Merged: Facebook removes news in Aus /Google threatens to remove search engine from Australia

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Facts are facts... they matter, and it doesn't matter who is reporting them, they remain facts.

How could you possibly be so naive? Have you never heard of spin?

To most people it would appear that Facebook/Google are sending additional viewers to the news sites by providing links to their articles. If that is so then it would seem perplexing that it should be Facebook/Google that pays for the service.

Of course, that is not how the news media corporations are reporting this.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by psionl0

How could you possibly be so naive? Have you never heard of spin?

To most people it would appear that Facebook/Google are sending additional viewers to the news sites by providing links to their articles. If that is so then it would seem perplexing that it should be Facebook/Google that pays for the service.

Of course, that is not how the news media corporations are reporting this.

That is not the end of discussion on a forum like this. If the situation is as mutual or lopsided in favour of traditional media, why are they going in to battle on it?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

That is not the end of discussion on a forum like this. If the situation is as mutual or lopsided in favour of traditional media, why are they going in to battle on it?

Why would a corporation do anything? Do you think that the traditional media has some altruistic goal?

That would be like saying that Mark Zuckerberg is battling for the rights of internet users (he isn't - he is also in it for the money).

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Sherkeu

I do not use Facebook so I searched articles for clarity...(and now I have visited several media/news sites with ads!)

I am so frustrated with the reporting that nothing is defined. What constitutes 'sharing news content'? What is 'content'. Is this something obvious I dont know because I dont use it? Are news articles, in full, available inside of Facebook without a link?

If I send you a headline- and even a small quote - and a link to an article on a publishers site, that publisher should be very happy to get the traffic.

What the heck am I missing here?

Yes, I've been looking around and even the ABC hasn't said what the bill is called.

I've learnt that the legislation has passed the lower house, but it still needs to go before the Senate next week.

I'd really like to read it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by psionl0

How could you possibly be so naive? Have you never heard of spin?

To most people it would appear that Facebook/Google are sending additional viewers to the news sites by providing links to their articles. If that is so then it would seem perplexing that it should be Facebook/Google that pays for the service.

Of course, that is not how the news media corporations are reporting this.

Ooo, evil fake deep state news.

A couple of you guys seem to think Google and FB do it for altruistic motives.

So are you saying Google and FB don't make money off their use of the news reporting? Shouldn't profit sharing be on the table?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Ooo, evil fake deep state news.

It is not a CT to question whether the media is accurately reporting about itself. But labeling an argument CT is a common tactic to suppress debate.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

A couple of you guys seem to think Google and FB do it for altruistic motives.

Not me.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So are you saying Google and FB don't make money off their use of the news reporting? Shouldn't profit sharing be on the table?

Why should Google/Facebook pay to provide the links? If the media corporations are not satisfied with the extra traffic (profits) they get from Google/Facebook then let them block access from these sites instead.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Why would a corporation do anything? Do you think that the traditional media has some altruistic goal?

That would be like saying that Mark Zuckerberg is battling for the rights of internet users (he isn't - he is also in it for the money).

Money was implicitly at the root of my question.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Money was implicitly at the root of my question.

Of course it's about money. It is also about power. Having a government that is willing to go in to bat for an increase in your profits is a big advantage.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Yes, I've been looking around and even the ABC hasn't said what the bill is called.

I've learnt that the legislation has passed the lower house, but it still needs to go before the Senate next week.

I'd really like to read it.

Welll... this is it, but unless you're well-versed in reading legislation, it's not likely to be very helpful:

Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021

[psionl0]

And now for an alternative explanation for Facebook's actions:

[arthwollipot]

Well as it turned out, while all this was going on the government abolished the Family Court, so... you know...

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by psionl0

It is not a CT to question whether the media is accurately reporting about itself. But labeling an argument CT is a common tactic to suppress debate. ...

Did you or did you not claim one was not getting an honest reporting from the news media? I remind you:

Originally Posted by psion

that is not how the news media corporations are reporting this.

How do you know you aren't getting honest reporting? Where are you getting your accounts from? Google News?

Originally Posted by psionl0

... Why should Google/Facebook pay to provide the links? If the media corporations are not satisfied with the extra traffic (profits) they get from Google/Facebook then let them block access from these sites instead.

Who is making money off of whom here?

A) You say the news companies profit from their Google/FB links (essentially advertising).

B) The media companies say they've lost all their ad revenues to Google /FB who are using the news reports from the news companies for free.

If A were true, why would the news companies complain about FB/Google using their news reports for free?

If B weren't true, why would Google/FB want to share the news links of any company ever? What's in it for them?


Why do the news companies owe FB/Google who are essentially using the news companies and not paying for their work? The idea this is all about Google and FB having every right not to offer their services free to these ungrateful news companies is a pretty narrow POV.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Welll... this is it, but unless you're well-versed in reading legislation, it's not likely to be very helpful:

Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021

Thanks!

Sections 52G and 52Z supposedly define who the bill relates to.

However, I didn't see a definition of a "registered news corporation".

It just seems to say that one has to be registered with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

Facebook appear to be arguing that they aren't a news corporation.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Ooo, evil fake deep state news.

A couple of you guys seem to think Google and FB do it for altruistic motives.

So are you saying Google and FB don't make money off their use of the news reporting? Shouldn't profit sharing be on the table?

It depends on what you consider "news reporting" and this is one of the issues because I have heard several different claims about what it's covering.

If it is covering posts by random posters and the news organisations themselves posting to Facebook, then no they shouldn't get profit sharing. The free advertising that they are getting via their free use of Facebook and the extra clicks from other posters should be enough.

If we are talking about Facebook literally grabbing their entire page and hosting it as a news site, then sure then there is an issue and they should be paying.

If the issue is about the amount of text embedded with a link then that can be sorted without bringing in Governments and Laws.

However what it looks like is that the media organisations want to be paid every time someone links to one of their stories, and now that Facebook has dropped that feature and disallowed linking posts to certain websites, they have gotten their undies in a tissy and are demanding that the Government intervene to demand that Facebook has to both host them and pay for that privilege too. And that's an abuse of the law.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Did you or did you not claim one was not getting an honest reporting from the news media? I remind you: How do you know you aren't getting honest reporting? Where are you getting your accounts from? Google News?

You are not going to shift the goal posts here. The issue isn't that the media corporations are "lying" but why the issue seems so unclear.

If the media were reporting this case in clear unbiased terms then there would be no question about what the issues are. Instead, nobody (including yourself) can explain unambiguously what is going on.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Who is making money off of whom here?

AFAIK Google/Facebook get advertising revenue from the pages where they post their links and the media get advertising (and even extra paid subscriptions) from the users who follow the links.

Depending on who you believe, Google/Facebook get more advertising revenue than the media companies. But to call that "stealing" is a massive spin. If the media companies chose to block access to their articles from Facebook/Google then they would have fewer readers and thus less advertising revenue. They would be cutting their noses off to spite their faces.

That should be where it ends but the Australian government is sympathetic to the media corporations and has chosen to introduce legislation to shift advertising revenue from the Google/Facebook sites over to the media company web sites.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Why do the news companies owe FB/Google who are essentially using the news companies and not paying for their work?.

That is a pure strawman argument and the exact opposite of what I am arguing.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The idea this is all about Google and FB having every right not to offer their services free to these ungrateful news companies is a pretty narrow POV.

[arthwollipot]

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

Quote:

Traffic to Australian news websites tumbled in the hours following Facebook's news ban and audiences overall have not shifted to new platforms, according to data from web analytics company Chartbeat.

Facebook blocked Australians from accessing news content on its platform at around 5:30am AEDT yesterday in response to the Government's proposed new laws forcing tech companies to pay publishers for news content.

Chartbeat — a tool used by many Australian news outlets, including the ABC — tracks in real time the number of readers on a digital article and how they were referred to the story, whether via Facebook, Google search, hyperlink, or internally through a publisher's website or app.

This is interesting:

Quote:

Mr Schwartz said Facebook's presence was notably strong in the Australian news market.

"While 12 per cent of visits to publishers globally were driven by Facebook, 15 per cent of visits to Australian publishers were driven by Facebook," he said.

"If we were talking about a country other than Australia, which has such a uniquely large diaspora, we may have been having a different conversation."

[Orphia Nay]

I wonder why Reddit isn't considered a news corporation but Facebook is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

I wonder why Reddit isn't considered a news corporation but Facebook is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

[PhantomWolf]

If you aren't against this law yet then please understand this. This law would force Facebook, Twitter, etc to have to pay Registered News Organisations in Australia for that Media company creating accounts for themselves and their staff on the Platform and then using it to post links to their own website. How many companies are given such a license to print money? How many other companies have a law that forces website platforms to literally have to pay certain users for posting links back to their own sites? This is a total farce and Facebook needs to stand strong on this one and that the Australian Government seems to now be considering forcing Facebook to have to host these companies and allow users to link to them is an even more corrupt and abusive law.

[TragicMonkey]

God forbid the two parties should work out a means to split the advertising revenues when their mutual users use both their products together. Such a thing is bizarre and unthinkable.

[Darat]

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.

Is it any more arbitrary than taxes?

[Darat]

Google has been trying to find ways around this sort of law. The latest scheme is about Google News Showcase. That is going to present more of the story and articles within Google News itself rather than going to the site the article is on. See: https://blog.google/products/news/go...e-launches-uk/ . As you can read they are going to provide some content that is currently behind paywalls for non-subscribers. So if they have collated and served you a story in the FT rather than only being able to read a few lines in Google News and then you have to be a subscriber to the FT if you want to read it all they may have a deal with the FT that means you get to read the whole article for free*.


*Cash wise!

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

If you aren't against this law yet then please understand this. This law would force Facebook, Twitter, etc to have to pay Registered News Organisations in Australia for that Media company creating accounts for themselves and their staff on the Platform and then using it to post links to their own website. How many companies are given such a license to print money? How many other companies have a law that forces website platforms to literally have to pay certain users for posting links back to their own sites? This is a total farce and Facebook needs to stand strong on this one and that the Australian Government seems to now be considering forcing Facebook to have to host these companies and allow users to link to them is an even more corrupt and abusive law.

This is a little difficult to parse, so I'll rephrase AIUI and you tell me if I'm wrong.

This law would allow an RNO in Australia, say, the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), to....

1. Have all their staff create Facebook accounts (if they don't already have them), then...

2. Have the staff post thousand of links back to every story on the SMH website, then...

3. Facebook would have to pay SMH for everyone of those links.

Right?

If so, Aussies have a word for that.. its "rort"

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rort

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

God forbid the two parties should work out a means to split the advertising revenues when their mutual users use both their products together. Such a thing is bizarre and unthinkable.

Can you think of any other situation in which one company had to pay another for their customers using the other company's products in conjunction with their own?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Darat

Is it any more arbitrary than taxes?

Does the Government decide that some citizens have to pay tax and others don't with no other requirement than that the Government decides that they should be the ones paying tax?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Does the Government decide that some citizens have to pay tax and others don't with no other requirement than that the Government decides that they should be the ones paying tax?

- yes

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

This is a little difficult to parse, so I'll rephrase AIUI and you tell me if I'm wrong.

This law would allow an RNO in Australia, say, the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH), to....

1. Have all their staff create Facebook accounts (if they don't already have them), then...

2. Have the staff post thousand of links back to every story on the SMH website, then...

3. Facebook would have to pay SMH for everyone of those links.

Right?

If so, Aussies have a word for that.. its "rort"

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rort

This is my takeaway after reading through the explanatory notes, yes. Since the platform would have to pay for all links to the media company's articles, this would include posts with links made by the media company itself and those of its staffers.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Darat

- yes

What citizens are made to pay tax on an arbitrary basis when other citizens in the exact same circumstances don't have to?

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by Darat

Google has been trying to find ways around this sort of law. The latest scheme is about Google News Showcase. That is going to present more of the story and articles within Google News itself rather than going to the site the article is on. See: https://blog.google/products/news/go...e-launches-uk/ . As you can read they are going to provide some content that is currently behind paywalls for non-subscribers. So if they have collated and served you a story in the FT rather than only being able to read a few lines in Google News and then you have to be a subscriber to the FT if you want to read it all they may have a deal with the FT that means you get to read the whole article for free*.


*Cash wise!

And this is why it makes sense that Google is negotiating deals with major media companies so they can be more "one-stop-shop" without users leaving the site.

Google 'pulls' the content, whether just the headline+snippet+link, or can have the entire content available if they have such an agreement, paywall or not. Results will be on the news page or search engine results without any action from google users or the media company to share it.

Facebook does not 'pull' content shared on the platform. It is "pushed" into the platform by the media companies themselves having totally voluntary (and free) accounts, or shared from their sites with those little icon buttons that encourage readers to "share this story!". Also can be what we do here at ISF with a simple cut/paste.

Other 'pull" apps would be the news aggregators or any custom RSS feed on any app. Also would include blogs linking to news sites and even other media companies who report on other content with links. ("ie The NYT times reports today that..." where they report on the report)
Other 'push' apps would be twitter, Instagram, reddit, and thousands of smaller ones.

Then there are all the internet 'communities' run on ad revenue who share content and links by the millions every day. News media sites would lose a ton of ad revenue if their links did not flow through all these areas.

What is special about Facebook that they are the target? I can only think their traffic and ad revenue numbers look the most lucrative since News isn't even their thing.

Instead of the ban, I wonder if they had simply shut off all ads on news sites' facebook pages, what would the argument be then?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Can you think of any other situation in which one company had to pay another for their customers using the other company's products in conjunction with their own?

Food delivery services. The customer pays the delivery company who then pays the restaurant.

Oh, and every retail business in existence. They purchase the products from manufacturers (or a chain of other retailers you can follow back to the manufacturers) then resell it. This is a business model that seems to have worked for as long as recorded history. Perhaps one day this neolithic innovation will make its way to Australia.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Food delivery services. The customer pays the delivery company who then pays the restaurant.

Oh, and every retail business in existence. They purchase the products from manufacturers (or a chain of other retailers you can follow back to the manufacturers) then resell it. This is a business model that seems to have worked for as long as recorded history. Perhaps one day this neolithic innovation will make its way to Australia.

That's not what is happening in this case though. The News Media want to be paid by Facebook for Facebook linking to their articles, in many cases where the person doing the linking has done so using the "share" button on the article itself.

It would be like the restaurants charging the food delivery company for giving out flyers advertising the restaurant after the restaurant dumped a bunch of them in the delivery company's car with instructions to deliver them.

[Sherkeu]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

That's not what is happening in this case though. The News Media want to be paid by Facebook for Facebook linking to their articles, in many cases where the person doing the linking has done so using the "share" button on the article itself.

It would be like the restaurants charging the food delivery company for giving out flyers advertising the restaurant after the restaurant dumped a bunch of them in the delivery company's car with instructions to deliver them.

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.)

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

That's not what is happening in this case though. The News Media want to be paid by Facebook for Facebook linking to their articles, in many cases where the person doing the linking has done so using the "share" button on the article itself.

It would be like the restaurants charging the food delivery company for giving out flyers advertising the restaurant after the restaurant dumped a bunch of them in the delivery company's car with instructions to deliver them.

And I want dazzling flawless emeralds heaped high on silver platters to be delivered to my residence by attractive rugby players. What we want isn't always what we can reasonably get. These are two businesses that make money from advertisers paying them to show ads to their mutual consumers. They can either work out a way to share that or they can both spiral and die in fits of selfish stupidity. If they choose the latter path it will be proof they didn't deserve to continue.

And they'd both be quickly replaced by more sensible parties filling the void.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

And I want dazzling flawless emeralds heaped high on silver platters to be delivered to my residence by attractive rugby players. What we want isn't always what we can reasonably get. These are two businesses that make money from advertisers paying them to show ads to their mutual consumers. They can either work out a way to share that or they can both spiral and die in fits of selfish stupidity. If they choose the latter path it will be proof they didn't deserve to continue.

And they'd both be quickly replaced by more sensible parties filling the void.

The thing is that you don't have the clout to get the government to make a law for you to give you the dazzling flawless emeralds heaped high on silver platters to be delivered to your residence by attractive rugby players.

Also, Facebook doesn't need the Australian News Media. Only about 4% of Facebook's traffic is news-related, and that's worldwide, so Australian News Companies are a fraction of that 4%. However, it's clear that the relationship isn't true the other way with the News Media having lost 13% of their traffic since the ban by Facebook.

This is a case of the News Media wanting Facebook to pay them for providing them free advertising and exposure for their articles.

Can you imagine the reaction you would get if you went to a TV Station and said, "I want you to run advertisments for my business whenever I tell you to, and you have to pay me every time you run them"?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

The thing is that you don't have the clout to get the government to make a law for you to give you the dazzling flawless emeralds heaped high on silver platters to be delivered to your residence by attractive rugby players.

Also, Facebook doesn't need the Australian News Media. Only about 4% of Facebook's traffic is news-related, and that's worldwide, so Australian News Companies are a fraction of that 4%. However, it's clear that the relationship isn't true the other way with the News Media having lost 13% of their traffic since the ban by Facebook.

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.

[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.

[PhantomWolf]

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.

No one is suggesting that the media owe Facebook free content. The issue is that the "Content" that is up for discussion is things like an article being embedded into a user's post by using the "share" button that the news media specifically added to the article so that it could be shared on Facebook as well as links to the news media's articles, even if that link is nothing more than a naked URL with no content to the article it is going to. It also includes posts made by the News Organisation itself or their staff on Facebook's platform, in other words, the News Media Organisation would be able to use Facebook's platform, and then charge them for doing so. How many companies have to pay another company by law for that company using the platform?

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.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

No one is suggesting that the media owe Facebook free content. The issue is that the "Content" that is up for discussion is things like an article being embedded into a user's post by using the "share" button that the news media specifically added to the article so that it could be shared on Facebook as well as links to the news media's articles, even if that link is nothing more than a naked URL with no content to the article it is going to. It also includes posts made by the News Organisation itself or their staff on Facebook's platform, in other words, the News Media Organisation would be able to use Facebook's platform, and then charge them for doing so. How many companies have to pay another company by law for that company using the platform?

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.

It sounds like these two entities should separate themselves and remain separate until they can work together nicely. I doubt there will be damage to the Australian people if they cannot "share" news on Facebook.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I get all that. We don't see this the same way, that doesn't mean I don't understand your POV.

Given Google made a deal, they didn't stick to demanding free access to the news or else.

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.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

They have a monopoly for all intents and purposes and so did (note past tense) Microsoft's OS until other companies began chipping away at the market.

No, words have meaning. A monopoly means you have no other choice.

Microsoft also NEVER had a monopoly. You keep confusing "most popular" and "monopoly". You're wrong, I'm sorry you won't admit that.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I avoid Google search though Google still has control of the data from all sorts of things I do on the net. In the particular I use G-mail. And yes, shame on me I don't pay for it. Never mind Google makes a profit selling my data and follows me around on the net asking repeatedly if I want to sign in using Google.

Do you not see the similarities between what you're saying here and what this thread is about? You have hundreds of other options for email, search engines, data management, password controls, internet browsers, and so on. You use Google because it's the most convenient and you're aware that Google has access to a lot of your data, which it's selling. Yet, you still use it. Is Google extorting you? No, hell no. You're willingly using the software. It's on you, not on Google.

[ThatGuy11200]

Originally Posted by Darat

A story about this was on a page I was viewing and it caught my eye.

Is Zuckerberg a living example of the “uncanny valley”?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE