This is a good thing. Media content quality has primarily been garbage the past 10+ years (and getting progressively worse), mostly due to the advertisement click-bait business model forced on them in order to survive. Social media kind of naturally fell into position to reap the benefits...they shouldn't be the gatekeeper to news without paying a fair price.
An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia
141–150 of 165 posts
Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
I encourage everyone to have a read of the actual draft legislation along with hearing Facebook's reaction to new regulations being imposed on them. The actual legislation sounds well thought out to me: https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/news-m... The FAQs: https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/DPB%20-%20Draft%20news%... See also the ACCC response to Google's open letter, which contained misinformat…
Stratechery quotes and rebuts the official sources you linked. It's hard for me to imagine a more poorly thought out legislation. [1] It completely unfairly favor news orgs over the rest of the web, it gives publishers extensive control of user discussion about content that they own which is an affront to the principle of free speech, the terms of the forced binding arbitration are incredibly vague and, well, arbitra…
> Google's letter didn't mention anything about charging Australians for the user of its free services at all.
It absolutely does. One of the headlines in the open letter was "Hurting the free services that you use", and includes:
... the law is set up to ... encourage them to make enormous and unreasonable demands that would put our free services at risk.
(Edited for brevity and clarity, but you can compare against the original.)
If Google didn't want to give the impression that they would have to start charging, they could have deleted the words "free" and it would still have made sense.
With the "your free services are at risk" messaging, Google was definitely trying to create the fear of a price increase. They didn't say "the quality of your services are at risk".
[1] https://about.google/intl/ALL_au/google-in-australia/an-open...
Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
The Age and SMH (as well as Nine) are owned by the same company, which is chaired by Peter Costello. Though non-Murdoch, it's rare to see anything non-friendly to the Liberal party on there.
You mean aside from these articles published over the past few days?
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/nsw/icac-to-investigate-corr...
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/who-is-richard-colbe...
https://www.smh.com.au/national/a-law-to-deprive-immigration...
https://www.smh.com.au/national/morrison-s-china-decree-reek...
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/how-good-are-the-pro...
Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that would be legal. "Digital platforms must participate in the code if the Treasurer makes a determination specifying that the code would apply to them. The Government has announced that the code would initially apply only to Facebook and Google." This means they can't pick and choose. They are either a news platform or not. That's why FB is warning us they'd get out of the news game entirely. https://…
Thanks for the info, given how Facebook and Google were used for spreading propaganda by various state actors in the recent past, if people were unable to get their news through these platforms, maybe that would be a good thing? I read this book [0] recently, and I was astounded by how widespread it is around the world. The Duerte chapters are an eye opener. [0] https://www.amazon.com.au/This-Not-Propaganda-Adventure…
It could be, but as an incidental side effect I don't think it's a great outcome. The law as suggested is confusing and uncertain and that will have a chilling effect on sharing 'news' while the crazies sharing opinions might not be so shy.
Day 1 for example, it supposedly won't effect Reddit. But if FB/Goog pull out, Reddit will be the next target really quickly. Repeat for anything relevant until it hits something that hurts.
Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
Realistically? What percentage of news do you read the in-depth article, versus the headline, picture, and two-sentence-blurb that tells you the main point? And the front page of a news site, say, cnn.com, is it monetized with ads? (It is. Even with all my blockers I see a LendingTree ad right now.) Is Google News ripping off the monetizeable property of every news site's homepage for zero cost? Yes. Sure, it may not…
> Realistically? What percentage of news do you read the in-depth article, versus the headline, picture, and two-sentence-blurb that tells you the main point? And the front page of a news site, say, cnn.com, is it monetized with ads? (It is. Even with all my blockers I see a LendingTree ad right now.) For me the answer is, either I get a headline that I don't care about, or I read at least some of the article. > (It'…
> You can't have it both ways. "Pay me for this." "No." "I'll make you pay me!" "Ok then I'll stop." "No don't stop that's even worse. Pay me and keep doing the thing!" That's the conversation happening, and it makes zero sense.
But that is the level of craziness we are under in the Google regime: Accept Google's terms or go out of business. That's the whole problem. Google has infinite negotiating power. The counter to that does indeed sound insane, because where we already are is insane.
Yes, Australia is giving news companies a loaded gun, but it's because Google already has a boot to their neck, and they're barely still conscious. Where we are right now is really, really bad. Tech companies are bleeding journalism dry.
And frankly, Google and Facebook can afford this. Tech companies have so much spare cash they don't know what to do with it, while everyone else is struggling to survive. Expect laws to feel one-sided against you for a long time. Let's call it a wealth redistribution. Imagine how much quality investigative journalism could've been funded with just the money Google spent developing messaging apps.
Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stratechery quotes and rebuts the official sources you linked. It's hard for me to imagine a more poorly thought out legislation. [1] It completely unfairly favor news orgs over the rest of the web, it gives publishers extensive control of user discussion about content that they own which is an affront to the principle of free speech, the terms of the forced binding arbitration are incredibly vague and, well, arbitra…
> Google's letter didn't mention anything about charging Australians for the user of its free services at all. It absolutely does. One of the headlines in the open letter was "Hurting the free services that you use", and includes: ... the law is set up to ... encourage them to make enormous and unreasonable demands that would put our free services at risk. (Edited for brevity and clarity, but you can compare against…
> They didn't say "the quality of your services are at risk".
I think you missed these clear cut sentences: "The proposed changes are not fair and they mean that Google Search results and YouTube will be worse for you." and "There’s no way of knowing if any data handed over would be protected, or how it might be used by news media businesses." which point to service quality and privacy, not price.
Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the info, given how Facebook and Google were used for spreading propaganda by various state actors in the recent past, if people were unable to get their news through these platforms, maybe that would be a good thing? I read this book [0] recently, and I was astounded by how widespread it is around the world. The Duerte chapters are an eye opener. [0] https://www.amazon.com.au/This-Not-Propaganda-Adventure…
It could be, but as an incidental side effect I don't think it's a great outcome. The law as suggested is confusing and uncertain and that will have a chilling effect on sharing 'news' while the crazies sharing opinions might not be so shy. Day 1 for example, it supposedly won't effect Reddit. But if FB/Goog pull out, Reddit will be the next target really quickly. Repeat for anything relevant until it hits something…
Can someone explain why this is beneficial to Murdoch or other organisations? Right now if I perform a search for say ‘coronavirus vaccine Australia’ two government sites come up and 10 news sites. If I then click on a news site they can advertise to me and in the case of the guardian ask for donations in the case of Murdoch ask for subscriptions. If they are removed then how my only choice is to go direct to the site of choice. Especially for Murdoch sites that are hard paywalled I don’t get the benefit?
Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm not suggesting allied nations cannot have disagreements & voice them with each other, I'm saying it's unlikely for the US to "retaliate" against Australia like this, when something like this can be better resolved with peaceful cooperative diplomacy.
Again, in this case we're talking hypotheticals with Facebook pulling out of Australia, as they've only said they would stop showing news. It's not like Facebook would suddenly be unable to sustain operations in Australia because users cannot share news articles. If anything they're just playing politics to get a better deal for themselves.
If Facebook left Australia, I would because they choose to, not because they were forced to, just like no one is forcing Google to either.
Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia
#149This is the right move by Facebook (and Google) in the face of naked crony capitalism.
It's an effort by the Morrison government to engage in rent-seeking on behalf of Rupert Murdoch's News (which essentially operates as the communications arm of Morrison's government), Nine (which held a fundraiser after the last national election for Morrison) and other media groups.
Yes, there are many valid criticisms of and concerns we should have with tech giants, but this proposed code doesn't deal with any of those concerns.
Australia's former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who has stepped up his war against Murdoch's influence on Australian Democracy in recent years, was incredibly perceptive and scathing of this proposed code recently [1].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiFTT_QgqIc&feature=youtu.be...
Re: An Update About Changes to Facebook’s Services in Australia
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
It could be, but as an incidental side effect I don't think it's a great outcome. The law as suggested is confusing and uncertain and that will have a chilling effect on sharing 'news' while the crazies sharing opinions might not be so shy. Day 1 for example, it supposedly won't effect Reddit. But if FB/Goog pull out, Reddit will be the next target really quickly. Repeat for anything relevant until it hits something…
Can someone explain why this is beneficial to Murdoch or other organisations? Right now if I perform a search for say ‘coronavirus vaccine Australia’ two government sites come up and 10 news sites. If I then click on a news site they can advertise to me and in the case of the guardian ask for donations in the case of Murdoch ask for subscriptions. If they are removed then how my only choice is to go direct to the sit…
I suppose they are hoping the social companies (FB/GOOG) do not pull out, so then they get all the listed benefits around data and profit sharing (including algorithms - if Google had to share SEO implementation details or FB with their feed, that would be unprecedented I think).
But if they do call the bluff and pull out, then I don't see how it helps the papers apart from being able to set the narrative on their own platform and limit discourse (comments/critiques) off-site. If you can't share something on Reddit etc and talk about it, then you have to comment on 'approved' venues which will help bolster any cases they make by shutting out dissent. They are probably hoping this is still a win as others will go to the source directly, and pay if they have to because now there will be no other option.
In short they're used to the pre-2000 era and never adapted. They think with the right laws we can turn back time.