Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Tech Giants and Australia

38 replies

valadon68 · 18/02/2021 09:01

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.

OP posts:
AViewFromTheWindows · 18/02/2021 13:47

Isnt google pulling out as well?

minou123 · 18/02/2021 13:58

@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?

My thoughts precisely. I'm very confused about this.

If this law was passed in the UK would Mumsnet have to pay media organisations?
On this thread the Op has posted links to BBC and Guardian news articles.
So would Mumsnet have to pay the BBC and Guardian a fee because thier news articles have been published here?

DGRossetti · 18/02/2021 14:29

The problem with nonsense like this is it just tips that many more people into circumventing (and learning how to circumvent) parochial censorship. Which on the one hand is good when its bad censorship, and on the other hand bad when it's good censorship.

I wonder what the fewest clicks to avoid it is ? If we assume the click to an actual site doesn't count then maybe one ?

LunaHeather · 18/02/2021 15:25

@DGRossetti

The problem with nonsense like this is it just tips that many more people into circumventing (and learning how to circumvent) parochial censorship. Which on the one hand is good when its bad censorship, and on the other hand bad when it's good censorship.

I wonder what the fewest clicks to avoid it is ? If we assume the click to an actual site doesn't count then maybe one ?

Why is that a problem?

I can understand the responses asking why gov are throwing toys out of pram. I suspect it's that their main use of big tech is to push their agenda. They don't want people sitting around talking about Van Gogh, they want social media to benefit them.

turquoisewaters · 18/02/2021 16:18

Which on the one hand is good when its bad censorship, and on the other hand bad when it's good censorship

The problem is, who decides what is bad and good censorship?

DGRossetti · 18/02/2021 16:23

@turquoisewaters

Which on the one hand is good when its bad censorship, and on the other hand bad when it's good censorship

The problem is, who decides what is bad and good censorship?

.
Tech Giants and Australia
MechantGourmet · 19/02/2021 14:00

FB is their platform, and they can do what they want, to be frank. Nation states can make legislation, they can censor a site, or block that platform from being viewed by their citizens, etc etc but they can't make a site display what they want because it's a private entity. I'm sure there are legal ways to stop a site displaying something, but I really don't think it works in the reverse.

Why should MN pay for the links provided above? Those links drive traffic to those sites - wth should MN pay for that? Confused

MirrorSignal1 · 19/02/2021 16:15

Is anyone else surprised by the number of people who use fb to access the news? Is it very old fashioned to go direct to the broadcaster's website (BBC/ABC depending on where u are)?

peak2021 · 19/02/2021 16:25

What I want to see are Facebook and other social media platforms being as willing to act on hatred as they have been here. The abusive comments directed by some towards the late Captain Tom Moore, the racism towards some footballers, for example. They are willing to act against the Australian government and if there is the sight of a female nipple, so it's not as if they cannot act in a reasonable timescale.

laudete · 19/02/2021 16:42

YABU. I think the Australian government was much mistaken to conflate social media with search engines. They do not have the same function and do not serve content the same way. SM serves user-generated content (including media publishers via their own accounts) whereas SE serves spider-generated scraped content snippets. I can totally see why FB and Google are responding differently to the issue.

MechantGourmet · 19/02/2021 16:56

I'm struggling to see anything that shakes up (or, indeed, shakes down) Murdoch as a bad thing...

j712adrian · 19/02/2021 18:41

Shutting down health care organisations' FB pages during a pandemic, eh?

It's every bit as childish and petulant as Zucc comes over.

turquoisewaters · 19/02/2021 19:10

Is it very old fashioned to go direct to the broadcaster's website (BBC/ABC depending on where u are

No, I think a lot of people still do that

New posts on this thread. Refresh page