21–30 of 73 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Despite the Australian Government's big scary words about not backing down last week. What an embarrassment.
Old media saw their traffic stats crater, I think.
to clarify for all who only read the headline "Going forward, the government has clarified [Facebook] will retain the ability to decide if news appears on Facebook so that [Facebook] won't automatically be subject to forced negotiation," so it looks like Facebook won in the game of chicken between them and the Australian government.
From my understanding of the situation, there was no game.
FB didn't give a shit about pulling news from Australia because it was a tiny proportion of their content.
The government/politicians were trying to strong arm FB into coughing up with zero leverage. It was insanely stupid.
Here's FB's post for context: https://about.fb.com/news/2021/02/changes-to-sharing-and-vie...
to clarify for all who only read the headline "Going forward, the government has clarified [Facebook] will retain the ability to decide if news appears on Facebook so that [Facebook] won't automatically be subject to forced negotiation," so it looks like Facebook won in the game of chicken between them and the Australian government.
> so it looks like Facebook won in the game of chicken between them and the Australian government From my understanding of the situation, there was no game. FB didn't give a shit about pulling news from Australia because it was a tiny proportion of their content. The government/politicians were trying to strong arm FB into coughing up with zero leverage. It was insanely stupid. Here's FB's post for context: https://a…
"The tech giant drew a wide backlash from Australian users." This is patently false, the only evidence of backlash has been from reports in mass media, we were all loving the new newsless Facebook. On this particular issue Facebook is clearly in the right, it is straight up insane to expect them to pay for links to news that users choose to share.
It works in both ways. Anectdotal evidence is not quite evidence.
"The tech giant drew a wide backlash from Australian users." This is patently false, the only evidence of backlash has been from reports in mass media, we were all loving the new newsless Facebook. On this particular issue Facebook is clearly in the right, it is straight up insane to expect them to pay for links to news that users choose to share.
to clarify for all who only read the headline "Going forward, the government has clarified [Facebook] will retain the ability to decide if news appears on Facebook so that [Facebook] won't automatically be subject to forced negotiation," so it looks like Facebook won in the game of chicken between them and the Australian government.
Most news source I searched are reporting small (but logical) tweaks to the law, to the point that it seems Facebook largely conceded and then put out some face saving PR.
In practice the government has achieved their goal of both FB and Google paying for news content. Both have backed down. The total (industry wide) payments seem likely to reach about $200 million AUD.
Further the government’s legislation is going to pass with cross-party support.
Overall the government probably considers this a resounding success.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so it looks like Facebook won in the game of chicken between them and the Australian government From my understanding of the situation, there was no game. FB didn't give a shit about pulling news from Australia because it was a tiny proportion of their content. The government/politicians were trying to strong arm FB into coughing up with zero leverage. It was insanely stupid. Here's FB's post for context: https://a…
Why did Google blink when FB didn't then?
But on Facebook the news publishers voluntarily share their stories.
That’s the biggest difference in my opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so it looks like Facebook won in the game of chicken between them and the Australian government From my understanding of the situation, there was no game. FB didn't give a shit about pulling news from Australia because it was a tiny proportion of their content. The government/politicians were trying to strong arm FB into coughing up with zero leverage. It was insanely stupid. Here's FB's post for context: https://a…
Why did Google blink when FB didn't then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so it looks like Facebook won in the game of chicken between them and the Australian government From my understanding of the situation, there was no game. FB didn't give a shit about pulling news from Australia because it was a tiny proportion of their content. The government/politicians were trying to strong arm FB into coughing up with zero leverage. It was insanely stupid. Here's FB's post for context: https://a…
Why did Google blink when FB didn't then?
to clarify for all who only read the headline "Going forward, the government has clarified [Facebook] will retain the ability to decide if news appears on Facebook so that [Facebook] won't automatically be subject to forced negotiation," so it looks like Facebook won in the game of chicken between them and the Australian government.
It’s not clear what this actually means in practice. Most news source I searched are reporting small (but logical) tweaks to the law, to the point that it seems Facebook largely conceded and then put out some face saving PR. In practice the government has achieved their goal of both FB and Google paying for news content. Both have backed down. The total (industry wide) payments seem likely to reach about $200 million…
What doesn’t seem to be the case is that Facebook can discriminate against content from bargaining code participants (companies that ask for money for content).
It seems likely they’ll now follow Google’s path and strike individual deals ahead of the legislation.