31–40 of 478 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the Australian government misunderstanding? They wanted a better deal for domestic news media, they are getting a better deal for domestic news media: https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/google-nine-agree-... https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56101859 The Australian government's approach is working.
Are they? Surely Australian companies are now also forbidden from sharing their stories on Facebook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. It was of no value to them anyway. That's what the legislation is about: preventing platforms with market dominance capturing most of the advertising revenue with no real return to the organizations producing the content.
Facebook showed in their release the monetary value of they provided the news companies. I can't see how you could possible argue they do not provide value to the classic media companies by allowing them to be linked and discussed freely on their feeds.
I use FB as an easy way to garner news from several locations at once. Of course FB uses that to litter my 'news feed' with junk (eg suggestions of all kinds). So I'm two minds about this being a problem for me (an Aussie). However, when I read this sob story by FB : > publishers willingly choose to post news on Facebook, as it allows them to sell more subscriptions, grow their audiences and increase advertising reve…
I'm confused how you know that's not the truth. Why are the publishers posting on Facebook if not because they expect it'll get them more readers?
I'm going to side with FB on this. This law is so bizarre.
I'm going to side with FB on this. This law is so bizarre.
If the news organisations want people to pay for news, they can change to a subscription model and put their content behind a pay wall. Many companies already to this: I myself pay over a hundred pounds a year for the Economist for their excellent reporting. The old establishment needs to understand they're not special, and if they want people to pay for news they need to provide content that's worth paying for, just like everyone else.
I can't believe I'm about to say this, but I think I'm going to side with FB on this. The Australian government is once again showing absolute disregard when it comes to understanding technology, and its signature heavy handed approach to regulation.
People don't want to pay for news. They don't like ads, but will tolerate them to a point, and most definitely don't want to pay for subscriptions. Laws can change behavior short term but long term the better product and platform will win.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. It was of no value to them anyway. That's what the legislation is about: preventing platforms with market dominance capturing most of the advertising revenue with no real return to the organizations producing the content.
Facebook showed in their release the monetary value of they provided the news companies. I can't see how you could possible argue they do not provide value to the classic media companies by allowing them to be linked and discussed freely on their feeds.