Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia

about.fb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 165 posts

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

#71

Post by arthens »

A week ago back some friends and I looked at the draft of the law... it's honestly terrifying.

They basically want Google/fb/? to be upfront with all changes. The goal is clearly to give aussie media outlet an unfair advantage and let them use this information to manipulate the ranking algorithm and/or bypass whatever restrictions are put in place. These info need to be "in terms that are readily comprehensible".

IANAL, but here's a few (reformatted) articles from the draft:

52M:

Google/fb/? will need to give aussie media companies access to:

- a list and explanation of the data that the digital platform service collects (whether or not it shares the data with the registered news business) about the registered news business’ users through their engagement with covered news content made available by the digital platform service;

- a list and explanation of the data that the digital platform service currently has a practice of making available to registered news businesses;

My interpretation: these companies will be required by law to share more user data than they currently do.

52N:

- if: changes are planned to be made to an algorithm of the digital platform service; and the changes are likely to have a significant effect on the ranking of the registered news business’ covered news content made available by the digital platform service.

- then: notice of the change is given to the registered news business corporation for the registered news business at least 28 days before the change is made

My interpretation:

The government wants aussie media companies to be able to be proactive and change their site/service so that ranking changes are minimised

52O:

- if: the changes are specifically designed to have an effect on the ranking or display of content behind a paywall.

- then: notice of the change is given to the registered news business corporation for the registered news business; and the notice is given at least 28 days before the change is made;

My interpretation:

media companies don't like when Google penalises paywalls. This will give them a 28 day window to change how they do paywall so that Google won't be able to detect it. Like a whack a mole where you have to announce what you are about to hit

and this keeps going:

- 52P: 28 days notice for changes to how news items are displayed

- 52Q: 28 days notice for changes to advertising (if it affects news)

- 52S: media outlet must be able to moderate comments on their items (does that include comments on shared items? surely not?)

Draft: https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill...

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

#72

Post by catmanjan »

nmlnn wrote: post #24
catmanjan wrote: post #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.

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.

Using your analogy, I would say Australia currently has Facebook, Google and News Corp cancer

Better to treat one now than none...

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

#73

Post by akst »

dicomdan wrote: post #42
umvi wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't the Australian government just make another law making it illegal for Facebook to block sharing of news on Facebook. If you throw enough laws at something, surely you'll get the desired outcome eventually (wealth redistribution from Facebook => struggling newspapers)?

It's not unlikely that Facebook will pull out of Australia for such follow up law, and US will retaliate against Australia economically for driving Facebook out.

The bar would have to be incredibly low for the US to retaliate against Australia over this specifically, seeing as Australia is an incredibly strategic pattern to the US in the Asia pacific region, especially with China being a far greater existential threat to the US economy verses Facebook leaving the Australian market.

Edit: Keep in mind we're talking hypotheticals, Facebook only said it would stop sharing news articles.

The most extreme thing that will end up happening will be a US diplomat reaching out to Australia on behalf of Facebook.

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

#74

Post by stephen_g »

pfundstein wrote: post #46
pawnednow wrote: post #4

Australian 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…

> the entire Australian media has been nothing but puppets controlled by murdoch You're going a bit heavy on hyperbole there. There's a decent amount of non-murdoch news; ABC, SBS, The Age, Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, The Conversation, etc.

It's actually getting worse and worse. The Age and the Herald, having been sold to Nine are much lower quality than they once were. The Government is putting more and more pressure on the ABC, with constant (effective) funding cuts, and both direct editorial interference or indirect (i.e. threatening more funding cuts because of journalists publishing articles they don't like). With the ABC, this has been going on for years - in 2013, they withheld a detailed analysis of the flaws of the Liberal's NBN plan (which has been proven accurate) by Nick Ross before the election because of pushback from "the Turnbull camp", and then eventually he was made redundant because of pressure from the Government. Last year, emails were leaked of the chairman saying they needed to "get rid of Emma Alberici and Andrew Probyn because the Government hates them and they put our funding at risk" - for Alberici because she wrote some articles that got a lot of traction while the Government was trying to push big company tax cuts, pointing out that tax cuts haven't historically correlated with increased economic growth or employment growth (this is true). Last month, Emma Alberici was made redundant...

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

#75

Post by boloust »

valleyjo wrote: post #10

I don’t like FB as a company. However I have to admit, they are correct that news organizations benefit the most from this relationship. Why doesn’t google do the same thing? Don’t index news sites. Googles response seemed less effective than FB’s.

The legislation explicitly prevents platforms from deindexing/downranking news sites that participate in the code in favour of other sites that do not.

Which places Google in a more difficult position, because if a user searches for some news, Google is essentially forced to return results from a participating news organisation, or not show any relevant news results at all.

While Facebook can just prevent users from sharing any news links, Google can't exactly stop users from searching for news.

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

#76

Post by jedberg »

harry8 wrote: post #63

2 Points: Underscoring that facebook is not now, nor was it ever a good source of news is a very good thing. Don't get your news from facebook. Don't get it via facebook. Anything on facebook that isn't actually personal is tainted and horrible to be treated with extreme suspicion. Facebook have earned that reputation and deserve it. People going elsewhere on the internet than facebook to get news will reduce faceboo…

I get lots of news from Facebook. My friends who I trust post articles that they've read. It's a perfectly fine source of news if your friends are the kind of people who actually think critically and read the articles.

If the news you get from Facebook is suspect, it's your friends that are the problem, not Facebook.

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

#77

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

akst wrote: post #73
dicomdan wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not unlikely that Facebook will pull out of Australia for such follow up law, and US will retaliate against Australia economically for driving Facebook out.

The bar would have to be incredibly low for the US to retaliate against Australia over this specifically, seeing as Australia is an incredibly strategic pattern to the US in the Asia pacific region, especially with China being a far greater existential threat to the US economy verses Facebook leaving the Australian market. Edit: Keep in mind we're talking hypotheticals, Facebook only said it would stop sharing news a…

As nations, we contain multitudes. The US fights Canada r.e. lumber, but at the same time cooperates across a broad range of other aspects of international relations. Australia being a strategic partner in many respects does not preclude trade disputes when it comes to their laws as they impact Facebook.

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

#79

Post by [deleted] »

smcleod wrote: post #70

Somewhat related, from Daring Fireball's clipping of https://themargins.substack.com/p/facebook-the-pr-firm : > So, in that way, I read Facebook less as a tech company, but instead a communications one. Not a telecom communications, but more like a PR / marketing consultancy. There’s nothing original about Facebook. It’s a company that hires people to build others’ ideas, and, more often than not, it does that better…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN