To not understand why everyone is so mad at Facebook?

[TingTastic]

So, am I misunderstanding something with the Facebook / Australia news row?

Are Australia expecting FaceBook to pay new agencies for content they (freely?) post to Facebook? Obviously Facebook should be able to choose not to pay this and the only way they can avoid it is by blocking those broadcasters

I sincerely don’t understand what Facebook have done wrong here?

*to pay newS agencies

I don't quite get it either. Australian government change law, Facebook feel unable/unwilling to comply, so remove content that would mean them breaking the law.

Its all to do with paying to allow links to news articles as far as i can tell.
FB say no, our government say yes ONLY cos one of their biggest backers also owns like almost every paper in the country, paper readership is way down so mate helping a mate in a sense, wanting to try force people back to a one sided paper.
Murdoch (papers) also tried a similar tanty with netflix cos he also runs foxtel, the overpriced, outdated pay tv set up

I dont care really, i dont go looking for news on FB cos im not even on it
Now if google had shut up shop here, id have been pissed lol

As I understand it the Australian government wants Facebook to pay news organisations (including agencies and newspapers etc) a cut of the advertising revenue it generates: because it (along with Google and other digital companies) generates vast amounts of advertising revenue in part based on content from these newspapers.

They are concerned about the fact that the news industry is seriously jeopardised due to declining revenue, mainly due to the fact that advertising money has migrated onto platforms like Facebook and that FB etc benefits directly from the investment in editorial that news organisations make.

I think the Australian approach is fairly heavy handed but these platforms want to have things both ways: they want to claim that they are not a media product (ie they don't take any responsibility for editorial oversight and don't invest in news) but they benefit hugely from the editorial investment made by others.

Not sure the Aussie solution is necessarily the right one but something needs to be done to make FB and others recognise the impact their actions has on news and by extension on democracy.

@thepeopleversuswork

But I still don’t get it? Surely most people don’t go to Facebook to get their news? And the fact that Facebook are happy to block the news being published on Facebook confirms that?

[quote TingTastic]@thepeopleversuswork

But I still don’t get it? Surely most people don’t go to Facebook to get their news? And the fact that Facebook are happy to block the news being published on Facebook confirms that?[/quote]
according to a good chunk of aus having a fit, they do lol

The short answer is that big tech pay fuck all tax and contribute virtually nothing to economies - but take up space which other tax paying, taxable employment providing entities might otherwise occupy. Such as traditional news media.

The root of every question is "tax".

@TingTastic
I think the point is. People really do!
So this is all about money for old guard or money for the new guard
All of them are fucking shit. Especially in Australia

[quote TingTastic]@thepeopleversuswork

But I still don’t get it? Surely most people don’t go to Facebook to get their news? And the fact that Facebook are happy to block the news being published on Facebook confirms that?[/quote]
A lot of people on Facebook do not watch the news, buy papers or have news apps on their phone.

Those people may have other people on their friends list that have liked newspaper's FB pages, which they then comment on (usually sensationalist headlines even if it's only from surrey/Hounslow/reading live outlets) which then their friend comments on and will appear in their newsfeed and they may end up reading.

So, inadvertently, Facebook is providing news.

I think a large number of people do read their news on Facebook. A lot of gen z people don’t have any idea where their news is originally gathered and distributed from. They have little familiarity with traditional media “brands” (BBC/Telegraph/Guardian). They read links on Facebook without any idea where it’s come from.

And the publishers or broadcasters who have sourced the news aren’t getting paid for those links. Or at least they are getting a much smaller cut of the ad revenue.

@thepeopleversuswork

I think a large number of people do read their news on Facebook. A lot of gen z people don’t have any idea where their news is originally gathered and distributed from. They have little familiarity with traditional media “brands” (BBC/Telegraph/Guardian). They read links on Facebook without any idea where it’s come from.

And the publishers or broadcasters who have sourced the news aren’t getting paid for those links. Or at least they are getting a much smaller cut of the ad revenue.

I started finding this out in 2018

I was confused because I thought the demographic for facebook was older but I guess it had a resurgence?

But surely Facebook just links to the paper’s own site anyway? At which point the reader will have to pay a subscription or be inundated with adverts to read the article, meaning the paper still gets the same income?

I think part of the problem is that big tech companies have so much money and influence that they act as sort of lawless jurisdictions in their own right. Either they can buy their way out of following rules or threaten to limit their offering to the service users which makes it hard to gain support for legislative changes that could be political suicide.

[quote TingTastic]@thepeopleversuswork

But I still don’t get it? Surely most people don’t go to Facebook to get their news? And the fact that Facebook are happy to block the news being published on Facebook confirms that?[/quote]
That's the only place I get my news. It's a personal feed of all the papers I follow. Why would I click a dozen sites a day when I can just scroll it all in one place?

shamal does the personal feed not involve clicking outside?

I haven't seen a Facebook news page so I don't know how they look.

@LunaHeather

shamal does the personal feed not involve clicking outside?

I haven't seen a Facebook news page so I don't know how they look.

I’m also interested in this. I’ve searched a couple of newspapers on Facebook and I can only see the headline in Facebook itself. I have to click through to the website to read the full story

The more I think about this, the more I realise that the only place I’ve heard of people being mad at Facebook is in the media, who aren’t exactly unbiased...

Actually, many countries, including the UK, are looking at, or have already made media deals with Google and FB. These tech companies suck the advertising revenue from the media organisations but don't contribute anything back. Our (Australian) media is dying, because it can't exist without revenue. This legislation is trying to prevent that happening.

FB isn't taking issue with the deals - they're hissy fitting over a couple of the conditions in the legislation that regulate them. Their response has shown how little they care about consumers. They've scrubbed essential services in their haste - like charities, health & emergency services.

I haven't heard one person actually care about the FB ban. Aussies hate bullies so we just do what we always do - go elsewhere. FB will pay a far heftier price for their tanty than they'll benefit.

Travel "They've scrubbed essential services in their haste - like charities, health & emergency services."

Does that mean they aren't allowed to put things on Facebook?

This is confusing for a non Facebook user but my guess is the pp who said she's not looking at other sites is just looking at headlines.