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

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

NewsCorp and Google have agreed to a mutual arrangement under the restrictions of the bill

From the arrangement, it seems that the issue with Google was quite different. It seems that in the case of Google, they were wanting to start up a new service where users can search for any news article and read that article in its entirety in the Google space, even if that article is behind a paywall for that user.

Thus say that someone linked to a Washington Post article and it was paywalled for you, you could then go to Google's News Service Platform and bring up that article and read it all without the paywall, and without leaving Google's site.

This would severely damage the paywall model and how news organisations are paid for their work, and so Google paying to include their articles in the service is perfectly acceptable and the correct thing to do.

Forcing Facebook to pay for random posts made by their users without any permission or instructions from Facebook in a system that can be very easily gamed, that's a totally different kettle of fish, especially when it would mean that Facebook was forced to pay News Organisations for having their own accounts on Facebook and posting their stories to the platform. Basically, that makes Facebook pay to have the privilege of advertising those news organisations.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

The problems with Facebook’s or other tech companies business models are no justification for using content created by media companies without payment.

So they came up with a solution. They are no longer going to show any of those media companies' content. But everyone seems to be rather upset by that.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

The problems with Facebook’s or other tech companies business models are no justification for using content created by media companies without payment.

Do you think that places like this forum should have to start paying each time a user here provides a link to and a quote from a news article?

[cullennz]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Do you think that places like this forum should have to start paying each time a user here provides a link to and a quote from a news article?

Sorry but that is a bad analogy.

This forum doesn't have the potential of 1.8 billion people clicking on the link.

It kind of all comes down to Zuckerberg's argument that they are in no way a publisher, but merely a weak and feeble platform.

Which while it might have had some basis in reality a few years ago is frankly a bit bollocks these days.

To me they are a publisher. But get to publish other peoples hard work and don't even have to add the stolen content themselves.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Do you think that places like this forum should have to start paying each time a user here provides a link to and a quote from a news article?

No. Do you think giant tech companies like Facebook should be able to benefit from the intellectual property of media corporations for free and without permission?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

No. Do you think giant tech companies like Facebook should be able to benefit from the intellectual property of media corporations for free and without permission?

I think that you are applying a double standard. If you are going to say that a big company has to pay to imbed excerpts of an article, then so should everyone else.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by cullennz

Sorry but that is a bad analogy.

This forum doesn't have the potential of 1.8 billion people clicking on the link.

It kind of all comes down to Zuckerberg's argument that they are in no way a publisher, but merely a weak and feeble platform.

Which while it might have had some basis in reality a few years ago is frankly a bit bollocks these days.

To me they are a publisher. But get to publish other peoples hard work and don't even have to add the stolen content themselves.

You are applying a double standard. If you are going to say that a big company has to pay to imbed excerpts of an article, then so should everyone else. Where are the calls demanding that Discord pay every time a user posts a news article there?

ETA: And not they aren't a publisher. They host social media content posted by other people. That is not acting as a publisher anymore than this forum is a publisher.

ETA2: And also, now they have taken action against those posting that stolen content, everyone is upset. Why the upset if they are stopping the abuse of stolen content?

ETA3: Oh, and just to cover all bases, this law would also cover the content posted to Facebook by the content creators themselves. Why should Facebook have to pay news media for that news media using their platform?

[smartcooky]

I have a different view, I think its a good thing and I would like to see this happen here as well.

Facebook is a social media site, it is NOT A ******* source of reliable, fact-checked news.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

I think that you are applying a double standard. If you are going to say that a big company has to pay to imbed excerpts of an article, then so should everyone else.

Yeah looks like in your dialectic games you want to hold my feet to some sort of fire of consistent standards for all comers that I don’t have a problem with ignoring.

How about you answer my question.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I have a different view, I think its a good thing and I would like to see this happen here as well.

Facebook is a social media site, it is NOT A ******* source of reliable, fact-checked news.

Parts of it are a cesspool of disinformation and hate groups.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Yeah looks like in your dialectic games you want to hold my feet to some sort of fire of consistent standards for all comers that I don’t have a problem with ignoring.

I guess that means you aren't into having one law for everyone. Okay....

Quote:

How about you answer my question.

I object to a law demanding that any platform has to pay for content that the content creator posts there on their own volition.

I have no issues with content creators using something such as the DMCA to have posts removed if they feel that those posts are breaching their copyright.

Where Facebook posting the news articles themselves, such as with the Google News Service mentioned previously, then it would be totally fair for Facebook to pay for access.

I also have no objections to Facebook simply blocking users from linking to certain websites. Nor would I find it objectionable for Facebook and news media to come up with a way to exclude their articles from being embedded when a user links to them.

However, at the moment the media want to have all the benefits of Facebook and then force Facebook to pay them for that service, and that is not fair, to any company be it one with 1 customer, or 1 billion.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

they aren't a publisher. They host social media content posted by other people. That is not acting as a publisher anymore than this forum is a publisher.

Agreed.

Quote:

ETA2: And also, now they have taken action against those posting that stolen content, everyone is upset. Why the upset if they are stopping the abuse of stolen content?

It's more that they're forced to comply with their company regulations and some shareholders' livelihoods.

Who's "upset"? Some here seem nonplussed and the rest appear smug for not using Facebook.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

However, at the moment the media want to have all the benefits of Facebook and then force Facebook to pay them for that service, and that is not fair, to any company be it one with 1 customer, or 1 billion.

Agreed.

[cullennz]

TBF I only actually look at Facebook maybe once or twice a month unless there is some family thing going on and would never use it for news, so in reality have no skin in the game really.

I do have a bit of an issue with their using a sledge hammer to break a nut "accidently" breaking a few, what I would consider personal safety pages though in Aus, like the weather warnings and such.

I guess if they are going to send a message, they might as well add flourish though, and while doing a slap, do a knee to the nuts, I guess.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Who's "upset"? Some here seem nonplussed and the rest appear smug for not using Facebook.

There is quite a bit of upset being spouted on local media down here.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by cullennz

I do have a bit of an issue with their using a sledge hammer to break a nut "accidently" breaking a few, what I would consider personal safety pages though in Aus, like the weather warnings and such.

I really have no issues with this again because even those "personal safety pages" don't have a Right to be on Facebook, or any other social media site. Yes, it's convenient for people, but again, we don't have a Right to Convenience.

For all cards on the table, I have never had a personal account on Facebook, despite my wife trying to get me on it, I have always loathed it and most other social media, this is about as close as I get to it (I do have a profile on Linkin, but I never actually use that either). I did create a Company page on there, but I have long since forgotten the password, and the email is not active currently so...

My biggest issue in all this is that the law specifically targets two Tech Giants because they are big and so can "afford it", but other smaller sites such as Discord and discussion forums such as here are doing much the same thing, but are not targeted. I am very anti laws that aren't consistent or only target specific companies and not others for pretty much arbitrary reasons, though the whole idea that it would place them in the position where they would be at the mercy of the news media and how much they want to exploit the situation by posting articles and being paid to do so by law isn't a good one either.

[cullennz]

I don't know enough about the ins and outs, but heard and interview with one of our pollies (can't remember which one sorry) as we are approaching the same thing, but in a different way apparently.

They basically said we aren't going to probably face the same kick back as we have a different solution, and the talks are going well.

As I say I don't know enough to see why, but apparently it seems more Aus's method of demanding.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK

I don't understand why we've lost access to foreign news FB sites? Is that just FB giving us the finger or is there another relevant purpose here?

I would say it is the former. Facebook is showing its power. Pity they did not do it right. Lots of organisations have lost all their posts. Most posts with links to news websites have also gone. This makes them look bad.

One non-profit organisation I know has still lost ALL of their posts.
https://www.facebook.com/AustralianN...ntConservation

Edit. See also this post https://www.facebook.com/DIYrainbow/...44396802357197

[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?

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK

I don't understand why we've lost access to foreign news FB sites? Is that just FB giving us the finger or is there another relevant purpose here?

Mostly the former. It's a demonstration that Australia needs Facebook more than Facebook needs Australia and that kow-towing to Murdoch has consequences.

[psionl0]

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?

It's not surprising that you find this confusing. Most of the reporting comes from the same media corporations that want money from Google and Facebook.

[CORed]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Facebook has banned content from Australian news organisations

This is what Google was threatening before they backed down. But as of this morning, nobody can share content from Australian news organisations. Unfortunately, this also includes government health and emergency services sites.

My prediction: it won't last long. Some kind of agreement will be reached soon.

I for one am happy to hear this news. The stuff coming from Australia is always upside down, and I'm tired of standing on my head or turning my monitor upside down to read it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Mostly the former. It's a demonstration that Australia needs Facebook more than Facebook needs Australia and that kow-towing to Murdoch has consequences.

Except there are other countries looking at similar options. FB and Google might want to settle this before more of their markets start blinking out.

BBC: Australia news code: What’s this row with Facebook and Google all about?

This article made the issues more clear to me, an outsider. Too bad Murdoch is involved. It would be easier if the news organizations who have lost ad revenue had a more empathetic face.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Except there are other countries looking at similar options. FB and Google might want to settle this before more of their markets start blinking out.

Google has already made significant progress, and has worked with several countries and news agencies. FB is lagging behind, but that's their right. I don't know what you mean by "markets blinking out." Facebook still exists, it still functions, you can still post images of your dog, it's just not allowing news articles. That's it. If you don't go to facebook to get your news you won't know anything changed at all.

I don't get my news from facebook. I think people that do get their news from facebook, instead of going to a direct news source, should take a few lessons in proper research.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

This article made the issues more clear to me, an outsider. Too bad Murdoch is involved. It would be easier if the news organizations who have lost ad revenue had a more empathetic face.

The bottom line, as the article states, is Australia's media is losing money. I don't know how that's Facebook or Google's fault, but it sounds like they're willing to play ball on some level. Hopefully they get it figured out, but I would say the tech companies have more control over this than the countries do. If the government of those countries don't like it they could always ban google and make their own search engine. It would suck, but they could have their cake and eat it too.

[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”?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by psionl0

It's not surprising that you find this confusing. Most of the reporting comes from the same media corporations that want money from Google and Facebook.

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

I would just as soon see news disappear from Facebook entirely, globally. The site was never intended to be used the way it is now... it was a platform for people and families to keep in touch and share experiences. Now, it has become like "bloatware" in a software company's products.

Facebook has become a stinking, fetid swamp of conspiracy theories, misinformation and hate-fuelled rhetoric. Its a key conduit for dangerous idiots such as anti-vaxxers and fake election fraud mongers spread their BS.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by rjh01

The problem is that Google attracts advertisers to its pages.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. What does the fact that google generate ad revenue have to do with anything?

Originally Posted by rjh01

These would normally go to newspapers so google is depriving newspapers of their income.

How would this even be possible? Google directs people to the site, if google doesn't direct them there, how do they even know the story exists? If they don't know the story exists how would they go to the website, and how would the website make ad revenue from their visit?

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by rjh01

Using the slippery slope argument is a fallacy. And they used it.
Ref: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope



They have good people to write their arguments. If they need to use such fallacies then their arguments are probably weak.

How is it a slippery slope? If the Newspaper didn't want it's website in Google search results it's a trivial task to remove them. The notion that they don't want to show up in those results is utterly absurd, they NEED the service Google is providing them FOR FREE. They CHOOSE not to exclude themselves from Googles search results. They COMPLAIN when Goggle does it of their own accord. But somehow Google has to pay them for the privilege of sending them customers they make their revenue from? It makes absolutely no sense.

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by rjh01

When a search is done advertisements are displayed. This is money that goes to Google, not the newspapers. Here is an example. The first four results are all ads.

These ads are still search results. Google labels them as ads so you know that these sites paid to have their content elevated in the search results. The fact that other sites are willing to pay Google to have their results given priority shows that showing up in Googles search results has value.

I'm still at a loss as to why you think some sites should get paid because their competition paid Google ad revenue?

[lomiller]

Originally Posted by GodMark2

Well, let's talk apples then. If a grocer sells apples, and places some bins outside it's doors on the public sidewalk, is it ok for Google to sell passersby tastes of those apples? It's just using the public sections, right? Does the grocer need to post a "no tasting" sign? Why is this concept different on the internet?

Bad analogy. The "grocer" in this case in this case is actually giving the apples away in order to bring customers top their store. Google is taking samples of all the apples being given away for free and collecting them in one place along with directions to the store giving them away. If the Grocer doesn't want this all they need to do is leave a note saying not to do it, but since the grocer gets a lot of business this way they don't.

[rjh01]

Originally Posted by lomiller

How is it a slippery slope? <snip>

Read the links I gave you. This one mentions a slippery slope https://about.google/google-in-austr...n-open-letter/.

I hate repeating myself.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by plague311

... The bottom line, as the article states, is Australia's media is losing money. I don't know how that's Facebook or Google's fault, ...

Because they've gotten the benefit of all the ad revenue news media used to make, and they are sharing the news content for free.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by lomiller

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. What does the fact that google generate ad revenue have to do with anything?

How would this even be possible? Google directs people to the site, if google doesn't direct them there, how do they even know the story exists? If they don't know the story exists how would they go to the website, and how would the website make ad revenue from their visit?

I'm not sure where Google is sharing news for free. But Yahoo does and the stories are copied from sources like WA Po which I cannot read directly. Many of those links are to MSN which is Microsoft News.

For example, this is a WA Po article but I can read it because it is on MSN. Google must be involved in sharing news somewhere beside the search engine.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here it is, lomiller, this is not about the search engine.

Get the stories that matter to you with Google News

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Because they've gotten the benefit of all the ad revenue news media used to make, and they are sharing the news content for free.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I'm not sure where Google is sharing news for free. But Yahoo does and the stories are copied from sources like WA Po which I cannot read directly. Many of those links are to MSN which is Microsoft News.

Let me help. This is Google News. For example, there are no ads on that page. They show multiple news sources, multiple articles for each topic, they're separated by location\topic, etc.

What do you mean "ad revenue news media used to make"? That doesn't make any sense. If you search for a topic, and Google provides news stories, you still have to go to that site to read the story. The moment you do, you're on the news companies site, and they make any ad revenue that comes from you viewing it. Why would they also be entitled to ad revenue from the search? They haven't done anything to provide the search functionality.

As lomiller has very patiently and expertly explained, if they don't want their news articles to show up on Google, they can easily change that. It's literally a minute or two to get it changed, BUT if they do that then their story doesn't show up on Google. Then people won't find their news site, then they don't get any revenue at all.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by plague311

Let me help. This is Google News. For example, there are no ads on that page. They show multiple news sources, multiple articles for each topic, they're separated by location\topic, etc.

What do you mean "ad revenue news media used to make"? That doesn't make any sense. If you search for a topic, and Google provides news stories, you still have to go to that site to read the story. The moment you do, you're on the news companies site, and they make any ad revenue that comes from you viewing it. Why would they also be entitled to ad revenue from the search? They haven't done anything to provide the search functionality.

As lomiller has very patiently and expertly explained, if they don't want their news articles to show up on Google, they can easily change that. It's literally a minute or two to get it changed, BUT if they do that then their story doesn't show up on Google. Then people won't find their news site, then they don't get any revenue at all.

So Google extorts the news sources?

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

So Google extorts the news sources?

How in the **** did you pull that out of my post? I'm genuinely curious. You offer no follow up or explanation at all. Your logic is completely baffling.

It is not extortion to provide a service (which a search engine does). There is no requirement for you to use that service (something easily done per the explanation in this thread). If you decide not to use that service, the service isn't extorting you; however, the service doesn't owe you money.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by plague311

How in the **** did you pull that out of my post? I'm genuinely curious. You offer no follow up or explanation at all. Your logic is completely baffling.

It is not extortion to provide a service (which a search engine does). There is no requirement for you to use that service (something easily done per the explanation in this thread). If you decide not to use that service, the service isn't extorting you; however, the service doesn't owe you money.

Because, if Google says blocking news from Google News means they will also remove it from Google search. That's extortion.

It's also one of the dangers of having a monopoly search engine but that's a different subject.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by lomiller

It makes absolutely no sense.

It does make absolutely no sense. The new regulations are based on a fundamental lack of understanding of how sites like Google and Facebook occupy the internet. Remember that time when Zuckerberg was in front of the congressional committee and was asked how his business model works? And he replied "Congressman, we sell advertising". Like that.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Because, if Google says blocking news from Google News means they will also remove it from Google search. That's extortion.

If the news company does not want their information shown without compensation then that is their decision. The change is made on their end. Please, please read the thread. It's explained in detail. If you pull your information from Google, then it's pulled from Google. I don't think you understand what "extortion" means. You seem to want the news companies to have it both ways and that's not how it works.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

It's also one of the dangers of having a monopoly search engine but that's a different subject.

They don't have a monopoly search engine. They have the most popular search engine. Microsoft has the most popular OS, they don't have a monopoly. There are a bunch of other search engines you can use. I don't even know how many. Dozens if not hundreds.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by plague311

If the news company does not want their information shown without compensation then that is their decision. The change is made on their end. [snipped condescension] If you pull your information from Google, then it's pulled from Google. [snipped more condescension]

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.

Originally Posted by plague311

They don't have a monopoly search engine. They have the most popular search engine. Microsoft has the most popular OS, they don't have a monopoly. There are a bunch of other search engines you can use. I don't even know how many. Dozens if not hundreds.

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.

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.