Tech Giants and Australia

Northernshepherd · 18/02/2021 11:07

I agree with you and am a bit surprised there's not much talk of it on here tbh. They are trying to bully Australia because they think they have more authority than an elected government.

CareBear50 · 18/02/2021 11:24

What is overview pls?

ChubRubTub · 18/02/2021 11:30

I'm here in Aus and there's a view that the government is only taking a stand because they're indebted to Murdoch. The agreement they're pushing for will mean even more money for his papers/networks.

CareBear50 · 18/02/2021 12:07

@valadon68

Admittedly I only have a quick scan of today's articles and a copy of Zuboff's Age of Surveillance Capitalism for inspiration here - perhaps I haven't thought enough about it. But AIBU to think that the stand Australia has taken is absolutely a step in the right direction - if only other governments follow suit? Could you imagine the UK govt. imposing such restrictions on FB/Google? All eyes are obviously on Australia at the moment. The precedent they have set is admirable. But it's what other countries choose to do that will be decisive for the future power of states and governments.

Stand on what? What is the issue OP? It is not clear from your post

TakeTheCuntOutOfScunthorpe · 18/02/2021 12:14

I don't particularly think it's a worthwhile stand. Facebook doesn't ask users to post news, it was originally designed for connecting with friends. I don't see why it should pay if users disseminate news information. I don't think any less of them for what they have done (which, to be fair, it would be hard for me to think any less of them than I do already).

Facebook are entitled to withdraw some or all of their service from territories that change the rules they have to play by. The Australian govt should have been aware that this outcome was potentially going to happen, indeed they probably were.

FWIW I agree that Twitter, Facebook and so on should be more accountable for what is published on their platforms - but targeting them for publishing accurate news seems to me to be going the wrong way about it.

Original poster

valadon68 · 18/02/2021 12:18

Care
This row has been brewing for a while, but it's come to a head today - a couple of links here:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-56107028
www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/18/facebook-blocks-health-departments-charities-and-its-own-pages-in-botched-australia-news-ban

That's interesting, Chub - I should have guessed that there would be more to the story. Incredibly murky waters. But I might be inclined to think that anything which challenges the centralisation of power in Zuckberg's hands is worth pursuing at certain costs.

OP posts:

DynamoKev · 18/02/2021 12:20

It's a stand which is good (I refuse to use Facebook as it allows so much illegal and scam advertising) but it's not the right issue IMHO.

Long overdue that governments stand up to these cunts of Corporations who dodge all taxes and laws as much as they can.

Original poster

valadon68 · 18/02/2021 12:21

TakeThe interesting perspective (lends credence to the POV Chub mentioned too). However, I'm not sure that what FB are entitled or not entitled to do is entirely relevant, any more than the fact that they are acting legally is relevant - it's a blatant power move with far-reaching political implications, and everyone can see it. The fact that they didn't seek clarification before blocking access to health-related pages is one sign of this.

OP posts:

RandomLondoner · 18/02/2021 12:26

I don't see any issue here. News companies don't want content on Facebook that hasn't been paid for, Facebook doesn't want to pay so is blocking content.

No-one is doing anything wrong. If there is a bad guy here, it's the Australian politicians pretending Facebook is doing something wrong. (Though that might be related to Facebook mistakenly blocking some government web sites, which they've now fixed, apparently.)

I haven't look at this issue closely, as no particular interest in Facebook or Australia, so I may not have understood the facts correctly.

Meredithgrey1 · 18/02/2021 12:30

News companies don't want content on Facebook that hasn't been paid for

They don’t not want it on fb that badly though, do they? Bbc and sky news apps both have buttons within them that allow you to instantly post the article to fb. That must be how most people share it.

Original poster

valadon68 · 18/02/2021 12:31

I think the issue is that FB knows it cannot sustain this all over the world. Therefore, its business model relies on a certain exploitation as defined by the Australian govt. in the proposed legislation. If other countries followed suite, I'm pretty sure it would be forced to pay in order to maintain its supremacy in the market (which in circular fashion would be threatened by the condition of having to pay). So this is a very aggressive move aimed at bullying the Australian govt., as a pp said, and sending a warning to other states - this blackout is not in their interests at all, and a global blackout could be catastrophic. Their business model depends at its core on monopoly and universal access.

OP posts:

OhWhyNot · 18/02/2021 12:36

No it surprised to hear Rupert Murdoch is somehow involved the power that man has had been concerning for many years

But FB being curtailed I have no issue with for the right reasons

oil0W0lio · 18/02/2021 12:46

I think it's a very interesting👀the tech giants have made themselves into massive targets🎯

MechantGourmet · 18/02/2021 12:52

I don't understand why these organisations have FB pages instead of using their own websites. Bloody weird.

Original poster

valadon68 · 18/02/2021 12:54

I guess it's because a lot of them provide info that people won't necessarily seek out or provide - bushfire warnings, covid notices etc.

OP posts:

Original poster

valadon68 · 18/02/2021 12:55

Don't know where 'or provide' came from!

OP posts:

AgeLikeWine · 18/02/2021 13:07

As a non-Facebook user, I don’t get this at all. The Aussie government have brought in a new law forcing FB to pay news organisations for using their content. Fair enough. They can pass whatever laws they want.

FB have said ‘OK, we won’t use it, then.’ Fair enough. That’s a perfectly reasonable commercial decision. They can use or not use whatever content they want, within the law.

So why is the government now throwing its toys out of the pram?

turquoisewaters · 18/02/2021 13:10

The current monopolies these platforms hold is detrimental on many levels - same as with any monopoly.

Going forwards there is no reason there couldn't be two or three main alternatives to FB, Twitter, Google et al (similar to mobile phone companies, newspapers, financial institutions, etc). Perhaps this move by Australia is the first step in this direction.

oil0W0lio · 18/02/2021 13:12

They had it coming... they all had it coming!

turquoisewaters · 18/02/2021 13:13

So why is the government now throwing its toys out of the pram

I understand they are upset because they did it without warning?

But news feeds are likely to find alternative outlets, I don't think it will cause a major issue

Moondust001 · 18/02/2021 13:16

@AgeLikeWine

As a non-Facebook user, I don’t get this at all. The Aussie government have brought in a new law forcing FB to pay news organisations for using their content. Fair enough. They can pass whatever laws they want.

FB have said ‘OK, we won’t use it, then.’ Fair enough. That’s a perfectly reasonable commercial decision. They can use or not use whatever content they want, within the law.

So why is the government now throwing its toys out of the pram?

I agree. Also not a user of social media, so at one level I don't give a damn either way. But if Facebook don't want to pay for something and therefore don't have access to it, then that's fine - it's a commercial decision they are entitled to make. And seriously - we are worried about tech giants are we? What about the media giants? They worry me just as much.

LunaHeather · 18/02/2021 13:16

Interesting that you have read Zuboff

I have a stupid hope that eventually those companies will be rejected.

I miss the days when they actually had to think how bandwidth was filled.

LunaHeather · 18/02/2021 13:16

That was to OP, sorry.

oil0W0lio · 18/02/2021 13:19

I have read some of zuboff (it's a long book!) and listened to a lot of her talks and podcasts appearances
I think she's great 🤩

OuiOuiKitty · 18/02/2021 13:32

@AgeLikeWine

As a non-Facebook user, I don’t get this at all. The Aussie government have brought in a new law forcing FB to pay news organisations for using their content. Fair enough. They can pass whatever laws they want.

FB have said ‘OK, we won’t use it, then.’ Fair enough. That’s a perfectly reasonable commercial decision. They can use or not use whatever content they want, within the law.

So why is the government now throwing its toys out of the pram?

This is my take on it too. Surely Facebook can just say fine then we won't use the content?

Besides all of that I thought that what happens is articles are shared on Facebook, people see the headline, click on the article and are brought to the website where they can chose to have the article behind a paywall or have ads on the page or whatever? I thought companies generally wanted the 'reach' because the more people that go to your site the more ad revenue it generates? I know when my business is shared on Facebook I see it as free advertising for me not free content for Facebook.