Why does the title say "An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia" rather than "Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia"? For me (2) is much more readable.
An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia
21–30 of 165 posts
Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia
#22As 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.
which corporations though? Facebook and Google (against) , or news corp(for)?
Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Because switching to a competitor would actually be the answer to your question in a functioning market.
What do you mean by "switching to a competitor"?
Me posting an article on Facebook does not create a business relationship between Facebook and CNN.
Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia
#24As 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.
Which corporations though? News Corp. wants one thing, Facebook the other. It's like having to decide which type of terminal cancer you'd prefer to get.
Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
No, because the argument being made is that facebook is paying the news orgs less than they're owed. But the reality is that facebook is providing a free service to the news sites.
You normally have to pay someone for advertising. Facebook (and Google) give it away for free.
Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia
#26Why are we getting hot by this in New Zealand? Last I checked we were autonomous from Australia and our only legal connections are treaties and the crown.
I don't see any indication we would be affected in there? Aside from that the author is also MD for New Zealand...
Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia
#27If 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.
Because that worked so well in the US?
Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia
#28As 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.
When the main driving force is lobbying from an American multinational that pays no tax in Australia but controls 70% of our news (News Corp), and ABC, SBS and small independent news sources are specifically excluded... No, they're not on the right track.
I mean, that's even before you consider that there isn't really any logical consistency to the claims that Google and Facebook are making huge profits directly from Australian news content. It's just a ludicrous false assumption...
Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia
#29As 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.
[deleted]
Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia
#30Australian government and more specifically Rod sims, the chair of ACCC should get some counselling. Really good counselling. They clearly don't understand how publishing works and have a biased understanding of who is benefitting from this relationship. However, the entire Australian media has been nothing but puppets controlled by murdoch. The one true less biased source is ABC which has been muddied by constant fe…
ABC are compromised, they only ever hard ball interview the opposition, which is completely fucking useless. (They're not in power)
Just look at any liberal interview vs any Labor interview. Labor gets questions, liberal gets pleasentaries.