Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4381
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Scott » February 19th, 2021, 7:31 pm

Overall, I would put my bet on it being the case that both the Australian government and Facebook are both bloated organizations, tossing around billions if not trillions of dollars, run by mobs of self-serving dishonest human beings, most of whom if not all of whom can't even stick to their own personal diets, manage their own lives, and clean their own figurative backyards, the latter of which might be the very thing causing them to set their greedy self-serving sights on other people's backyards (and money). In other words, I at least anecdotally find that usually people struggle with the let live part of live and let live because they struggle with the live part. Their own inner house isn't in order and that motivates their restless (and typically violent) injection of disorder into society. In yet other words, they lack inner peace so their outward actions reflect that inner chaos in terms of them being outwardly unpeaceful.

If Murdoch and his clan are a wolf violently eating one leg of the lamb, Zuckerberg's Facebook is a second wolf tearing at a second leg of the lamb, and the Australian government is a third wolf violently tearing at third leg of the same lamb, then I am not sure if there is any value, or even much meaning, in figuring out who is right or whatnot in a fight between the wolves over the innocent lamb's legs.
Pattern-chaser wrote:Any way that we can reduce their influence is OK with me. Guillotines were found to be very useful, a little while ago, in France....
While I wouldn't literally suggest guillotining them or anyone on account my preference for and advocacy of peace, I can at least figuratively agree eagerly with the sentiment. :)
Steve3007 wrote:
February 19th, 2021, 7:41 am
Arguably an analogous situation would be a poster on here posting a link to a news article and, as a result, Scott (the owner of this website) having to pay the news provider being linked to. It seems clear that if the news provider hasn't put their article behind a paywall then they should be ok with people reading it, and any advertising that they put alongside it, for free.
Well, when you put it like that, then I guess I have to hold my nose and take Facebook's side on this one. :lol:
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 10012
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Sy Borg » February 19th, 2021, 8:33 pm

Choose your preferred corporate behemoths. Australia is just the piggy in the middle of a battle between News Corp and The Nine Entertainment Company vs Google and Facebook. The Australian government does not represent the Australian people; it represents Murdoch's interests. The Liberal Party enjoys generous support from fossil fuel companies and Murdoch has longtime links with fossil fuel companies.

Personally, I side with the corporate behemoths that are least harmful to the natural environment. News Corp has constantly undermined efforts to mitigate climate change and to preserve endangered ecosystems, and they are the reason why we Aussie taxpayers have to spend billions each year propping up the legacy technology of fossil fuel companies instead of investing in emerging technologies with a long term future (especially one that won't, in time, be attracting sanctions and increased tariffs).

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 8701
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Steve3007 » February 20th, 2021, 9:57 am

Scott wrote:Overall, I would put my bet on it being the case that both the Australian government and Facebook are both bloated organizations, tossing around billions if not trillions of dollars, run by mobs of self-serving dishonest human beings, most of whom if not all of whom can't even stick to their own personal diets, manage their own lives, and clean their own figurative backyards, the latter of which might be the very thing causing them to set their greedy self-serving sights on other people's backyards (and money). In other words, I at least anecdotally find that usually people struggle with the let live part of live and let live because they struggle with the live part. Their own inner house isn't in order and that motivates their restless (and typically violent) injection of disorder into society. In yet other words, they lack inner peace so their outward actions reflect that inner chaos in terms of them being outwardly unpeaceful.
I can see why you would take this view on this subject because it fits with the wider philosophy of life that you explained in your topic called: "Man Is Not Fit to Govern Man: My Philosophy of Non-Violence, Self-Government, Self-Discipline, and Spiritual Freedom".
Scott wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:Arguably an analogous situation would be a poster on here posting a link to a news article and, as a result, Scott (the owner of this website) having to pay the news provider being linked to. It seems clear that if the news provider hasn't put their article behind a paywall then they should be ok with people reading it, and any advertising that they put alongside it, for free.
Well, when you put it like that, then I guess I have to hold my nose and take Facebook's side on this one. :lol:
I initially thought so too. My first reaction to the idea that cutting off access to Facebook news constitutes cutting off access to all news was that it is absurd (as I agreed with Greta earlier in the topic). Clearly Facebook isn't the only way to access news and anyone who has Facebook necessarily has access to the internet and therefore to alternative online news sources. But I've subsequently read arguments that it is not quite as simple as that due to the marketing model of Facebook among some poor people, particularly in the Asia Pacific region, in which (allegedly) they can only afford to access news via the Facebook app.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 8701
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Steve3007 » February 20th, 2021, 10:10 am

Here's an article which makes the argument I referred to in my previous post:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... ews-source

It says:
Across the Pacific, thousands of people are on pre-paid data phone plans which include cheap access to Facebook. Those on limited incomes can get news through the social network, but cannot go to original source websites without using more data, and spending more money.

The region’s largest telco provider, Digicel, with a presence in Fiji, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu, offers affordable mobile data plans with free or cheap access to Facebook.
So this then becomes a question of the problem with monopolies. A solution, presumably, is for telco companies to fill the gap in the market recently created by the Facebook news blackout by providing affordable mobile data plans with free or cheap access to other sources of news than Facebook.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 8701
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Steve3007 » February 20th, 2021, 10:19 am

Pattern-chaser wrote:I'm 100% behind Oz. Murdoch and his demonic billionaire cronies (or reptilian cannibalistic predatory paedophile Trump-friends, as they are sometimes called) pretty much rule the world anyway. Any way that we can reduce their influence is OK with me.
When you say you're behind Oz do you mean you're behind (supportive of) the proposed legislation by the Australian government? If your point is that you're against Murdoch et al then it would be expected that you'd be supporting Facebook more than Oz (the Australian government) on this particular issue.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 1168
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Count Lucanor » February 20th, 2021, 1:07 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
February 19th, 2021, 6:13 am
A current news story is Facebook denying access to news on their planform for Australians. This is a reaction to the Australian government seeking to pass laws making Facebook pay news providers for news provided on their platform. Facebook argues that they are merely a platform and that if news providers want people to pay for the news copy generated by their journalists then they're free to either place it behind their own paywall or fund it using advertising. Most of the world seems to be against Facebook and on the side of the Australian government on this one. Here is the UK it's a very rare example of The Guardian and The Daily Mail agreeing with each other!

Have I got the basic facts here right? What are your views on the story? If you take a side, is it with Facebook or the Australian government? Or can you see the points of view of both?
I have mixed feelings about Facebook. Although I use their service a lot, their censoring machines and overall, the gigantic, monopolistic powers they have to control speech, annoy me.

Having said that, I agree with most of what Sy Borg argues. After all, I also have mixed feelings about the State's power over speech, and especially when it represents the interests of for-profit corporations.

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 1484
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Pattern-chaser » February 21st, 2021, 7:15 am

Pattern-chaser wrote:I'm 100% behind Oz. Murdoch and his demonic billionaire cronies (or reptilian cannibalistic predatory paedophile Trump-friends, as they are sometimes called) pretty much rule the world anyway. Any way that we can reduce their influence is OK with me.
Steve3007 wrote:
February 20th, 2021, 10:19 am
When you say you're behind Oz do you mean you're behind (supportive of) the proposed legislation by the Australian government? If your point is that you're against Murdoch et al then it would be expected that you'd be supporting Facebook more than Oz (the Australian government) on this particular issue.
I confess to having little information or opinion on the details of this matter. The dominance of commerce has bothered me for a long time. That commerce should somehow trump an appointed government is just plain wrong, to me. So I support the elected national government against the capitalist behemoth, more or less without further consideration. Billionaires and Big Business must be opposed on all fronts, IMO.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 226
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Robert66 » February 21st, 2021, 3:27 pm

I sympathise with Sy Borg who has railed against Murdoch at the real risk of appearing obsessed. I add my voice to hers and say as another Aussie that she is correct. Australian governments have for decades done all they could to clear the way for the Murdoch-owned media, who now dominate the print media landscape, in fact monopolise it in many areas. Similarly they ("our" government) have fought for Murdoch against the public broadcaster, the ABC. With information now predominantly online they have continued to do Murdoch's bidding, however this time they are f___ed.

Who is right? Possibly the easiest question yet on these forums. The habitually wrong Morrison government are this time wronger than a slice of bread sandwiched between ham. This latest wrong-headedness exposes the Morrison government once more as colossal hypocrites, arguing for business and free markets while intervening in those markets and interfering with businesses constantly. Why? Because Murdoch still has the power to install or remove a government. That simple - Sy Borg is not crazy!

The guillotine is too quick and therefore humane in this case. The Blood Eagle would be more suitable (if you don't know of Vikings then look it up).

User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 10012
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Sy Borg » February 21st, 2021, 9:31 pm

Robert66 wrote:
February 21st, 2021, 3:27 pm
I sympathise with Sy Borg who has railed against Murdoch at the real risk of appearing obsessed. I add my voice to hers and say as another Aussie that she is correct. Australian governments have for decades done all they could to clear the way for the Murdoch-owned media, who now dominate the print media landscape, in fact monopolise it in many areas. Similarly they ("our" government) have fought for Murdoch against the public broadcaster, the ABC. With information now predominantly online they have continued to do Murdoch's bidding, however this time they are f___ed.

Who is right? Possibly the easiest question yet on these forums. The habitually wrong Morrison government are this time wronger than a slice of bread sandwiched between ham. This latest wrong-headedness exposes the Morrison government once more as colossal hypocrites, arguing for business and free markets while intervening in those markets and interfering with businesses constantly. Why? Because Murdoch still has the power to install or remove a government. That simple - Sy Borg is not crazy!

The guillotine is too quick and therefore humane in this case. The Blood Eagle would be more suitable (if you don't know of Vikings then look it up).
Cheers Robert. That may be the nicest thing anyone has said about me on the forum :)

The crazy part is how Murdoch has been able to function as a parasite for so long with impunity. He divided and destroyed the US. He has done the same to the UK. In each instance, his host suffers while his profits boomed. Comparable nations like New Zealand and Canada are far less inclined to severe division and denial of climate change - because they do not have Murdoch controlling and poisoning their news agenda.

Consider the damage done by Murdoch with COVID, let alone other areas: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/why-th ... denialism/

https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/10/23/ru ... och-power/
Shayne Neumann learnt about real power the hard way. In August 2014, as Labor’s little-known federal opposition spokesman for Indigenous affairs, Neumann was one of many politicians who rolled up to the annual Indigenous Garma Festival in Arnhem Land. While on a panel discussing the Recognise movement for constitutional acknowledgment of Aboriginal people, Neumann decided to criticise coverage of the issue by News Corporation newspapers: “There’s too much power in the media controlled by one man who lives overseas.”

That was an interesting thing to say in a public forum, I said to him afterwards. It needed to be said, he responded. When I asked whether he was concerned about the political consequences of criticising News Corp in public, he seemed genuinely surprised by the question.

It took less than 24 hours for Neumann to realise the consequences. On its front page and in its leader column the next morning, The Australian turned its guns on him.

“Aboriginal leaders have described as disgraceful, divisive and ignorant an attack by Labor’s Indigenous affairs spokesman, Shayne Neumann, about coverage of reconciliation in The Australian and other newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch,” the page one news story began. In an editorial, it advised opposition leader Bill Shorten to counsel Neumann over his anti-News Corp comments.

Neumann is a bit player in the broader choreography of media power in Australia. But his front-page dressing-down in the house organ of Australia’s dominant media empire sent a salutary message — to him and to other senior politicians who ignore the ground rules of political and media life in Australia at their peril.

Don’t overstep the mark. Pay obeisance to the permanent source of power. Apply appropriate filters to your decisions and public utterances. And it doesn’t hurt to be obsequious.
Google and Facebook have become too influential, interfering with Murdoch's usual total control over media narratives in Australia, which is at the heart of the current conflict between Google/FB and Murdoch's ally, the federal Liberal government ("liberal" in name only).

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 8701
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Steve3007 » February 22nd, 2021, 6:06 am

Pattern-chaser wrote:That commerce should somehow trump an appointed government is just plain wrong, to me.
The issue isn't quite that simple in at least this case.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 8701
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Steve3007 » February 22nd, 2021, 6:10 am

Robert66 wrote:I sympathise with Sy Borg who has railed against Murdoch at the real risk of appearing obsessed.
Being obsessed doesn't necessarily make one wrong.

User avatar
Steve3007
Posts: 8701
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Steve3007 » February 22nd, 2021, 6:16 am

Robert66 wrote:I add my voice to hers and say as another Aussie that she is correct. Australian governments have for decades done all they could to clear the way for the Murdoch-owned media, who now dominate the print media landscape, in fact monopolise it in many areas. Similarly they ("our" government) have fought for Murdoch against the public broadcaster, the ABC. With information now predominantly online they have continued to do Murdoch's bidding, however this time they are f___ed.

Who is right? Possibly the easiest question yet on these forums. The habitually wrong Morrison government are this time wronger than a slice of bread sandwiched between ham. This latest wrong-headedness exposes the Morrison government once more as colossal hypocrites, arguing for business and free markets while intervening in those markets and interfering with businesses constantly. Why? Because Murdoch still has the power to install or remove a government. That simple - Sy Borg is not crazy!
Despite my limited knowledge of the media culture in Australia I'm inclined to agree with your and Sy's general point. I also initially thought it particularly ridiculous to say that Facebook removing 3rd party sourced news stories from their platform constitutes cutting off access to news. Obviously Facebook is not the only possible source of news. Or so I thought. I've slightly modified my opinion on that now. What do you think?

User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 10012
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Sy Borg » February 22nd, 2021, 7:02 am

Steve3007 wrote:
February 22nd, 2021, 6:16 am
Robert66 wrote:I add my voice to hers and say as another Aussie that she is correct. Australian governments have for decades done all they could to clear the way for the Murdoch-owned media, who now dominate the print media landscape, in fact monopolise it in many areas. Similarly they ("our" government) have fought for Murdoch against the public broadcaster, the ABC. With information now predominantly online they have continued to do Murdoch's bidding, however this time they are f___ed.

Who is right? Possibly the easiest question yet on these forums. The habitually wrong Morrison government are this time wronger than a slice of bread sandwiched between ham. This latest wrong-headedness exposes the Morrison government once more as colossal hypocrites, arguing for business and free markets while intervening in those markets and interfering with businesses constantly. Why? Because Murdoch still has the power to install or remove a government. That simple - Sy Borg is not crazy!
Despite my limited knowledge of the media culture in Australia I'm inclined to agree with your and Sy's general point. I also initially thought it particularly ridiculous to say that Facebook removing 3rd party sourced news stories from their platform constitutes cutting off access to news. Obviously Facebook is not the only possible source of news. Or so I thought. I've slightly modified my opinion on that now. What do you think?
Yup, it's easier to access news today via the internet - aggregators or not - than last century. The issue is that it's a battle of memes - as in Dawkins's memes as informational equivalents of genes - not cutesy banners (though it's that as well). Murdoch, with a lion's share of the news market, has the loudest voice, and all politicians fear him.

That is, logically, too much power for a fossil-fuel investing, tax evading foreign investor to have for Australia's good. I wouldn't want Murdoch and his ilk silenced - diverse interests will need expression - but it would be nice if his influence was more evenly counterbalanced by competing views. After seeing the negative impacts of his influence on the US and the UK, it would be especially nice if he represented right wing political views without all the lying, misrepresentation and conspiracy theories.

User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 226
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Robert66 » February 22nd, 2021, 1:54 pm

You are welcome, Sy Borg. I have always enjoyed your contributions - invariably "on the money".

Steve, I don't think much of Facebook, nor am I surprised that they are involved in dubious activity in the Pacific.

The real shame of it all for me is, to echo Sy, that we are everywhere now being fed a very poor media diet.

Where are the compelling right wing views to be found?

User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 1484
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Post by Pattern-chaser » February 23rd, 2021, 6:24 am

Robert66 wrote:
February 22nd, 2021, 1:54 pm
Where are the compelling right wing views to be found?
In these only-just-post-Trump days, I think the answer is "Everywhere!".
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Post Reply

Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021