[AFAIK]

Why no mention of reddit? Its website is explicitly designed around sharing links to 3rd party websites. Commenting wasn't even available at launch let alone the ability to post original content.

Google previously blocked Spanish news due to a badly designed law and has recently agreed to pay French publishers for their articles. [Neighboring rights]

You don't have to be on Facebook in the first place.

How do I stop friends and family from posting my name and photo every time I attend a party or have luch with them? I also don't need to log onto facebook to be tracked by the pixels it has installed on millions of websites.
__________________

I'd like social media to be regulated like banks. When I open a new bank account they transfer all my standing orders and direct debits from my old one. I should be able to transfer data to a new website just as easily.

[Unthinking Majority]

You don't have to be on Facebook in the first place.

Then you is going to "like" my narcissistic workout selfies?

[GandalfTheGrey]

Why no mention of reddit?

Because no one cares about them?

Most likely the dinosaurs at news ltd haven"t even heard of reddit

[Rancid]

The main 'problem' is for facebook, as its been a bit of a PR disaster for them.

Sure, but fundamentally, it's not like facebook is blocking access to all news. Hence I don't see the problem. People can still get news from these "blocked" news outlets.

People are trying to shame facebook for not paying for something they don't want to pay for. Would you want to be forced to buy news papers you don't care to pay for?

Why not go after them over tax avoidance instead? That has more teeth.

[Istanbuller]

Sure, but fundamentally, it's not like facebook is blocking access to all news. Hence I don't see the problem. People can still get news from these "blocked" news outlets.

Australian politicians are just going after Facebook just like you are obsessed with going after "big tech" in America. Your President also talk trash about Mark and Facebook.

[Rugoz]

Its a bit like if a coffee shop allowed other businesses to freely post advertisements on their premises - and because this just happens to draw more customers to that coffee shop and generate more revenue for them - the businesses that *BENEFIT* from the free advertising act all indignant because they think they are entitled to the coffee shop's profits as well.

It's more like stealing appetizers from other businesses and offering them on your premises. There are people that eat nothing else.

Still a silly law though.

But of course thats the free market in action - facebook has absolutely no obligation to continue providing a free platform for these sites.

Free markets my ass.

Sure, but fundamentally, it's not like facebook is blocking access to all news. Hence I don't see the problem. People can still get news from these "blocked" news outlets.

People are trying to shame facebook for not paying for something they don't want to pay for. Would you want to be forced to buy news papers you don't care to pay for?

[wat0n]

It's more like stealing appetizers from other businesses and offering them on your premises. There are people that eat nothing else.

Still a silly law though.

I could buy that if they were not policing people who post articles behind paywalls and thus refusing to enforce copyrights.

But I don't think they are actually behaving like that.

This law should in no way, shape or form punish Facebook for having users posting news articles that the outlets themselves are not placing behind paywalls.

[Rugoz]

I could buy that if they were not policing people who post articles behind paywalls and thus refusing to enforce copyrights.

But I don't think they are actually behaving like that.

This law should in no way, shape or form punish Facebook for having users posting news articles that the outlets themselves are not placing behind paywalls.

That presumes the outlets only make money with subscriptions and not with ads.

The question is, why do people even post links to newspapers on reddit for example? Because the name of the newspaper lends whatever headline or picture that comes with it credibility. In essence these social media sites feed on the intangible capital of newspapers. I bet less than 10% of the posters actually follow the link and read the article. More likely they read a quick summary from another poster.

All that said, the free advertisement should make up for it.

[wat0n]

That presumes the outlets only make money with subscriptions and not with ads.

The question is, why do people even post links to newspapers on reddit for example? Because the name of the newspaper lends whatever headline or picture that comes with it credibility. In essence these social media sites feed on the intangible capital of newspapers. I bet less than 10% of the posters actually follow the link and read the article. More likely they read a quick summary from another poster.

All that said, the free advertisement should make up for it.

Of course it should, which is why this law is nonsense. It would also set a precedent in other uncomfortable ways - for instance, if I send a link through WhatsApp or even a simple SMS, would my phone provider be liable too? Why would Facebook and Google be liable but other providers wouldn't?

[Rancid]

So you have nothing to say.

[Godstud]

Nobody is going to miss Australia, anyways.

[Rugoz]

So you have nothing to say.

Regardless of whether the law is fair or not, Facebook still (ab)uses its market power by removing all news content.

[QatzelOk]

I totally understand why Facebook (and Australian commercial media) are doing what they are doing. Both action and reaction are justified under capitalism.

But I hope this story makes more people realize how important it is to have "non-commercial" internet tools. It doesn't make much sense to leave what-is-for-many "an essential service" in the hands of a private tyrant.

Community billboards and information exchange is NOT a lemonade stand.

[noemon]

Canada vows to follow Australia with new law after Facebook bans news

Canada vowed to make Facebook pay for its news content as the social media giant faced international condemnation for imposing a blackout on Australia.

Facebook has been labelled a “schoolyard bully” for blocking links to news outlets in Australia in response to a planned law requiring it to pay for news shared on its site.

Canada said that it would not be deterred from implementing a law similar to Australia’s, and appealed for international allies to take on Big Tech.

Steven Guilbeault, the culture minister in charge of crafting the legislation, said: “Canada is at the forefront of this battle.”

British MPs said that Facebook’s move showed that it should face tougher rules in the online harms bill, which has pledged to better regulate social media.

Guilbeault said that Canada might adopt the Australian model, which requires Facebook and Google to reach payment deals with news sites whose links drive activity on social media platforms or be forced to pay through binding arbitration. France is requiring tech platforms to open talks with publishers about paying for news content.

Guilbeault said: “We are working to see which model would be the most appropriate.” He said that he spoke last week to his French, Australian, German and Finnish counterparts about working together on ensuring fair compensation for web content.

“I suspect that soon we will have five, ten, 15 countries adopting similar rules. Is Facebook going to cut ties with Germany, with France?” At some point Facebook’s approach would become “totally unsustainable”, he said.

Media groups in Canada warned last year that 700 journalism jobs out of 3,100 nationally would be lost without action. The Australian model would allow publishers in Canada to recover £350 million a year.

Megan Boler, a University of Toronto professor specialising in social media, said that the Facebook action marked a turning point that would require a common international approach. “We could actually see a coalition, a united front against this monopoly, which could be very powerful,” she said.

The social network has reacted to a planned Australian law requiring it to pay for news shared on its site by blocking users from seeing or posting links to news websites.

Health and emergency organisations were initially caught in the news ban, blocking users’ access to Covid information and charitable support. Australian media pages are unavailable to international users and Facebook accidentally blocked Sky News and The Daily Telegraph because they share names with Australian outlets.

There have been calls in Britain for Sir Nick Clegg, the former Liberal Democrat leader and deputy prime minister, to consider his position as vice-president for global affairs and communications, which he has held since 2018.

Julian Knight, Conservative chairman of the digital, culture, sport and media committee, said that Facebook was demonstrating irresponsible “bully boy tactics” that “run a bulldozer” over democratic processes. He added: “This is not just about Australia. This is Facebook putting a marker down, saying to the world that ‘If you do wish to limit our powers . . . we can remove what is for many people a utility’.”

James Cleverly, the Foreign Office minister, told Times Radio: “Ultimately we’ve got to ensure there is an appropriate balance between a country and its ability to make decisions and its commercial partners, whether they’re big tech companies or others. Australia is and remains a very strong partner and we will of course listen to whatever requests they put forward on the international stage.”

The Liberal Democrats distanced themselves from Clegg. A senior MP from the party described Facebook’s actions as “entirely wrong”.

There was also strident criticism of Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive. Facebook said that the new law misunderstood the relationship between its platform and publishers and that it had no choice but to act.

Dr Damian Tambini, a media fellow at the London School of Economics, said that the row was being keenly watched by policymakers around the world.

“At the moment Facebook are within their rights to switch off news services,” he said. “However, in the longer term they know that doing so weakens their claim that they have no editorial control, which they need to maintain in order to fend off the regulation that inevitably comes with editorial responsibility.”


Facebook’s latest power play is a significant escalation in its legal fight with Australia over legislation that will force digital platforms to pay publishers for articles.

Scott Morrison, the Australian prime minister, vowed to press ahead with the new law today, and criticised Facebook for “unfriending” Australia. He added that the leaders of Britain, Canada, France and India had shown their support to his government’s actions.

“There is a lot of world interest in what Australia is doing,” he said. “That is why I invite . . . Facebook to constructively engage because they know that what Australia will do here is likely to be followed by many other western jurisdictions.”

He added that Facebook’s actions constituted a “threat”. “I thought that was not a good move on their part, and they should move quickly past that, come back to the table,” he said.

Josh Frydenberg, the Australian treasurer, said that he had spoken to Zuckerberg today for a second time since the news blackout. “We talked through their remaining issues and agreed our respective teams would work through them immediately. We’ll talk again over the weekend,” he said.

By damming the flow of news, Facebook has drawn a sharp dividing line between itself and Google. The search engine had initially threatened to remove links to news from search results in Australia. This week, however, Google struck licensing deals with a number of the country’s large publishers, including News Corp, owner of The Times.

This is far from a localised spat — the reverberations have spread across the world. Many governments see the Australian reforms as a template for safeguarding the future of quality journalism in their countries.

The legislation is designed to redress the power imbalance between Facebook and Google and publishers in negotiating payments for articles used on the platforms. Under the proposed rules, news providers would thrash out licensing deals with the Silicon Valley giants. If agreement cannot be reached, an arbitrator would decide a fee.

Australia is explicitly attempting to curb the growing power of Facebook and Google. The two firms dominate the market for internet advertising, accounting for 80 per cent of spending on digital ads in the UK in 2019.

The Australian government sees the “link tax” as a potential saviour of grassroots journalism. Critics of the legislation have attacked it as a blunt instrument that does not reflect how the internet works.

Facebook says the statutory code is based on erroneous analysis and that the company does not benefit directly from users posting links to stories. It has made a cold-eyed calculation in turning off the news tap. The move has been a PR disaster, yet the price may be worth paying if Australians continue to spend as much time on Facebook as before.


What did Australia do?
Propose a law forcing tech companies to pay news outlets for articles shared on their networks. It would require Google and Facebook to negotiate with media companies and compensate them for content that appears on, for example, Google search results and Facebook’s news feed.

How have Google and Facebook responded?
Both are angry and lobbied hard to change the law. Google put warning signs on its Australian homepage but it has signed deals with news organisations such as News Corp, parent company of The Times, to cover all news links on its platform. By contrast Facebook users in Australia cannot see or post links to any news sites.

Why is Facebook doing this?
It wants to show that it is more important to news organisations than they are to Facebook. It says that articles account for less than 4 per cent of news feed content but that Facebook drove 5.1 billion visits to Australian news sites last year.

What do news outlets say?
That Facebook and Google benefit from the content they produce. Between 8 per cent and 14 per cent of Google search results trigger a “top stories” display, typically including news articles. Facebook benefits because stories on the news feed retain user attention, enabling more adverts to be displayed.

Why is the law considered necessary?
It is designed to address the loss of advertising revenue that traditional media companies have suffered. For every £100 of Australian online ad spending in 2019, £53 went to Google, £28 to Facebook and £19 to the rest. Newspapers say that while they are having to cut staff, Google and Facebook make huge sums off the back of their work.

Does Facebook pay anyone at the moment?
In Britain it launched a news tab feature in January after signing deals with news providers including Sky News, The Guardian, the Daily Mail group and the Telegraph Media Group. The news tab shows curated stories from national, local and lifestyle media outlets; users choose topics and publishers they want to follow or hide. News UK, publisher of The Times, has not yet signed up.

What happens next?
The law will be debated in the Australian Senate. There may be amendments depending on negotiations with Facebook.

[Rancid]

Regardless of whether the law is fair or not, Facebook still (ab)uses its market power by removing all news content.

I agree, but that abuse is extremely minimal, given it's just so easy to get news a million other ways. Nor should they be required to provide access to news. Further, they shouldn't be required to pay to provide that access either. Facebook doesn't have a monopoly on access to news. You can get news a million other ways on the internet. In fact, it's easier to get news outside of facebook, because you have to sign into facebook. There are ways to get news without even having to sign into anything.

This removal of news simply isn't that big of a deal. I don' have facebook, yet, I can get news easily.

You don't need facebook to get news. It's that simple.

[QatzelOk]

You don't need facebook to get news. It's that simple.

You don't need Facebook to get anything.

Unless it is permitted to create a monopoly, which a non-negligent government has to make sure doesn't happen.

All the billionaires that government-sanctionned monopolies create are Frankenstein monsters towards democracy and human rights. And their products could be easily provided by a non-profit institution with better credentials as far as commitment to the common good.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

Maybe the Australians should have listened to an expert:

Australia's proposed media code could break the world wide web, says the man who invented it

The inventor of the world wide web says proposed Australian media laws requiring tech giants Google and Facebook to pay for displaying news content risks setting a precedent that “could make the web unworkable around the world”.

Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the world wide web in 1989, said the draft legislation “risks breaching a fundamental principle of the web by requiring payment for linking between certain content online”.

In a submission to an Australian Senate inquiry on the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code bill, Berners-Lee said the ability of web users to link to other sites was “fundamental to the web”.

Requiring digital platforms to pay to host that link, a world-first provision of the proposed Australian laws, would “block an important aspect of the value of web content”, the computer scientist said.

Berners-Lee argued the proposal “would undermine the fundamental principle of the ability to link freely on the web and is inconsistent with how the web has been able to operate over the past three decades”.

“If this precedent were followed elsewhere it could make the web unworkable around the world,” he said. “I therefore respectfully urge the committee to remove this mechanism from the code.”

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/ ... nvented-it

[skinster]

And nothing of value was lost anywhere to anyone. Facebook and Australian Murdoch media can eat each other right up.

My thoughts exactly.