Facebook blocks news from Australia, dozens of public information pages wiped

[pacovl46]

3 minutes ago, GreasyFingers said:

Too close to home, was it?

Not at all! If the purpose of your post was to come across like a troll then congratulations, you did it! ????

[donnacha]

14 hours ago, simple1 said:

Since when are 'open web" content providers legally excluded from paying for news content?

Since when has anyone suggested they are?

Anyone that republishes news content is already legally required to pay for it.

This is about linking to other websites.
 

14 hours ago, simple1 said:

The decision by Facebook is a shot in the foot as it defines the company as a publisher because they are are curating content.

This has nothing to do with curation. Users trying to link to particular websites are no longer able to do so because the owners of those websites no longer wish them to be able to do so unless they receive money. Facebook already prevents users from linking to porn, warez, or other websites of questionable legality.

By disabling the ability of users to share those links, Facebook are complying with the stated wish of the old media companies.

Of course, the actual wish of the old media companies is to be the beneficiaries of what would be, effectively, a tax on all social networks and aggregation sites.

Facebook have called their bluff. 
 

14 hours ago, simple1 said:

In any case Facebook publishing news content provides a degree of 'stickiness' from which they generate advertising revenue

Facebook do not publish news content. They allow users to link to websites outside Facebook. France and Australia, however, are creating new laws to made it illegal to link to certain websites unless you pay them money.

Facebook contend that their social network, itself, has value. They believe that billions of users come to Facebook for many things, and that only a tiny percentage of those users care about Australian news articles. They consider the amount of money demanded by the old media companies to be disproportionate to any actual value, to them, of allowing users to continue linking to their websites.

There is no "stickiness". When a user clicks on a link they leave Facebook and stop seeing Facebook's ads. Instead, they see ads that belong to whatever new site they are on. Facebook would prefer users to not leave. They would prefer them to spend more time on Facebook and see more Facebook ads. Leaving to visit another website is the opposite of stickiness.

The old media companies say "You should be forced to pay us because your profits would not be possible without us".

Facebook say "We don't actually need you at all"

 

14 hours ago, simple1 said:

Facebook are cannibalising news content provider revenue. Accordingly it's fair Facebook should be paying for news content.

Again, Facebook is not publishing or republishing any content. They previously allowed their users to link to such content and it has been widely understood that news websites depend on that traffic. An entire industry exists to increase the amount of social media and search engine traffic websites receive.

Whatever we think of Facebook, they have spent 17 years and billions of dollars establishing their business. They and their shareholders own their business. Murdoch could have invested in Facebook early on, or created his own social network. Instead, he bought MySpace.

It is bizarre to suggest that a failing industry should be propped up by forcing another business, that made better decisions, to bail them out. 

It is fine to hate Facebook, but don't pretend that there is any validity to this grubby example of Murdoch exerting pressure on Australian politicians.

 

Edited February 19, 2021 by donnacha

[wadman]

1 hour ago, donnacha said:

Facebook do not publish news content. They allow users to link to websites outside Facebook. France and Australia, however, are creating new laws to made it illegal to link to certain websites unless you pay them money.

 

Well said.  There is a misunderstanding among some BMs here.  They somehow think that Facebook is stealing content i.e. republishing news articles in their entirety.  Facebook isn't.  They publish A LINK to that news article, the link will take you to that website (to bbc.com, for example).  If anything, Facebook is driving user traffic to the news websites.

 

There is often a short paragraph underneath that link on Facebook.  I believe that paragraph is written by Facebook giving users an idea what the linked article is about.

 

So once again, Facebook does not publish other people's news articles on Facebook's website.  They only publish a link.  How exactly is that stealing content?

 

The real issue is this: news organizations have seen their revenue plummet with the advent of the internet.  They have argued that proper news organizations are integral to a democracy, and as such, they should not be allowed to descent into shabbiness, due to lack of funds.  The Australian government eminently agrees.  So therefore, somebody needs to come up with those funds = someone needs to pay.  And that someone has been identified as Facebook and Google, even though they there is no good law or logic to say that they should.

[donnacha]

4 minutes ago, wadman said:

There is often a short paragraph underneath that link on Facebook.  I believe that paragraph is written by Facebook giving users an idea what the linked article is about.

Ironically, the excerpt is usually provided by the linked webpage itself, as a meta tag, along with other tags specifying details such as the preferred image, with the express intent of making it easier for linking sites to present their article effectively.

That is what all the social media experts at the old media companies have spent the past decade mastering, desperate to increase traffic ????

 

[candide]

6 hours ago, donnacha said:

Since when has anyone suggested they are?

Anyone that republishes news content is already legally required to pay for it.

This is about linking to other websites.
 

This has nothing to do with curation. Users trying to link to particular websites are no longer able to do so because the owners of those websites no longer wish them to be able to do so unless they receive money. Facebook already prevents users from linking to porn, warez, or other websites of questionable legality.

By disabling the ability of users to share those links, Facebook are complying with the stated wish of the old media companies.

Of course, the actual wish of the old media companies is to be the beneficiaries of what would be, effectively, a tax on all social networks and aggregation sites.

Facebook have called their bluff. 
 

Facebook do not publish news content. They allow users to link to websites outside Facebook. France and Australia, however, are creating new laws to made it illegal to link to certain websites unless you pay them money.

Facebook contend that their social network, itself, has value. They believe that billions of users come to Facebook for many things, and that only a tiny percentage of those users care about Australian news articles. They consider the amount of money demanded by the old media companies to be disproportionate to any actual value, to them, of allowing users to continue linking to their websites.

There is no "stickiness". When a user clicks on a link they leave Facebook and stop seeing Facebook's ads. Instead, they see ads that belong to whatever new site they are on. Facebook would prefer users to not leave. They would prefer them to spend more time on Facebook and see more Facebook ads. Leaving to visit another website is the opposite of stickiness.

The old media companies say "You should be forced to pay us because your profits would not be possible without us".

Facebook say "We don't actually need you at all"

 

Again, Facebook is not publishing or republishing any content. They previously allowed their users to link to such content and it has been widely understood that news websites depend on that traffic. An entire industry exists to increase the amount of social media and search engine traffic websites receive.

Whatever we think of Facebook, they have spent 17 years and billions of dollars establishing their business. They and their shareholders own their business. Murdoch could have invested in Facebook early on, or created his own social network. Instead, he bought MySpace.

It is bizarre to suggest that a failing industry should be propped up by forcing another business, that made better decisions, to bail them out. 

It is fine to hate Facebook, but don't pretend that there is any validity to this grubby example of Murdoch exerting pressure on Australian politicians.

 

On top of it, It's not like information quality and diversity would be affected if Murdoch's media would go bankrupt! ????????

[simple1]

9 hours ago, donnacha said:

There is no "stickiness"

You appear to present yourself as well informed on internet based product policies / usage. However, as an example, you claim Facebook doesn't utilise 'stickiness' techniques for generating revenue, increasing its users and so on is nonsensical / ill informed. The rest of your post is way to lengthy to bother with a response.

Edited February 19, 2021 by simple1

[donnacha]

28 minutes ago, simple1 said:

you claim Facebook doesn't utilise 'stickiness' policies for generating revenue, increasing its users and so on is nonsensical / ill informed.

Just as you failed to grasp the fundamental difference between re-publishing content and linking to another website, you are now misinterpreting what I actually said - that Facebook would not view people clicking on links to leave their website as being an example of "stickiness - to suggest I am saying that Facebook is not interested in actual stickiness techniques that keep users on their site. That is obviously the opposite of what I wrote.

Why go out of your way to start arguments in this forum when you keep stumbling over fairly straightforward concepts?

You do realize, don't you, that dramatically insulting someone who calls out your repeated mistakes does not magically stop everyone reading this thread from seeing those mistakes?

 

Edited February 19, 2021 by donnacha

[simple1]

47 minutes ago, donnacha said:

Just as you failed to grasp the fundamental difference between re-publishing content and linking to another website, you are now misinterpreting what I actually said - that Facebook would not view people clicking on links to leave their website as being an example of "stickiness - to suggest I am saying that Facebook is not interested in actual stickiness techniques that keep users on their wrote. That is obviously the opposite of what I said.

Why go out of your way to start arguments in this forum when you keep stumbling over fairly straightforward concepts?

You do realize, don't you, that dramatically insulting someone who calls out your repeated mistakes does not magically stop everyone reading this thread from seeing those mistakes?

 

 

FYI>>>

 

 

We fundamentally disagree, plus you're misinterpreting my post,. Back on topic,  government info pages, as well as news pages  generates 'stickiness' which will lead to income generating opportunities for Facebook by way of click though on ads. it is clear oz government, as well as other governments view the payment for news content is fair and equitable and has already been agreed to by Google Australia. Oz government at Ministerial level is continuing dialogue with Zuckerburg trying to resolve the OP issue.

 

 

Edited February 19, 2021 by simple1

[donnacha]

19 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

We fundamentally disagree, plus you're misinterpreting my post,. Back on topic,  government info pages, as well as news pages  generates 'stickiness' which will lead to income generating opportunities for Facebook by way of click though on ads. it is clear oz government, as well as other governments view the payment for news content is fair and equitable and has already been agreed to by Google Australia. Oz government at Ministerial level is continuing dialogue with Zuckerburg trying to resolve the OP issue.

 

eMarketer anticipates that Facebook users will spend 38 minutes per day on the Facebook platform during 2020, but the COVID issue might show to influence these numbers in a significant way. 

 

https://zephoria.com/top-15-valuable-facebook-statistics/#:~:text=1.82 billion people on average,billion DAU for December 2019.

 

For those interested in the topic of Facebook 'stickiness', some analysis below.

 

Facebook recommendations for ads during Covid crisis.

 

https://www.facebook.com/business/news/insights/4-strategies-to-adapt-your-ad-measurement-during-challenging-times

 

https://techcrunch.com/2009/10/29/how-to-measure-the-true-stickiness-and-success-of-a-facebook-app/

 

https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2016/114/

 

 

All of which diversionary fire has nothing to do with your previous claims. Your fundamental disagreement is not with me, it is with logic and the English language.

Links to content are not the actual content, regardless of what Australian politicians think is "fair and equitable".

Users on Facebook stare at Facebook ads, users clicking away from Facebook cease looking at Facebook ads. Google's model has always been entirely different.

The "other governments" you refer to are ... France.

The "continuing dialogue with Zuckerberg at ministerial level" is Zuckerberg saying "Thanks, but no, the right to give traffic to other sites is not worth the rent you want me to pay Murdoch. Please stop touching me".

 

[simple1]

11 hours ago, wadman said:

So once again, Facebook does not publish other people's news articles on Facebook's website.  They only publish a link.  How exactly is that stealing content?

 

Not entirely accurate, Facebook Australia News product planning below.

 

“We were prepared to launch Facebook News in Australia and significantly increase our investments with local publishers,

 

https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/17/22287776/facebook-block-news-australia-regulation-media-link-sharing

 

A bit more info on Facebook News worldwide product planning...

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/25/facebook-news-new-product-will-pay-publishers-highlight-news-stories.html

 

In summary Facebook were already planning to pay for news services. IMO a great deal of noise driven by Zuckerberg's ego, but will do a deal with Oz government.

[wadman]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

Not entirely accurate, Facebook Australia News product planning below.

 

“We were prepared to launch Facebook News in Australia and significantly increase our investments with local publishers,

 

https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/17/22287776/facebook-block-news-australia-regulation-media-link-sharing

 

A bit more info on Facebook News worldwide product planning...

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/25/facebook-news-new-product-will-pay-publishers-highlight-news-stories.html

 

In summary Facebook were already planning to pay for news services. IMO a great deal of noise driven by Zuckerberg's ego, but will do a deal with Oz government.

 

This is a new product from Facebook that has nothing to do with the current lawsuit demanding money from Facebook. 

 

Current situation: Facebook users links to news articles (and possibly a short excerpt usually provided by the news site itself). News organizations often publish news articles and links on Facebook themselves, in an effort to drive traffic to their owns websites. For this, the news organizations in Australia want to be paid hundreds of millions. 

 

Facebook news is a very new product from Facebook, launched literally a few days ago. They are working with news organizations in terms of payment for content. The way I understand it, if Facebook and news organization cannot come to an agreement to the dollars amount, then Facebook cannot and will not include content from that news organization (other than links, which isn't content stealing). Quote from your second linked article:

"It could pay millions of dollars to news publications for licensing fees to run their stories on Facebook, according to The Wall Street Journal."

 

So, current situation = no content stealing, hence Facebook doesn't want to pay. New product (Facebook news) : Facebook is in negotiations with news organizations about licensing payments. 

[tifino]

Ozzies couldn't care a hoot about losing access to the news content... it is the Loss of Support facebook based Pages created by Hospitals/Charities/Weather Bureau etc etc many more...  whole isolated communities relied primarily on the News Links - especially so with the next Fire Season now coming on...

 

Any News we want to see Online is easily found offshore if we really want to watch is happening within our own shores...  

 - for example sitting here in OZ there's more usable News about all these facebook shenanigan going ons, via Thaivisa even!! 

[tifino]

... is the OZ Govt trying to Tax Thaivisa too? - due to its onboard News ReBroadcasts 

[Dart12]

I am now at point of hating FB ideals and policies. 

 

But in this case I think FB is in the right. 

 

FB sends  billions of free traffic to their newsites (traffic costs a LOT of money online to get too). 

 

If the old guard an't figure out how to make money online, and with all that free traffic, they deserve to go the way of dinasaur. 

 

Google has other ways to monetize the news content because they are a search intent platform, it benefits them to strike a deal.

 

FB doesn't owe them a penny for sending them views and buyers to their site.  The news sites should be paying FB.

As for the debate about stickiness of FB and linked content...FB doesn't want you to leave the site at all.  If you post a link in a post, they DRAMATICALLY free shorten the reach of that post (unless you do paid reach).  They give two sh1+s about content off site, content offsite actually hurts them.  So if they don't want you to see free content offsite, you definitely are not gonna get them to pay to show it lol.

 

[tifino]

 multitudes of isolated communities do';t have much time left to create alternative Online Emergency Info dissemination... as the Fire Season is still here...

[simple1]

48 minutes ago, wadman said:

 

This is a new product from Facebook that has nothing to do with the current lawsuit demanding money from Facebook. 

 

Current situation: Facebook users links to news articles (and possibly a short excerpt usually provided by the news site itself). News organizations often publish news articles and links on Facebook themselves, in an effort to drive traffic to their owns websites. For this, the news organizations in Australia want to be paid hundreds of millions. 

 

Facebook news is a very new product from Facebook, launched literally a few days ago. They are working with news organizations in terms of payment for content. The way I understand it, if Facebook and news organization cannot come to an agreement to the dollars amount, then Facebook cannot and will not include content from that news organization (other than links, which isn't content stealing). Quote from your second linked article:

"It could pay millions of dollars to news publications for licensing fees to run their stories on Facebook, according to The Wall Street Journal."

 

So, current situation = no content stealing, hence Facebook doesn't want to pay. New product (Facebook news) : Facebook is in negotiations with news organizations about licensing payments. 

 

There are lawsuits concerning Facebook activities in Australia, to which lawsuit are you referring?

 

The point I was making is Facebook were already planning to change their business model concerning news, so why all the over the top reaction from Facebook who could have  commenced commercial negotiation to resolve the concerns, as did Google.

[wadman]

18 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

There are lawsuits concerning Facebook activities in Australia, to which lawsuit are you referring?

 

The point I was making is Facebook were already planning to change their business model concerning news, so why all the over the top reaction from Facebook who could have  commenced commercial negotiation to resolve the concerns, as did Google.

 

The lawsuits/demands from the Australian news organizations (backed by the Australian government) calling for payment from Facebook because of the way they are CURRENTLY including news LINKS on their website. Or was, until a day ago. 

 

Because the crux of the argument still remains:

1. If you include LINKS in your website, you should not be liable to pay (to the sites being linked to). 

2. If you include actual third party content on your website (beyond the small snippets allowed by law)  essentially news articles in their entirety, you need to work out an agreement with the owners of that content. Which Facebook is perfectly willing to do, and has been doing.

 

This whole brouhaha was never about point 2. So can we drop that now, and go back to point 1: why does Facebook need to pay for LINKS again? 

 

[tifino]

well... facebook has ( although I can still only see it on live TV) has apologised for their blanket cart blanche wiping of the Austrailian based cumminity support Groups/pages... 

 - the PM is hopeful facebook will become willing to return to the negotiations table...

[simple1]

25 minutes ago, wadman said:

 

The lawsuits/demands from the Australian news organizations (backed by the Australian government) calling for payment from Facebook because of the way they are CURRENTLY including news LINKS on their website. Or was, until a day ago. 

 

Because the crux of the argument still remains:

1. If you include LINKS in your website, you should not be liable to pay (to the sites being linked to). 

2. If you include actual third party content on your website (beyond the small snippets allowed by law)  essentially news articles in their entirety, you need to work out an agreement with the owners of that content. Which Facebook is perfectly willing to do, and has been doing.

 

This whole brouhaha was never about point 2. So can we drop that now, and go back to point 1: why does Facebook need to pay for LINKS again? 

 

 

News Corp are not suing Facebook, it's the Oz government commencing enactment of a mandatory code of practice for the Australian media industry, the development of which has been ongoing for three years. I recall reading news content currently generates about 4% of Facebook's Australian revenue; last tax year $674 million total revenue.

 

“Facebook already pays some media for news content. The code simply aims to bring fairness and transparency to Facebook and Google’s relationships with Australian news media businesses.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/01/facebook-instagram-threatens-block-australians-sharing-news-landmark-accc-media-law

 

Media organisations are arguing the pros and cons, but ultimately I believe Oz government and Facebook will come to a resolution.

Edited February 20, 2021 by simple1

[John Drake]

2 hours ago, tifino said:

Ozzies couldn't care a hoot about losing access to the news content... it is the Loss of Support facebook based Pages created by Hospitals/Charities/Weather Bureau etc etc many more...  whole isolated communities relied primarily on the News Links - especially so with the next Fire Season now coming on...

 

I hope, then, they find an alternative way to get their messages out. This shows the danger of relying on a foreign company indifferent to domestic concerns, laws, and regulations. The problem is: where is the alternative? FB has not only become a domestic monopoly in the US but an international one as well. It needs to be regulated and controlled, with local governments having the right to commandeer its local and national functions during an emergency. In the US, FB needs to be adjudged a monopoly and forced to sell off parts of its holdings and perhaps broken up into regional FBs.

[wadman]

21 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

News Corp are not suing Facebook, it's the Oz government commencing enactment of a mandatory code of practice for the Australian media industry, the development of which has been ongoing for three years. I recall reading news content currently generates about 4% of Facebook's Australian revenue; last tax year $674 million total revenue.

 

“Facebook already pays some media for news content. The code simply aims to bring fairness and transparency to Facebook and Google’s relationships with Australian news media businesses.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/01/facebook-instagram-threatens-block-australians-sharing-news-landmark-accc-media-law

 

Media organisations are arguing the pros and cons, but ultimately I believe Oz government and Facebook will come to a resolution.

 

The fact that news links generate 4% of Facebook's revenue doesn't mean they owe them money.  Using news links doesn't make one liable for payment.  This would be analogous to a restaurant being in close proximity to a stadium (or airport).  Stadium argues that people come to your restaurant because of events held at our stadium, therefore "you owe us money!".

 

An even stronger argument can be made that Facebook drives more traffic to these news websites than the other way around.  So do they owe Facebook money then?

 

The fact that Facebook already pays some media for news content is quite irrelevant (is Facebook paying for actual content, i.e. not links?).  I can choose to give my favourite bargirl a tip for doing nothing, doesn't mean I owe everyone else a tip too for doing nothing.  If I am obligated to pay, there needs to be a very clear and hard reason as to why.  Which once again brings me to the core question:  does Facebook need to pay for LINKS?

[simple1]

1 hour ago, wadman said:

Which once again brings me to the core question:  does Facebook need to pay for LINKS?

 

The Oz government and other certainly believe Facebook should contribute to media organisations journalism costs. Personally I don't give a damn as already shown Facebook News is coming down the track which means Facebook will be paying for journalistic content. Of interest to me is for Facebook to pay relevant local taxes, plus if found guilty will be paying hundreds of millions of dollar just in Oz for breach of local laws. Another law site in the making, both locally and internationally...

 

https://apnews.com/article/facebook-continues-news-block-australia-e0b545d3ba541c2de8389c6bd0a6f23f