforms, they register businesses in many countries to implement more targeted advertising.

Smaller companies dont need to have any relation with Australia and can just outsource their ad placements to a company that has reach in different area or keep it local depending on their traffic.
Anyone know how it really works legally?

rjh01 · 19th February 2021, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

I imagine that because the larger companies like Facebook and Google have offices in major cities, they could take action on ad sales and contracts that way? Just take away their business license.

Facebook has offices in Sydney, Melbourne and Auckland. Unlike ISF or smaller platforms, they register businesses in many countries to implement more targeted advertising.

Smaller companies dont need to have any relation with Australia and can just outsource their ad placements to a company that has reach in different area or keep it local depending on their traffic.
Anyone know how it really works legally?

You are right. They have an office that employs about 150 staff. They could close the office. Then it would be in a similar position as ISF.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/p...-sydney-2019-3

PhantomWolf · 19th February 2021, 10:37 PM

Under the law, they can also issue extremely large fines for non-compliance, which I assume a business registered in Australia would have to pay.

Darat · 21st February 2021, 06:27 AM

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

I imagine that because the larger companies like Facebook and Google have offices in major cities, they could take action on ad sales and contracts that way? Just take away their business license.

Facebook has offices in Sydney, Melbourne and Auckland. Unlike ISF or smaller platforms, they register businesses in many countries to implement more targeted advertising.

Smaller companies dont need to have any relation with Australia and can just outsource their ad placements to a company that has reach in different area or keep it local depending on their traffic.
Anyone know how it really works legally?

Governments need to enact legislation to deal with these powerful international companies.

The way to do it is to have a law that enables you to fine against any sales by the companies that use them to advertise. So for instance if BogPaper Ltd sells their luxury BogPaperForToffs in the UK and advertises on Facebook those sales can be targeted.

It’s the only way a nation can deal with a “non-domicile” international company.

Lplus · 21st February 2021, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Governments need to enact legislation to deal with these powerful international companies.

The way to do it is to have a law that enables you to fine against any sales by the companies that use them to advertise. So for instance if BogPaper Ltd sells their luxury BogPaperForToffs in the UK and advertises on Facebook those sales can be targeted.

It’s the only way a nation can deal with a “non-domicile” international company.

What if they also advertise elsewhere? How would you apportion the tax on the total sales?

Darat · 21st February 2021, 07:15 AM

Originally Posted by Lplus

What if they also advertise elsewhere? How would you apportion the tax on the total sales?

You don’t. Hit them with a fine as a percentage of your country’s sales. They have the option then of stop using Facebook, stop selling in your country or keep paying your fines.

This of course works better at a larger scale, for example the EU would be a huge trading area for a company to lose.

It’s akin to the EU wide decisions against MS and the like.

Lplus · 21st February 2021, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

You don’t. Hit them with a fine as a percentage of your country’s sales. They have the option then of stop using Facebook, stop selling in your country or keep paying your fines.

This of course works better at a larger scale, for example the EU would be a huge trading area for a company to lose.

It’s akin to the EU wide decisions against MS and the like.

It sounds like you would intend to fine the company using Facebook to advertise, rather than fining Facebook for the fact a company is using Facebook to advertise. If the company itself was a multinational perhaps, but for a company resident in your own country(or Economic area) I can't see the likes of Mercedes Benz being too chuffed about being fined by the EU for advertising on facebook.

Who have you actually got it in for - the companies producing the goods or facebook for hosting their ads?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Sherkeu · 21st February 2021, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by Lplus

It sounds like you would intend to fine the company using Facebook to advertise, rather than fining Facebook for the fact a company is using Facebook to advertise. If the company itself was a multinational perhaps, but for a company resident in your own country(or Economic area) I can't see the likes of Mercedes Benz being too chuffed about being fined by the EU for advertising on facebook.

Who have you actually got it in for - the companies producing the goods or facebook for hosting their ads?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

Yeah...I don't understand this concept either. I'm not even sure who Darat wants to pay who... and which side is getting the 'value add' that makes such a payment fair.

There are many ways to advertise, including just hiring influencers with free accounts, which is basically what the News pages are doing for themselves to drive traffic.

Mercedes can just pay David Beckham to post about his awesome new Mercedes!

Maybe Tesla advertisements show up on David's page where David is praising his latest auto purchase from Mercedes while the next photo by the car shows him reading The Guardian (and of course the algorithms do that!). And you'd not even know if it was paid for or not just by the placement of the post.

Should facebook then be eligible for a piece of Mercedes sales if David got paid and facebook did not? or The Guardian even if they did not pay David for it but benefited anyway from facebook hosting the photo? I mean, they want him to post there because it's good for them too but someone else made some money too so.... oh man, this is confusing.

I smell a bureaucratic committee coming to police it all!

At the end of the day, if you dont want your News content on facebook, dont have a page there that shares it freely, and dont have a share button that encourages people to share. But why in the world would they? Facebook gives them circulation they would not have otherwise- ad or no ads. Shot in the foot, nose removals from faces, etc... come to mind.

Darat · 21st February 2021, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by Lplus

It sounds like you would intend to fine the company using Facebook to advertise, rather than fining Facebook for the fact a company is using Facebook to advertise. If the company itself was a multinational perhaps, but for a company resident in your own country(or Economic area) I can't see the likes of Mercedes Benz being too chuffed about being fined by the EU for advertising on facebook.

That’s right - if Facebook doesn’t have assets in your country you have to find another way to disrupt their business if they are doing something against your national laws.

Originally Posted by Lplus

Who have you actually got it in for - the companies producing the goods or facebook for hosting their ads?

Neither

Originally Posted by Lplus

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

I was talking more in the abstract (I don’t think with my current understanding that the Australian idea is a good one). I was attempting to explain how nations may have to operate if they want to prevent say Facebook doing something against their laws.

If a company doesn’t have assets in your country than you can’t go after them directly, the only other option is to go after what they value more than anything else - profit so you have to disrupt their ability to make profit which may means going after their customer i.e. other businesses.

Lplus · 21st February 2021, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

That’s right - if Facebook doesn’t have assets in your country you have to find another way to disrupt their business if they are doing something against your national laws.

Neither

I was talking more in the abstract (I don’t think with my current understanding that the Australian idea is a good one). I was attempting to explain how nations may have to operate if they want to prevent say Facebook doing something against their laws.

If a company doesn’t have assets in your country than you can’t go after them directly, the only other option is to go after what they value more than anything else - profit so you have to disrupt their ability to make profit which may means going after their customer i.e. other businesses.

Punishment of one entity to get at another? I've heard of that in another context - secondary picketing.

Norman Alexander · 21st February 2021, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

But they aren't... that is the point

Australians are only getting a tiny part of their news from Facebook anyway... its pretty obvious that, before the ban, Australian news media organistions were getting a much larger share of the pie than Facebook - they were getting free advertising and traffic driven to their websites by Facebook users posting links to their news sites. But apparently, that was not enough for them, the greedy bastards want the Australian government to get the whole pie for them. Facebook said no, and banned them - this move has cost Facebook essentially nothing (a miniscule fraction of 4% of Facebook's global news content), while the greedy Australian RNOs have lost big time... 1/6th of their traffic gooooone!

It's become readily apparent that the Aussie RNO's need for Facebook is greater than Facebook's need for them. I really hope Facebook stay the course here, and let the Aussie government flail and rail and get nowhere.

Just one - News Ltd. Murdoch is the main driver behind all this stubbornness.

PhantomWolf · 21st February 2021, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by Darat

If a company doesn’t have assets in your country than you can’t go after them directly, the only other option is to go after what they value more than anything else - profit so you have to disrupt their ability to make profit which may means going after their customer i.e. other businesses.

This seems to be almost as bad as the proposed Australian Law. This is punishing one entity for the sins of the other. Can you imagine the outcry if when a murderer wasn't available to jail we instead locked up someone they cared about?

rjh01 · 21st February 2021, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

This seems to be almost as bad as the proposed Australian Law. This is punishing one entity for the sins of the other. Can you imagine the outcry if when a murderer wasn't available to jail we instead locked up someone they cared about?

That model is not quite right. Unless you mean a person who pays the murderer knowing who they are is someone who cares about them?

Edit. Do you think there should be any sanctions on a company that employes a person wanted by the police? Assume the company is based in the same country where the police want him. And the company knows he is wanted.

smartcooky · 22nd February 2021, 12:57 AM

Originally Posted by rjh01

That model is not quite right. Unless you mean a person who pays the murderer knowing who they are is someone who cares about them?

Edit. Do you think there should be any sanctions on a company that employes a person wanted by the police? Assume the company is based in the same country where the police want him. And the company knows he is wanted.

Is there a law that would sanction a company specifically and only for doing so?

(and don't give me "harbouring a fugitive" because that wont fly - its a sanction against anyone, not just a company)

smartcooky · 22nd February 2021, 01:01 AM

Really, some of the arguments supporting the Australian Government and media being spouted in this thread are just plain ridiculous. Darat's idea is something you would see the CCP or Putin doing... is that was people really want - authoritarianism?

Facebook are perfectly within their rights to tell the Aussie Govt and Rupert ******* Murdoch to piss off. Facebook own their platform, and only they have the right to decide how it will function. If the Aussie media don't want Facebook users sharing their articles, then they should remove the Facebook share option off their websites - as of a minute ago, the SMH still has them!

At the moment. the Aussie media giants are losing out while Facebook is losing nothing, they can keep this up as long as they like with no impact on their bottom line - and I hope they do.

Sideroxylon · 22nd February 2021, 01:19 AM

They own a platform of widespread popularity but of dubious value. If they get people’s backs up they might see that fact and pull out.

smartcooky · 22nd February 2021, 01:31 AM

Here is something worth thinking about

In the last 12 months, Facebook has sent more than 5 billion clicks to Australian News Publishers, with an estimated value of AUD$407 million. Currently, Facebook is sending those publishers no clicks at all. I think this pretty much shows the relative value that Facebook and those publishers provide to each other.

Now, if the Australian government gets their way, the Aussie News Publishers will still get that AUD$407 million, and Facebook will have to pay ON TOP OF THAT for sending them, those clicks.

Wildy · 22nd February 2021, 02:56 AM

Originally Posted by lomiller

Link to Australian news site with a snippet of text. Looks to me like ISF now owes abc money.

If only the older version of the legislation that made it more blatant that it was to help Murdoch and Costello by forbidding the ABC and SBS from shaking down websites was the one coming into effect.

rjh01 · 22nd February 2021, 03:07 AM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Here is something worth thinking about

In the last 12 months, Facebook has sent more than 5 billion clicks to Australian News Publishers, with an estimated value of AUD$407 million. Currently, Facebook is sending those publishers no clicks at all. I think this pretty much shows the relative value that Facebook and those publishers provide to each other.

Now, if the Australian government gets their way, the Aussie News Publishers will still get that AUD$407 million, and Facebook will have to pay ON TOP OF THAT for sending them, those clicks.

Or maybe 0 clicks and $0.

Darat · 22nd February 2021, 03:26 AM

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

This seems to be almost as bad as the proposed Australian Law. This is punishing one entity for the sins of the other. Can you imagine the outcry if when a murderer wasn't available to jail we instead locked up someone they cared about?

Not an analogy that works, businesses are not people. If a country can’t go directly after the business that is breaking their laws then another way has to be found.

Or should a country just shrug its metaphorical shoulders and say “oh well we have laws but they don’t apply to an international company?” Personally I don’t think they should, I think countries have to find ways to ensure their laws are respected.

Another example is the EU’s GDPR - because companies wanted access to EU markets they followed the EU legislation whether they had EU assets or not.

(Again this doesn’t apply to the current Australia v Facebook stare-off as Facebook is ensuring it is following the Australian laws - Australia not liking the consequences of its own laws is its problem.)

Darat · 22nd February 2021, 03:28 AM

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Really, some of the arguments supporting the Australian Government and media being spouted in this thread are just plain ridiculous. Darat's idea is something you would see the CCP or Putin doing... is that was people really want - authoritarianism?

…snip…

Should a country not be able to enforce its own laws if the company breaking its laws is an international company?

Roboramma · 22nd February 2021, 03:43 AM

Originally Posted by GodMark2

No, I'm acting as if Google did something wrong by copying enough content from the original sources that users no longer need to follow the links to the source sites, as they have already read Google's copy of the content.

I don't know about you, but I've literally never done a google search, read the extract on the search results and thought "that's what I was looking for, no need to open that page".

The ones I don't click on, I don't click on because they weren't what I was looking for, not because they were and I was somehow satisfied with the little paragraph Google supplied to me.

GlennB · 22nd February 2021, 04:29 AM

Originally Posted by Roboramma

I don't know about you, but I've literally never done a google search, read the extract on the search results and thought "that's what I was looking for, no need to open that page".

The ones I don't click on, I don't click on because they weren't what I was looking for, not because they were and I was somehow satisfied with the little paragraph Google supplied to me.

Really? You've never looked for a date, a number, a capital city, a year of birth/death or thousands of other things that are immediately answered by the short summary?

Darat · 22nd February 2021, 04:39 AM

Originally Posted by GlennB

Really? You've never looked for a date, a number, a capital city, a year of birth/death or thousands of other things that are immediately answered by the short summary?

Definitely for me a lot of my searches do only result in my needing the google results page.

Lplus · 22nd February 2021, 05:13 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Should a country not be able to enforce its own laws if the company breaking its laws is an international company?

Not by punishing other companies which haven't broken any laws. Sure you could make another law that dealing with that international company is against the law and fine anyone dealing with the international company, but it still doesn't actually punish the international company itself unless it deprives them of a significant income.

Reminds me of cancel culture - and the US ban on US firms dealing with Venezuela - (or is Cuba - not sure).

Simply banning the international company from operating in your domain would seem to be the most effective.

Sideroxylon · 22nd February 2021, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by GlennB

Really? You've never looked for a date, a number, a capital city, a year of birth/death or thousands of other things that are immediately answered by the short summary?

Yes, then complete song lyrics, band members, cast members, list - say all movies of 1984, famous physicists etc all without learning Google and seeing someone else’s advertising.

ETA: thinking more about it, I can also see short instruction lists for problems I am searching. So many times you need not leave the Google world.

19th February 2021, 12:13 PM	#161
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 17,191	Originally Posted by Sherkeu Was thinking of examples and here is one: Starbucks set up shop inside a Wal-mart to take advantage of the foot traffic there. Both parties benefit. Starbucks then makes a claim that their 'coffee loving' customers are bringing extra revenue to Wal-mart. So Starbucks now wants a piece of Wal-marts store revenue- or maybe just the adjacent area product sales. So Wal-mart says they don't agree, and are better without Starbucks there as it is a small part of why their customers are there. So maybe pack up and go elsewhere. This is somehow painted as unfair and undemocratic because Wal-mart shoppers lose the convenience of their grande double mocha while in the store. (Except in the real world Starbucks would be paying for their space.) Having been the owner of a retail business, located in a shopping mall, I can promise you that reality is the exact opposite if that. Not only did I have to pay a base rent figure (which was very high, $1100 per week for a 64.5 sqm shop), I had to provide annual accounts, and the Mall management would levy me 10% of my turnover (yes, not my profit, my turnover) in rent. This is called BOMA lease, and pretty much all Malls throughout NZ and Australia use this rort!
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

19th February 2021, 12:27 PM	#162
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 17,191	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey If people want the news and cannot get it from Facebook they can get it by other means. If they don't then it means they don't actually want the news. That 13% is people who only consumed news because it was there in their preferred store. Nobody has prevented the product from being sold anywhere else. Facebook doesn't owe the news media distribution any more than the news media owes Facebook free content. But they aren't... that is the point Australians are only getting a tiny part of their news from Facebook anyway... its pretty obvious that, before the ban, Australian news media organistions were getting a much larger share of the pie than Facebook - they were getting free advertising and traffic driven to their websites by Facebook users posting links to their news sites. But apparently, that was not enough for them, the greedy bastards want the Australian government to get the whole pie for them. Facebook said no, and banned them - this move has cost Facebook essentially nothing (a miniscule fraction of 4% of Facebook's global news content), while the greedy Australian RNOs have lost big time... 1/6th of their traffic gooooone! It's become readily apparent that the Aussie RNO's need for Facebook is greater than Facebook's need for them. I really hope Facebook stay the course here, and let the Aussie government flail and rail and get nowhere.
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

19th February 2021, 12:32 PM	#163
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 17,191	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf As to Facebook not owing to the News Media distribution, the Australian Government is now looking into forcing that on them too because of the ban. If that goes ahead then not only would Facebook be forced to allow users to link to Australian Media, they would be forced to have to pay for those links being posted. Ultimately, Australian law is unenforceable on Facebook, which is a US entity. If the Aussie government try this, I can see Facebook just saying "*** it"*, pulling any interest they have in Australia out of the country, and blocking Facebook in Australia completely. Australian users would lose access to their accounts.
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

19th February 2021, 12:34 PM	#164
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 59,741	Originally Posted by smartcooky But they aren't... that is the point My sympathy for the lazy and stupid is limited. If baby wants his bottle but only the one with the cartoon duck on it, baby can go hungry until he learns sense. Facebook is basically meth, and I see no reason to cultivate its usage.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

19th February 2021, 01:36 PM	#165
lomiller Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 11,483	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf Neither is. Having read the explanatory notes... Sites such as Facebook, Google, and Reddit would be considered a "responsible digital platform corporation." A "Registered News Organisation" has a bunch of things it needs to do such as register, have a primary business of creating news articles, be owned in Australia, have a set of professional guidelines. There's quite a bit in there, but basically, it's the media who meet the criteria and register. Now a digital platform is only considered as "responsible" if the Government arbitrarily decided that they are. Basically, the Government gets to say that a site is now covered by the law and they would then have to take the actions proscribed in the law, including negotiating to have to pay for any content that they host and a bunch of other things. For instance, if they use a search function and want to change it in a way that would affect the number of clicks a Registered News Organisation would get, they would have to alert that Registered News Organisation and explain how that change works 14 days before the change was made. i.e. forcing an advantage to those Registered News Organisations by law. Now here is the answer to the big question. What is hosted content? 1.160 As explained above in relation to the general requirements, a digital platform service makes available covered news content if it: • allows for covered news content to be reproduced, or otherwise placed on the digital platform service, in whole or in part (including in the form of snippets); or • allows for links to covered news content to be placed on the service. [Schedule 1, item 1, section 52B] 1.161 As explained above in relation to the general requirements, covered news content is a broader category than core news content and includes: • core news content; and • any other content that reports, investigates or explains current issues or events of interest to Australians. So there you have it. If as a site you allow users to post links to articles on Australian sites for a Registered News Organisation and the Australian Government decides that you have to pay for that, then you have to pay for it and are bound by all the other requirements too. We're not even talking about a requirement of having to have actual excerpts or snippets of the article here, merely allowing someone to post a link to the site means you would be in jeopardy of having to pay that site to link to them and your only recourse is to ban your users from posting those links. That is just plain ridiculous. Keep in mind that that standard posting etiquette on these forums could violate these rules. Some asks you for a source, you provide a link an a snippet of relevant text. According to these new regulations ISF would be required to pay a fee to these Australian media companies every time you do this.
	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

19th February 2021, 01:39 PM	#166
lomiller Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 11,483	Originally Posted by arthwollipot Facebook news ban drops reader traffic to news stories by 13 per cent within Australia, Chartbeat data shows This is interesting: Link to Australian news site with a snippet of text. Looks to me like ISF now owes abc money.
	__________________ "Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

19th February 2021, 02:11 PM	#167
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 97,824	Originally Posted by JoeMorgue Facebook has many sins to answer for in regards to "The Algorithm" (scare chord) but Facebook never presented itself as some sort of one stop get all your news here place. There is no such thing as any source of any information that doesn't have some level of duty to not spread known falsehoods,but Facebook isn't (fully) to blame for becoming people's bubbles. Sort off agree. But remember they want you to stay in front of their adverts as long as possible, so they have really been making it “easier ” to stay within its pages and they know letting people read news whilst showing their adverts is one way of doing that.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

19th February 2021, 06:00 PM	#168
PhantomWolf Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 20,392	Originally Posted by plague311 You're kind of making my point here. Google is making concessions to help those people without being forced to do so, yet. As you said, they have the ability to pull out of any market they would like to and with much less damage to them than to those that use it. Good on Google for making that decision, it sucks FB won't do the same, yet. There is a difference between Google and FB. Google is wanting to start a service that will allow users to remain on the Google Platform, but access any news article in the world in its entirely, even those behind paywalls. This is what they have come to an agreement over, and that's as it should be, Google wants to use the news media's work and display it all on its own platform. Yup, no problems there. FB is different. Here news organisations can add a share button to their page that allows users to upload that link and an extract to FB. They opt in to FB displaying that content by doing so. Not only that, they themselves post links to their works, both staff and the RNO's themselves. Even if a user posts a naked link this helps the RNO because people will follow it. This is all essentially free advertising for the RNO's but that's not enough, they are demanding that FB has to pay them for their free advertising on FB's platform. Yeah, that's a rort.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

19th February 2021, 06:06 PM	#169
PhantomWolf Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 20,392	Originally Posted by lomiller Keep in mind that that standard posting etiquette on these forums could violate these rules. Some asks you for a source, you provide a link an a snippet of relevant text. According to these new regulations ISF would be required to pay a fee to these Australian media companies every time you do this. Originally Posted by lomiller Link to Australian news site with a snippet of text. Looks to me like ISF now owes abc money. Yeah, this isn't quite true and so is one of the other issues I have with the whole thing. ISF would not be affected by this law... unless the Australian Government decided to declare that ISF was a responsible digital platform. And the thing is that there is nothing in the code that defines how they do that, it's simply left up to the Minister's discretion, and there is no appeal to that process. They declare you are an RDP and you now have to abide by their code and negotiate payment with Australia's RNOs for how much you are going to pay them each time someone posts a link to an article, along with all the other stuff that RDPs have to do under the Code. Your only other choices are to ban links to RNOs and/or to totally ban Australians.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871) Last edited by PhantomWolf; 19th February 2021 at 06:08 PM.

19th February 2021, 06:10 PM	#170
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 17,169	Originally Posted by smartcooky It's become readily apparent that the Aussie RNO's need for Facebook is greater than Facebook's need for them. I really hope Facebook stay the course here, and let the Aussie government flail and rail and get nowhere. I agree with you. The way the Australian government (doesn't matter which party) sucks up to the media organizations is sickening. The only consolation is that Australia is a nothing nation in the global scale of things. I just hope that idiots like Boris Johnson or Joe Biden don't get it in their heads that this is a good thing and copy it.
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

19th February 2021, 06:11 PM	#171
PhantomWolf Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 20,392	Originally Posted by lomiller Keep in mind that that standard posting etiquette on these forums could violate these rules. Some asks you for a source, you provide a link an a snippet of relevant text. According to these new regulations ISF would be required to pay a fee to these Australian media companies every time you do this. Under the law, you wouldn't even have to have this part, the naked link is enough to be considered "coverage" and thus activate the need to pay if you have been declared a RDP.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

19th February 2021, 07:21 PM	#172
Sherkeu Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Disneyland Posts: 2,485	Originally Posted by smartcooky Having been the owner of a retail business, located in a shopping mall, I can promise you that reality is the exact opposite if that. Not only did I have to pay a base rent figure (which was very high, $1100 per week for a 64.5 sqm shop), I had to provide annual accounts, and the Mall management would levy me 10% of my turnover (yes, not my profit, my turnover) in rent. This is called BOMA lease, and pretty much all Malls throughout NZ and Australia use this rort! Wow....very high rent and 10% seems so high! I can understand the occasional capital spending pass through, like I have with my HOA...but that is mostly fixed for years, and I have the ability to have my say in a meeting. I wonder how the grocery stores at those malls survive. Having worked product supply in consumer products, those margins are pretty thin...it's the volume that makes up for it. It would kill such a store over here. (but our grocers are not inside the mall) Perhaps a farmers market using the mall parking lot might be a better analogy, except both examples are sort of little guy vs big guy and these big media companies aren't exactly small kiosks. Whatever is used to describe it, the current strategy is to bite the hand that feeds them and hope a shakedown through public outrage works in their favor.

19th February 2021, 08:21 PM	#173
PhantomWolf Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 20,392	Originally Posted by Sherkeu I wonder how the grocery stores at those malls survive. Having worked product supply in consumer products, those margins are pretty thin...it's the volume that makes up for it. It would kill such a store over here. (but our grocers are not inside the mall) For the most part nor are ours, supermarkets have their own stores, as do smaller grocery stores. Malls tend to have smaller shops such as clothing, electronics, and the like and then a bigger department store such as Farmers or Kmart.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

19th February 2021, 08:48 PM	#174
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 26,629	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf Yeah, this isn't quite true and so is one of the other issues I have with the whole thing. ISF would not be affected by this law... unless the Australian Government decided to declare that ISF was a responsible digital platform. And the thing is that there is nothing in the code that defines how they do that, it's simply left up to the Minister's discretion, and there is no appeal to that process. They declare you are an RDP and you now have to abide by their code and negotiate payment with Australia's RNOs for how much you are going to pay them each time someone posts a link to an article, along with all the other stuff that RDPs have to do under the Code. Your only other choices are to ban links to RNOs and/or to totally ban Australians. I wonder what would happen if ISF, Facebook, or anyone else just said we will ignore Australian law? No banning of Australian media, no payments to Australian media? How can the Australian Government enforce the law?
	__________________ This signature is for rent.

19th February 2021, 09:14 PM	#175
Sherkeu Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Disneyland Posts: 2,485	Originally Posted by rjh01 I wonder what would happen if ISF, Facebook, or anyone else just said we will ignore Australian law? No banning of Australian media, no payments to Australian media? How can the Australian Government enforce the law? I imagine that because the larger companies like Facebook and Google have offices in major cities, they could take action on ad sales and contracts that way? Just take away their business license. Facebook has offices in Sydney, Melbourne and Auckland. Unlike ISF or smaller platforms, they register businesses in many countries to implement more targeted advertising. Smaller companies dont need to have any relation with Australia and can just outsource their ad placements to a company that has reach in different area or keep it local depending on their traffic. Anyone know how it really works legally?
	Last edited by Sherkeu; 19th February 2021 at 09:22 PM.

19th February 2021, 10:07 PM	#176
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 26,629	Originally Posted by Sherkeu I imagine that because the larger companies like Facebook and Google have offices in major cities, they could take action on ad sales and contracts that way? Just take away their business license. Facebook has offices in Sydney, Melbourne and Auckland. Unlike ISF or smaller platforms, they register businesses in many countries to implement more targeted advertising. Smaller companies dont need to have any relation with Australia and can just outsource their ad placements to a company that has reach in different area or keep it local depending on their traffic. Anyone know how it really works legally? You are right. They have an office that employs about 150 staff. They could close the office. Then it would be in a similar position as ISF. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/p...-sydney-2019-3
	__________________ This signature is for rent.

19th February 2021, 10:37 PM	#177
PhantomWolf Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 20,392	Under the law, they can also issue extremely large fines for non-compliance, which I assume a business registered in Australia would have to pay.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

21st February 2021, 06:27 AM	#178
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 97,824	Originally Posted by Sherkeu I imagine that because the larger companies like Facebook and Google have offices in major cities, they could take action on ad sales and contracts that way? Just take away their business license. Facebook has offices in Sydney, Melbourne and Auckland. Unlike ISF or smaller platforms, they register businesses in many countries to implement more targeted advertising. Smaller companies dont need to have any relation with Australia and can just outsource their ad placements to a company that has reach in different area or keep it local depending on their traffic. Anyone know how it really works legally? Governments need to enact legislation to deal with these powerful international companies. The way to do it is to have a law that enables you to fine against any sales by the companies that use them to advertise. So for instance if BogPaper Ltd sells their luxury BogPaperForToffs in the UK and advertises on Facebook those sales can be targeted. It’s the only way a nation can deal with a “non-domicile” international company.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

21st February 2021, 07:06 AM	#179
Lplus Muse Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 654	Originally Posted by Darat Governments need to enact legislation to deal with these powerful international companies. The way to do it is to have a law that enables you to fine against any sales by the companies that use them to advertise. So for instance if BogPaper Ltd sells their luxury BogPaperForToffs in the UK and advertises on Facebook those sales can be targeted. It’s the only way a nation can deal with a “non-domicile” international company. What if they also advertise elsewhere? How would you apportion the tax on the total sales?
Lplus Muse Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 654	__________________ Those who are most fanatical in their condemnation of others are often mortally afraid that, in their deepest subconcious, they agree with those who they are condemning. Communism actively works against the fundamental urge of the human animal to survive and prosper, even at the expense of others, whilst Nazism relies on that urge.

21st February 2021, 07:15 AM	#180
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 97,824	Originally Posted by Lplus What if they also advertise elsewhere? How would you apportion the tax on the total sales? You don’t. Hit them with a fine as a percentage of your country’s sales. They have the option then of stop using Facebook, stop selling in your country or keep paying your fines. This of course works better at a larger scale, for example the EU would be a huge trading area for a company to lose. It’s akin to the EU wide decisions against MS and the like.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

21st February 2021, 07:30 AM	#181
Lplus Muse Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 654	Originally Posted by Darat You don’t. Hit them with a fine as a percentage of your country’s sales. They have the option then of stop using Facebook, stop selling in your country or keep paying your fines. This of course works better at a larger scale, for example the EU would be a huge trading area for a company to lose. It’s akin to the EU wide decisions against MS and the like. It sounds like you would intend to fine the company using Facebook to advertise, rather than fining Facebook for the fact a company is using Facebook to advertise. If the company itself was a multinational perhaps, but for a company resident in your own country(or Economic area) I can't see the likes of Mercedes Benz being too chuffed about being fined by the EU for advertising on facebook. Who have you actually got it in for - the companies producing the goods or facebook for hosting their ads? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
Lplus Muse Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 654	__________________ Those who are most fanatical in their condemnation of others are often mortally afraid that, in their deepest subconcious, they agree with those who they are condemning. Communism actively works against the fundamental urge of the human animal to survive and prosper, even at the expense of others, whilst Nazism relies on that urge.

21st February 2021, 08:03 AM	#182
Sherkeu Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: Disneyland Posts: 2,485	Originally Posted by Lplus It sounds like you would intend to fine the company using Facebook to advertise, rather than fining Facebook for the fact a company is using Facebook to advertise. If the company itself was a multinational perhaps, but for a company resident in your own country(or Economic area) I can't see the likes of Mercedes Benz being too chuffed about being fined by the EU for advertising on facebook. Who have you actually got it in for - the companies producing the goods or facebook for hosting their ads? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Yeah...I don't understand this concept either. I'm not even sure who Darat wants to pay who... and which side is getting the 'value add' that makes such a payment fair. There are many ways to advertise, including just hiring influencers with free accounts, which is basically what the News pages are doing for themselves to drive traffic. Mercedes can just pay David Beckham to post about his awesome new Mercedes! Maybe Tesla advertisements show up on David's page where David is praising his latest auto purchase from Mercedes while the next photo by the car shows him reading The Guardian (and of course the algorithms do that!). And you'd not even know if it was paid for or not just by the placement of the post. Should facebook then be eligible for a piece of Mercedes sales if David got paid and facebook did not? or The Guardian even if they did not pay David for it but benefited anyway from facebook hosting the photo? I mean, they want him to post there because it's good for them too but someone else made some money too so.... oh man, this is confusing. I smell a bureaucratic committee coming to police it all! At the end of the day, if you dont want your News content on facebook, dont have a page there that shares it freely, and dont have a share button that encourages people to share. But why in the world would they? Facebook gives them circulation they would not have otherwise- ad or no ads. Shot in the foot, nose removals from faces, etc... come to mind.
	Last edited by Sherkeu; 21st February 2021 at 08:05 AM.

21st February 2021, 08:57 AM	#183
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 97,824	Originally Posted by Lplus It sounds like you would intend to fine the company using Facebook to advertise, rather than fining Facebook for the fact a company is using Facebook to advertise. If the company itself was a multinational perhaps, but for a company resident in your own country(or Economic area) I can't see the likes of Mercedes Benz being too chuffed about being fined by the EU for advertising on facebook. That’s right - if Facebook doesn’t have assets in your country you have to find another way to disrupt their business if they are doing something against your national laws. Originally Posted by Lplus Who have you actually got it in for - the companies producing the goods or facebook for hosting their ads? Neither Originally Posted by Lplus Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. I was talking more in the abstract (I don’t think with my current understanding that the Australian idea is a good one). I was attempting to explain how nations may have to operate if they want to prevent say Facebook doing something against their laws. If a company doesn’t have assets in your country than you can’t go after them directly, the only other option is to go after what they value more than anything else - profit so you have to disrupt their ability to make profit which may means going after their customer i.e. other businesses.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

21st February 2021, 10:57 AM	#184
Lplus Muse Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 654	Originally Posted by Darat That’s right - if Facebook doesn’t have assets in your country you have to find another way to disrupt their business if they are doing something against your national laws. Neither I was talking more in the abstract (I don’t think with my current understanding that the Australian idea is a good one). I was attempting to explain how nations may have to operate if they want to prevent say Facebook doing something against their laws. If a company doesn’t have assets in your country than you can’t go after them directly, the only other option is to go after what they value more than anything else - profit so you have to disrupt their ability to make profit which may means going after their customer i.e. other businesses. Punishment of one entity to get at another? I've heard of that in another context - secondary picketing.
Lplus Muse Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 654	__________________ Those who are most fanatical in their condemnation of others are often mortally afraid that, in their deepest subconcious, they agree with those who they are condemning. Communism actively works against the fundamental urge of the human animal to survive and prosper, even at the expense of others, whilst Nazism relies on that urge. Last edited by Lplus; 21st February 2021 at 11:02 AM.

21st February 2021, 12:36 PM	#185
Norman Alexander Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2014 Location: Gundungurra Posts: 9,164	Originally Posted by smartcooky But they aren't... that is the point Australians are only getting a tiny part of their news from Facebook anyway... its pretty obvious that, before the ban, Australian news media organistions were getting a much larger share of the pie than Facebook - they were getting free advertising and traffic driven to their websites by Facebook users posting links to their news sites. But apparently, that was not enough for them, the greedy bastards want the Australian government to get the whole pie for them. Facebook said no, and banned them - this move has cost Facebook essentially nothing (a miniscule fraction of 4% of Facebook's global news content), while the greedy Australian RNOs have lost big time... 1/6th of their traffic gooooone! It's become readily apparent that the Aussie RNO's need for Facebook is greater than Facebook's need for them. I really hope Facebook stay the course here, and let the Aussie government flail and rail and get nowhere. Just one - News Ltd. Murdoch is the main driver behind all this stubbornness.
	__________________ _{...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015}

21st February 2021, 02:50 PM	#186
PhantomWolf Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 20,392	Originally Posted by Darat If a company doesn’t have assets in your country than you can’t go after them directly, the only other option is to go after what they value more than anything else - profit so you have to disrupt their ability to make profit which may means going after their customer i.e. other businesses. This seems to be almost as bad as the proposed Australian Law. This is punishing one entity for the sins of the other. Can you imagine the outcry if when a murderer wasn't available to jail we instead locked up someone they cared about?
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

21st February 2021, 09:53 PM	#187
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 26,629	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf This seems to be almost as bad as the proposed Australian Law. This is punishing one entity for the sins of the other. Can you imagine the outcry if when a murderer wasn't available to jail we instead locked up someone they cared about? That model is not quite right. Unless you mean a person who pays the murderer knowing who they are is someone who cares about them? Edit. Do you think there should be any sanctions on a company that employes a person wanted by the police? Assume the company is based in the same country where the police want him. And the company knows he is wanted.
	__________________ This signature is for rent. Last edited by rjh01; 21st February 2021 at 09:57 PM.

22nd February 2021, 12:57 AM	#188
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 17,191	Originally Posted by rjh01 That model is not quite right. Unless you mean a person who pays the murderer knowing who they are is someone who cares about them? Edit. Do you think there should be any sanctions on a company that employes a person wanted by the police? Assume the company is based in the same country where the police want him. And the company knows he is wanted. Is there a law that would sanction a company specifically and only for doing so? (and don't give me "harbouring a fugitive" because that wont fly - its a sanction against anyone, not just a company)
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

22nd February 2021, 01:01 AM	#189
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 17,191	Really, some of the arguments supporting the Australian Government and media being spouted in this thread are just plain ridiculous. Darat's idea is something you would see the CCP or Putin doing... is that was people really want - authoritarianism? Facebook are perfectly within their rights to tell the Aussie Govt and Rupert ******* Murdoch to piss off. Facebook own their platform, and only they have the right to decide how it will function. If the Aussie media don't want Facebook users sharing their articles, then they should remove the Facebook share option off their websites - as of a minute ago, the SMH still has them! At the moment. the Aussie media giants are losing out while Facebook is losing nothing, they can keep this up as long as they like with no impact on their bottom line - and I hope they do.
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! ! Last edited by smartcooky; 22nd February 2021 at 01:11 AM.

22nd February 2021, 01:19 AM	#190
Sideroxylon Featherless biped Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Aporia Posts: 24,462	They own a platform of widespread popularity but of dubious value. If they get people’s backs up they might see that fact and pull out.

22nd February 2021, 01:31 AM	#191
smartcooky Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Nelson, New Zealand Posts: 17,191	Here is something worth thinking about In the last 12 months, Facebook has sent more than 5 billion clicks to Australian News Publishers, with an estimated value of AUD$407 million. Currently, Facebook is sending those publishers no clicks at all. I think this pretty much shows the relative value that Facebook and those publishers provide to each other. Now, if the Australian government gets their way, the Aussie News Publishers will still get that AUD$407 million, and Facebook will have to pay ON TOP OF THAT for sending them, those clicks.
	__________________ I want to thank the 126 Republican Congress members for providing a convenient and well organized list for the mid-terms. - Fred Wellman (Senior VA Advisor to The Lincoln Project) If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

22nd February 2021, 02:56 AM	#192
Wildy Adelaidean Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 11,034	Originally Posted by lomiller Link to Australian news site with a snippet of text. Looks to me like ISF now owes abc money. If only the older version of the legislation that made it more blatant that it was to help Murdoch and Costello by forbidding the ABC and SBS from shaking down websites was the one coming into effect.
	__________________

22nd February 2021, 03:07 AM	#193
rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 26,629	Originally Posted by smartcooky Here is something worth thinking about In the last 12 months, Facebook has sent more than 5 billion clicks to Australian News Publishers, with an estimated value of AUD$407 million. Currently, Facebook is sending those publishers no clicks at all. I think this pretty much shows the relative value that Facebook and those publishers provide to each other. Now, if the Australian government gets their way, the Aussie News Publishers will still get that AUD$407 million, and Facebook will have to pay ON TOP OF THAT for sending them, those clicks. Or maybe 0 clicks and $0.
	__________________ This signature is for rent.

22nd February 2021, 03:26 AM	#194
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 97,824	Originally Posted by PhantomWolf This seems to be almost as bad as the proposed Australian Law. This is punishing one entity for the sins of the other. Can you imagine the outcry if when a murderer wasn't available to jail we instead locked up someone they cared about? Not an analogy that works, businesses are not people. If a country can’t go directly after the business that is breaking their laws then another way has to be found. Or should a country just shrug its metaphorical shoulders and say “oh well we have laws but they don’t apply to an international company?” Personally I don’t think they should, I think countries have to find ways to ensure their laws are respected. Another example is the EU’s GDPR - because companies wanted access to EU markets they followed the EU legislation whether they had EU assets or not. (Again this doesn’t apply to the current Australia v Facebook stare-off as Facebook is ensuring it is following the Australian laws - Australia not liking the consequences of its own laws is its problem.)
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

22nd February 2021, 03:28 AM	#195
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 97,824	Originally Posted by smartcooky Really, some of the arguments supporting the Australian Government and media being spouted in this thread are just plain ridiculous. Darat's idea is something you would see the CCP or Putin doing... is that was people really want - authoritarianism? …snip… Should a country not be able to enforce its own laws if the company breaking its laws is an international company?
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you