Live data from Hacker News

An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia

about.fb.com

11–20 of 165 posts

Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia

#11
As an Australian I have no doubt the policy is misguided, but the fact that these American companies are being so loud about it makes me wonder if the government is actually on the right track.

In general I would say whatever corporations want is not in my best interest, so whatever they don't want, might be.

Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia

#12
post #9

I haven't followed this debate too closely but this seems pretty disingenuous. >The ACCC presumes that Facebook benefits most in its relationship with publishers, when in fact the reverse is true. News represents a fraction of what people see in their News Feed and is not a significant source of revenue for us News may not directly contribute much ad revenue but it surely is a huge driver of engagement on the website…

Facebook can remove news and it will minimally effect engagement. I wonder what happens to the publishers when they lose 2.3BN clicks.

Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia

#13
post #5

This may not kill the large newspapers, but surely it will destroy the local newspapers. When does a tech blog become news? Can you even share anything on the internet through Facebook?

>Instead, we are left with a choice of either removing news entirely or accepting a system that lets publishers charge us for as much content as they want at a price with no clear limits.

Tbh I think FB's comment here is too binary. It seems to me they're implying that news needs to either be free, or they will get charged "unlimited amount". I'm sure other industries have faced a similar issue (e.g. music?) and have implemented a workable solution that benefits both parties (the aggregators and the creators).

Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia

#15
post #9

I haven't followed this debate too closely but this seems pretty disingenuous. >The ACCC presumes that Facebook benefits most in its relationship with publishers, when in fact the reverse is true. News represents a fraction of what people see in their News Feed and is not a significant source of revenue for us News may not directly contribute much ad revenue but it surely is a huge driver of engagement on the website…

Facebook can remove news and it will minimally effect engagement. I wonder what happens to the publishers when they lose 2.3BN clicks.

Which would indirectly prove the point of the legislation right? That Facebook has immense market power in the social media / ad space with no competitor in sight, which would mean expanding bargaining power for news orgs is legitimate.

Because switching to a competitor would actually be the answer to your question in a functioning market.

Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia

#17
As far as I can tell Facebook makes a good point. The Aus government designed heavy-handed regulation which clearly plays favorites and is totally one-sided. This is not behavior that we should tolerate. I absolutely support Facebook standing up for themselves here.

Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia

#18
If Facebook really wanted to fight the government it could unleash it's democracy crippling social network to hurt this toxic government we have here in Aus. Wink wink Zuck.

But seriously this is just regulatory capture from News Ltd. Our Government works for them. Corruption is becoming a real and visible problem in Australia these days.

Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia

#19

As an Australian I have no doubt the policy is misguided, but the fact that these American companies are being so loud about it makes me wonder if the government is actually on the right track. In general I would say whatever corporations want is not in my best interest, so whatever they don't want, might be.

It's because of the precedent effect.

Countries very much look to each other for policy guidance because nothing is better than having facts on the ground in deciding whether a policy works or not. We've seen it especially recently with COVID-19 responses.

Facebook/Google need to make sure that policies like this aren't enacted because whilst Australia is tiny, the US and the EU aren't and will adopt a similar policy if it works. And then suddenly it snowballs into something you can't stop.

Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia

#20

As an Australian I have no doubt the policy is misguided, but the fact that these American companies are being so loud about it makes me wonder if the government is actually on the right track. In general I would say whatever corporations want is not in my best interest, so whatever they don't want, might be.

That feels like a pretty bad take on how to review changes. You might get better mileage by looking at the context each time. In this case its pretty clear that the Australian goverment is acting on behalf of specific vested news companies and NOT for the consumer...

It seems dangerous to have this kind of government-on-the-right-track reaction when the corporation cheering it on is in the business of fossil fuels, factory farming, or opiod manufacturing just because a different corporation yells loudly about it.

Post reply on HN