Undeterred by Facebook news blackout, Australia commits to content law

[welovesundaysatspace]

8 minutes ago, SomchaiCNX said:

You have never been in FB jail I guess. In Europe many people with  ideas that are orientated to the right are temporarily banned when they post their view. 

Like I said: You have your rights over yourself and over what you say, and so does Facebook has their rights over their business and what is being published on their platform. Your rights don’t extend onto someone else’s property, and so do Facebook rights not extend onto you or restrict your rights. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

 

Facebook doesn’t have jurisdiction over him or any individuals. 

 

Is your claim accurate? As an example Facebook banned trump for disinformation, as I recall it was a business decision by Facebook, not imposed by way of compliance with government legislation, monitors posts using moderators and so on.

Yes, my claim is accurate. When Facebook removes disinformation from

their platform, then they’re exercising their rights they have over their property. Individuals don’t have a right over other individuals’ or businesses’ property. They have a right of freedom of speech, over which Facebook doesn’t have any jurisdiction.  

[welovesundaysatspace]

On 2/21/2021 at 1:06 PM, SomchaiCNX said:

Sorry for the use of the wrong word, yes it was legal to use the system using a different billing addresses but I think the EU closed that loophole already.

I highly doubt there ever was a “loophole” in the EU to use a different billing address, or that that is how big corporates would reduce their tax cost. That would be plain tax fraud. I really think you’re confusing some things here, but please correct me if I’m wrong by posting some sources for this. 
 

Quote

Yet again you attack me on the English words that I haved used and thank you for writing in clear English that they are exactly doing that what I told they were doing. Same, same but different but the end result is exactly the same.

 

I didn’t attack you, I attacked the wrong information you posted. You may find it ok to post inaccurate or wrong information on the internet, but then you also need to accept that other people correct you. 
 

 

 

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, simon43 said:

I'm laughing at all this outrage about FB!  It's a private company and makes its own rules, so long as they are legal.  You don't like FB rules?  Then go play elsewhere!  Your life will fall apart if you can't 'play' FB?  Tough!!  You shouldn't have planned your life around FB.

 

FB minimises taxes?  You're stupid if you don't! 

 

What a joke!  Politicians and news media crying in Oz because a private company won't pay for hyperlinks to their own websites....

Australia uses things like national interest or national importance to force media to do things.

 

Channel 9 used to buy the rights of many sports events. When they were on at the dame time, like wimbledon and britsh open golf, they would only show one and because they had the rights then no one else could show it.

 

That changed to use it or lose it. If they had the rights and didnt show it then others could.

 

They use a similar principle for this. The govt posts very important news via fb pages which are now being stopped.  This will not end well for fb and the public are furious with them.

 

I noticed this year that most of the teenagers i help dont have fb. Tik tok or whatever it is seems big for them. They find fb boring.

 

I wouldnt be surprised if, in time, oz reduces the need for fb to the point no one will use it.

[Sujo]

Thinking out loud....

 

Media pays fb as they asked.

 

Media claims full payment from govt as 100% tax deductable.

 

Govt then hits fb with a media tax that gives them a return of that 100%.

 

 

 

[pacovl46]

11 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

The question wasn’t was Facebook decides to do with their platform and their freedom of speech they enjoy there. Someone claimed that Facebook is restricting what he can say, which is not the case. Facebook doesn’t have jurisdiction over him or any individuals. 
 

 

 

 

I completely understood what the question was, but it is you who doesn’t get the “jurisdiction” part! If you think you can post whatever you want on Facebook then you’re utterly wrong! If your post goes against their community guidelines they’ll delete it and slap you with a warning and then increasingly longer periods of Facebook jail for repeat offenses in which you can’t like, post or comment and if you still haven’t learned your lesson then, they’ll delete your account and therefore they very much restrict what you can say, regardless of whether they have actual “jurisdiction” over you. Fact is, as soon as you open a Facebook account you automatically agree to their terms of service and therefore they have “jurisdiction” over your content! Simple as that! Their platform, their rules! 

[pacovl46]

15 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

Unfortunately when I was working I couldn't afford millions of dollars to lobbyists for tax mitigation schemes. Facebook Australia does pay tax, but fought the ATO who eventually won and forced Facebook to pay an equitable amount in taxes. As a member mentioned above multinationals try very hard not to pay fair tax in their local country operations; one of the classic methods for attempted tax avoidance being paying 'royalties' to offshore H.O.

Just like everyone else who does a tax return they try to get back as much as possible. I fail to see why it is ok for average Joe to do so, but not for Facebook! 

[pacovl46]

On 2/20/2021 at 5:13 PM, SomchaiCNX said:

Yes they do but, so does Starbucks, google and a couple more but take for example Uber. A taxi driver in most countries has to pay a lot of money for his license. A london taxi driver used to have a 2 year training and an exam. But Uber people don't. A lot of these companies in Europe used Ireland as the main base for tax invoices to avoid paying taxes in the country that they were actually operating or doing deliveries.  A big software company did provide the software for the French ministry of defense. Their French office was a couple blocks away yet the invoice was redirected to the headquarter in Ireland to avoid a huge amount of tax that should have gone back to the French tax department instead. Other examples are Amazone. So yes they pay taxes ???? and yes they try to bend the rules by sending lobbyist. The same thing happened in Thailand with Jeep, Suzuki was more successful than them because they followed the Thai rules and that made them cheap.  Now the only Suzuki Caribian and Sporty you can find is second hand and at least 15 years old. They send people to lobby and change to rules so that they (tought)  could sell more Jeeps. (who are ridiculously expensive by the way)  

Just like you do when you do your tax return! Or are you trying to tell me that you/your tax guy doesn’t try to get back as much as possible? 

[pacovl46]

On 2/20/2021 at 4:52 PM, SomchaiCNX said:

Yes, they can but within the laws of the country where they are operating. Looks more like a copyright infringement and therefor illegal.

How is it copyright infringement? News outlets with Facebook accounts post their news in their feeds for people to read and share. I’m pretty sure all of their pages are monetized, so people sharing links to their feeds makes news outlets money on Facebook and now they want Facebook to pay them despite the fact that Facebook lets the outlets use their platform for free and pays them ad revenue?! Sounds very much like extremely greedy news outlets biting the hand that feeds them! 

[pacovl46]

On 2/20/2021 at 4:39 PM, mfd101 said:

The matter at issue is not about paying tax (ie to the State).

 

It's about paying for news items taken ('lifted' 'stolen') from commercial news organizations who have prepared & published those items at their own expense. Facebook's problem is that, if Oz succeeds in achieving a compulsory bargaining round between Facebook and Oz news publishers (as it has succeeded already with Google), then similar moves will be made in many of the other Western countries, starting with Canada.

Ok, look, first of all Facebook doesn’t post anything! It’s Facebook users who share news which they have from the webpages of news outlets. If the news outlets don’t want their stuff to be shared then don’t make it shareable! It’s that easy. Also, every time someone shares a link it will lead back to the Facebook account of said news outlets so they’re able to make money through ad revenue which they get paid from Facebook! And now, they want even more money from Facebook despite the fact that they already get money from ad revenue and Facebook let’s them use their platform for free! How fricking greedy can you get? 
 

Also, you were the one who said they should pay taxes and I’ve told you that they are. Therefore I don’t get why you’re trying to tell that that’s not what it’s about. I was just responding directly to your comment. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

18 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

I completely understood what the question was, but it is you who doesn’t get the “jurisdiction” part! If you think you can post whatever you want on Facebook then you’re utterly wrong! If your post goes against their community guidelines they’ll delete it and slap you with a warning and then increasingly longer periods of Facebook jail for repeat offenses in which you can’t like, post or comment and if you still haven’t learned your lesson then, they’ll delete your account and therefore they very much restrict what you can say, regardless of whether they have actual “jurisdiction” over you. Fact is, as soon as you open a Facebook account you automatically agree to their terms of service and therefore they have “jurisdiction” over your content! Simple as that! Their platform, their rules! 

Exactly, their platform. They only have jurisdiction over their platform. What happens on their platform is not your right, it’s their right. Your right to say what you want to say ends where their platform starts. Therefore, they don’t restrict anyone’s right to say what he or she wants to say, because such right only exists outside of Facebook (and outside of any other private businesses’ and individuals’ property), where Facebook doesn’t have any jurisdiction. Where you have a right of freedom of speech, only the government could restrict it, not Facebook.

 

[Credo]

6 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

How is it copyright infringement? News outlets with Facebook accounts post their news in their feeds for people to read and share. I’m pretty sure all of their pages are monetized, so people sharing links to their feeds makes news outlets money on Facebook and now they want Facebook to pay them despite the fact that Facebook lets the outlets use their platform for free and pays them ad revenue?! Sounds very much like extremely greedy news outlets biting the hand that feeds them! 

Unless they violate Fair Use laws or regulations, they should not have to pay a news provider.  If they are actually publishing the sources stories, then some agreement has to be made.  

I don't live in Australia but if I post a link to an Australian source in my FB feed, should I have to pay?   Should FB have to pay?

[pacovl46]

Just now, Credo said:

Unless they violate Fair Use laws or regulations, they should not have to pay a news provider.  If they are actually publishing the sources stories, then some agreement has to be made.  

I don't live in Australia but if I post a link to an Australian source in my FB feed, should I have to pay?   Should FB have to pay?

It’s ridiculous! News outlets live from spreading their stuff, which is exactly what their users do. You click on the link and you get redirected to the outlets website or Facebook page, so I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. If they don’t like their content to be shared then make it not shareable and the case is closed! 

[mfd101]

17 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

Also, you were the one who said they should pay taxes and I’ve told you that they are. Therefore I don’t get why you’re trying to tell that that’s not what it’s about. I was just responding directly to your comment. 

I have NOT mentioned the matter of tax except to dismiss it as you quoted me.

 

I think you are confusing me with someone else.

[7by7]

I don't understand the outrage being shown by some members towards Facebook.

 

Facebook has rules about what it's members can and cannot post? So do most, if not all, social media platforms; including this one!

 

Posts which break those rules are removed? Yep, I know from personal experience that it happens here as well.

 

People who break the rules are suspended from posting? Personal experience also tells me that happens here, too.

 

I, obviously, haven't been permanently banned from posting here; but I know of those who have been.

 

Facebook is a commercial enterprise making money from advertising? Yep, you've guessed it, so is TVF!

 

As for Facebook having to pay for media and news links posted by it's members; I can fully understand their refusal to so do. What would happen to this forum if TVF had to do the same?

 

Of course the Australian, and any other government, have the right to say what Facebook has to pay for in their country. Just as Facebook has the right to decide what it will and will not allow on it's site there.

 

At the end of the day, if you don't like the rules or content; leave. No one is forcing anyone to join Facebook nor any other platform.

 

[shdmn]

1 hour ago, pacovl46 said:

It’s ridiculous! News outlets live from spreading their stuff, which is exactly what their users do. You click on the link and you get redirected to the outlets website or Facebook page, so I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. If they don’t like their content to be shared then make it not shareable and the case is closed! 

I don't think it's that easy.  They need to balance paywalls with making the content searchable and discoverable.  I personally think the most influential social media platforms need to be regulated. They have proven to be toxic to society in a lot of ways and have shown that they cannot be trusted to regulate themselves.

[tgw]

10 hours ago, Sujo said:

Australia uses things like national interest or national importance to force media to do things.

 

Channel 9 used to buy the rights of many sports events. When they were on at the dame time, like wimbledon and britsh open golf, they would only show one and because they had the rights then no one else could show it.

 

That changed to use it or lose it. If they had the rights and didnt show it then others could.

 

They use a similar principle for this. The govt posts very important news via fb pages which are now being stopped.  This will not end well for fb and the public are furious with them.

 

well, the you can also understand the principle of "don't buy anything AND don't use it", LOL

 

the government posting "important news" on facebook is ironic. don't Australians pay taxes for a national news network, radio stations, etc. ?

 

using a private company's property to propagate government news can be used for amplification, but not as a primary channel.

 

and then you say the government has been using facebook to publish their "important news" ... hmmm .... how much did the government pay to facebook for using their platform ?

 

I really facepalm often about old people in government wanting to regulate things they don't understand. often, they go at it with incredible arrogance and hubris.

[GinBoy2]

I'm in the  'I don't get this camp'

 

So an individual decides to either copy or post a link from a non paywalled news site on FB. Yet somehow it's facebook that pays?

 

If the news sites don't want their content shared for free, put in a paywall

[simple1]

5 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

Just like everyone else who does a tax return they try to get back as much as possible. I fail to see why it is ok for average Joe to do so, but not for Facebook! 

Facebook and other multinationals endeavour to establish business models specifically for tax avoidance which then have to be expensively challenged in the Courts at taxpayer cost; there are numerous examples where very onerous fines have been applied. There is no equivalency to the general public tax minimisation opportunities which have already been legislated.

 

An example in Australia for legislation to address multinational corporations tax avoidance efforts:

 

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1516a/16bd045

[pacovl46]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

Facebook and other multinationals endeavour to establish business models specifically for tax avoidance which then have to be expensively challenged in the Courts at taxpayer cost; there are numerous examples where very onerous fines have been applied. There is no equivalency to the general public tax minimisation opportunities which have already been legislated.

 

An example in Australia for legislation to address multinational corporations tax avoidance efforts:

 

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1516a/16bd045

Yeah, it sucks, but as long as there a legal loop holes people and businesses will exploit them...

[pacovl46]

5 hours ago, shdmn said:

I don't think it's that easy.  They need to balance paywalls with making the content searchable and discoverable.  I personally think the most influential social media platforms need to be regulated. They have proven to be toxic to society in a lot of ways and have shown that they cannot be trusted to regulate themselves.

Making content not shareable doesn’t mean that it’s also not searchable and discoverable... and again, it’s not Facebook that shares their content, it’s Facebook users who share content of news outlets.

[pacovl46]

17 hours ago, mfd101 said:

I have NOT mentioned the matter of tax except to dismiss it as you quoted me.

 

I think you are confusing me with someone else.

 

I just went through it again. The confusion stems from you quoting one of my replies to someone else which was about paying taxes. That’s why I thought you were one of the ones who said Facebook doesn’t pay taxes in Australia. My bad! 

[pacovl46]

18 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Exactly, their platform. They only have jurisdiction over their platform. What happens on their platform is not your right, it’s their right. Your right to say what you want to say ends where their platform starts. Therefore, they don’t restrict anyone’s right to say what he or she wants to say, because such right only exists outside of Facebook (and outside of any other private businesses’ and individuals’ property), where Facebook doesn’t have any jurisdiction. Where you have a right of freedom of speech, only the government could restrict it, not Facebook.

 

Mate, it’s pretty fricking obvious that they can’t determine what you say or do in your private life outside of Facebook! Duh!!! 
 

Obviously when people talk about Facebook restricting content it’s obviously in relation to facebook’s platform! What else would it be?! 
 

[Andy from Kent]

5 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

At the end of the day, if you don't like the rules or content; leave.

 

 

I can't leave Facebook because I opted to NEVER be a part of it.   I dislike its controlling nature.

 

[welovesundaysatspace]

10 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

Mate, it’s pretty fricking obvious that they can’t determine what you say or do in your private life outside of Facebook! Duh!!! 
 

Obviously when people talk about Facebook restricting content it’s obviously in relation to facebook’s platform! What else would it be?!

Apparently not so “pretty fricking obvious” as someone here was claiming that Facebook is restricting what he can and cannot say — not what Facebook is doing with their content on their platform.

 

[simple1]

9 hours ago, tgw said:

 

well, the you can also understand the principle of "don't buy anything AND don't use it", LOL

 

the government posting "important news" on facebook is ironic. don't Australians pay taxes for a national news network, radio stations, etc. ?

 

using a private company's property to propagate government news can be used for amplification, but not as a primary channel.

 

and then you say the government has been using facebook to publish their "important news" ... hmmm .... how much did the government pay to facebook for using their platform ?

 

I really facepalm often about old people in government wanting to regulate things they don't understand. often, they go at it with incredible arrogance and hubris.

 

Facebook it not the government's primary info distribution platform, Oz government uses multiple media outlets, including telecoms carriers. Last year Oz government spent A$20 million on Facebook pages.

[tgw]

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

Facebook it not the government's primary info distribution platform, Oz government uses multiple media outlets, including telecoms carriers. Last year Oz government spent A$20 million on Facebook pages.

wow, government spending money on facebook? I didn't know that.

was it for ads? or what kind of service?

[Sujo]

10 minutes ago, tgw said:

wow, government spending money on facebook? I didn't know that.

was it for ads? or what kind of service?

Yes advertising.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/politics/2021-02-21/government-escalates-facebook-feud-by-pulling-advertising/13177688

[tgw]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Yes advertising.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/politics/2021-02-21/government-escalates-facebook-feud-by-pulling-advertising/13177688

 

okay, that's not "paying for using the platform"

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, tgw said:

 

okay, that's not "paying for using the platform"

Its paying to boost their information pages. So i believe but im in no way an expert on how fb works, nor do i want to be.

 

But they just lost millions per year.