Facebook versus the Australian Government - Who is Right?

Steve3007 · Post by **Steve3007** » 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?

Post by **Sy Borg** » February 19th, 2021, 7:14 am

Your facts are fine, Steve.

The media is naturally against Facebook. They are all trying to extract money from fb, so they have joined forced to slag off an easy mark, being an already controversial service. It is entirely self-serving and often dishonest.

The idea that Facebook's news article ban is denying Australians news is, to be polite, a ridiculous lie. Facebook's news link ban doesn't stop Australians from visiting various news websites, or quoting articles, or reading hardcopy newspapers or watching news on TV or listening on the radio.

This is all just political dodginess. The primary player, of course, is Murdoch who is in cahoots with the Australian federal government in trying to strengthen his monopoly in Australia, which is weakened by aggregators like Google and Facebook. I love Google News because it provides a range of publications. Murdoch hates that; he wants more control (presumably so he can destroy Australia for fun and profit as he has done to the US and the UK - we are next in his crosshairs). A decaying society is a newsworthy one. And, of course, he needs to control the climate change narrative to support his extensive fossil fuel links.

As for the Daily Mail and the Guardian, news is hard to monetise for minor players so they, especially the Guardian, are like drowning men grasping for anything afloat.

Consider this, a service providing links and snippets is essentially driving traffic to your site. It's free advertising. And the news outlets expect Google and fb to pay for it. The fact is that the withdrawal of Google and Facebook would clearly advantage, you guessed it, Murdoch with his 60% stake in our print media, including almost 100% in some states, plus a news.com.au URL that would be the default for casual news consumers.

It must seems that I blame Murdoch for everything, and it's true that I personally don't like being controlled by a tax-avoiding American board member of Genie Energy, but his influence in Australia truly is immense, far more than his market share, and much more than many people realise.

Steve3007 · Post by **Steve3007** » February 19th, 2021, 7:29 am

Your facts are fine, Steve

I notice a few typos though. I get annoyed with myself if I leave typos in an OP.

Steve3007 · Post by **Steve3007** » February 19th, 2021, 7:30 am

Greta wrote:The idea that Facebook's news article ban is denying Australians news is, to be polite, a ridiculous lie.

I agree that's a particularly absurd thing to claim, as if Facebook were the only way to receive information about the outside world.

Steve3007 · Post by **Steve3007** » February 19th, 2021, 7:35 am

I broadly agree with the rest of your post too, Greta. Obviously I've previously made tongue-in-cheek fun of your frequent mentions of Murdoch, but that doesn't mean you don't have a point.

But I'd be interested to hear counter-arguments from others.

Steve3007 · Post by **Steve3007** » 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.

Post by **Sy Borg** » February 19th, 2021, 8:03 am

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.

Exactly. I expect the outlets figure that the snippets are their property. I guess you can say it's advertising that they didn't ask for.

Fair enough. I think the answer is for Google News and Facebook to remove non-consenting outlets from their feeds, rather as fb has done. They can either consent to their sites being pointed to or not. If not, then they can pay to generate their own traffic.

Personally, I would enjoy reading Google News without all the Murdoch paywall content. Such a nerve to demand payment to link to their paywalled websites, and to have everyone that Murdoch has exploited or bullied to side with him! Then again, I am still trying to work out how he got away with feigning dementia at the News of the World inquiry, and why he is not held accountable for obvious lying under oath.

Sculptor1 · Post by **Sculptor1** » February 19th, 2021, 9:23 am

The government, basically under the control of Rupert Murdoch is trying to force Facebook to pay News Corp when people link their ****.
Facebook have repsonded by not linking their ****.

I do not see how the Australian government can force FaceBook to have to link news AND pay them.

The aussies have tried to make this an issue of free speech. I call B O L L O X!
This is a power struggle between the media forces that have put the Oz government in place, as well as the UK governments since 1979 on the one hand and FB on the other which has a laissez faire attitude to information.
FB have basically called their bluff.
I doubt that the OZ gummit will win.

Sculptor1 · Post by **Sculptor1** » February 19th, 2021, 9:29 am

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?

Seriously??
I doubt that the world is "against Facebook", News outlets are against FB for good reason - if this works News Media stand to gain lots of money and recover some of their lost power.

I have to ask you why do you think FB should be made obligagted to pay the News Corps??
FB has smartly called their bluff - they are under no obligation to buy a service from anyone they do not want to.

Rupert Murdoch and the goverment he controls may well want to make this an issue of free speech - what a croc a sh1t!

My view is that Rupert Murdoch and the two other people that own 90% of the world's news media, have FAR TOO MUCH power already. Adding to that the right to milk social media for more cash does not get my support.

Sculptor1 · Post by **Sculptor1** » February 19th, 2021, 9:30 am

Steve3007 wrote: ↑February 19th, 2021, 7:29 am
Your facts are fine, Steve
I notice a few typos though. I get annoyed with myself if I leave typos in an OP.

You POV that the world is against FB is wrong headed, and based on what the news media have told you.
I can tell you now that the Newsmedia and the "WORLD" are not the same things

Steve3007 · Post by **Steve3007** » February 19th, 2021, 9:34 am

Sculptor1 wrote:You POV that the world is against FB is wrong headed, and based on what the news media have told you.
I can tell you now that the Newsmedia and the "WORLD" are not the same things

Point taken. I agree. "The world" was shorthand for "stuff I've read in the news".

Steve3007 · Post by **Steve3007** » February 19th, 2021, 9:36 am

Sculptor1 wrote:I have to ask you why do you think FB should be made obligagted to pay the News Corps??

So I suppose I have to then ask you: Why do you think I think that? Did I say it?

Steve3007 · Post by **Steve3007** » February 19th, 2021, 9:58 am

Sculptor1 wrote:Seriously??

Er, yes. I am seriously asking people their views on this subject. It's not just a joke topic.

Does that answer your question?

Sculptor1 · Post by **Sculptor1** » February 19th, 2021, 11:35 am

Steve3007 wrote: ↑February 19th, 2021, 9:36 am
Sculptor1 wrote:I have to ask you why do you think FB should be made obligagted to pay the News Corps??
So I suppose I have to then ask you: Why do you think I think that? Did I say it?

I did not imply it.
It is what the Ozzie government thought when it introduced the legisalation.
FB called thier bluff.

Post by **Pattern-chaser** » February 19th, 2021, 12:50 pm

I don't know if I'm overstating this, but I see this as the first (?) explicit clash between a global business and a nation. This has been happening for years, of course, but it hasn't been recognised and discussed openly. After the financial crash of 2007/2008, Obama approached the banks, and told them they had to pay to clean up their own mess. They told him to sod off, and that was that! But it wasn't openly discussed. This Fb vs Oz is being discussed; about time!

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. Guillotines were found to be very useful, a little while ago, in France....