Live data from Hacker News

Changes to sharing and viewing news on Facebook in Australia

about.fb.com

361–370 of 478 posts

Re: Changes to sharing and viewing news on Facebook in Australia

#361

I live in Australia, so have a dog in this fight. I'm kinda excited to see how this pans out. I don't use FB for news, that's not what a "social network" is for. It's for keeping in touch with friends, sharing photos, etc etc. Because I don't interact with news on FB, I already see very little of it, but I'm hoping this change makes FB the place for sharing our lives again, as opposed to just sharing links to media t…

Facebook claims that news makes up only 4% of its content, which would seem to be in line with your statement that you hardly see any news. I see a lot more news – something like 50% of my feed.

If removing news reduces Facebook’s revenue by 4%, it would be reasonable to wonder why they didn’t remove news globally years ago, given all the time, money and effort they invest in it and all the drama and existential threats that come with it.

The reality is that news is a massive driver of engagement on Facebook. Their 4% stat is grossly misleading. I’m 100% against this proposed law, but it’s hard to maintain this position in the face of lies and gross misrepresentations by Facebook and Google.

Re: Changes to sharing and viewing news on Facebook in Australia

#362
post #34

I'm going to side with FB on this. This law is so bizarre.

Can you elaborate on what you find bizarre about it?

The law is not bizarre in essence (there are details that are bizarre though): You are free to ask money for your content. On the other hand, Facebook is free to not buy your it.

Re: Changes to sharing and viewing news on Facebook in Australia

#363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything, US big tech is and has been siphoning money from the Australia news media for a decade.

How exactly is that? Giving you a link to the news media web site does extract money from them?

Link previews (headline, image, blurb) are a substitute good. Many would-be eyeballs never click through. Big tech profits, news media dwindles.

Re: Changes to sharing and viewing news on Facebook in Australia

#364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I live in Australia and while I'm excited to see less Facebook use, I see a lot of comments saying things like, "good, Facebook monetized an addiction model and this curbs that". While true, the proposed law that has pushed them to do this is incredibly dangerous." You're absolutely right and I'm also horrified by the implications, and I would be even more so if the circumstances were more normal. The trouble is tha…

No. I agree that Facebook and Google need reigning in on their data and privacy invasiveness, as well as their offshore business structures that avoid Australian taxes. But this law is not that. This law is sponsored by dying dinosaur media company News Corp because they have lots of mates in, and power over, Australian Government. There's also a danger that, if this fight ends up being essentially lost by the Austra…

Sorry, my post has absolutely nothing to do with the dying dinosaur media company News Corp (and whilst I'm at it I'll throw in a few more media dinosaurs including most television, free-to-air and otherwise (they're all pretty much dinosaurs).

See, I'm actually agreeing with you, it's just a shame you didn't read what I actually wrote.

"Don't support stupid laws that don't do the thing you want it to."

Seems you didn't read my bit about gritted teeth, I made it clear that this was a horrible option but it's not the worst one.

OK, now give me your workable alternative. Think like an out-flanked general on a battlefield, your army is cornered and you are up against a wall. Now tell me exactly what you are going to do to extract yourself.

Make no mistake about it, for that scenario is the current situation we're in here (don't ask me to do another three-page post, I've already explained why many times, and anyway you don't have to take my word for it, hundreds of others have essentially said what I have. If you want to start somewhere then start with the EFF) .

BTW, if you want my opinion about Australian government communications 'fuck-ups', then I'm very, very familiar with them, I'll list you a whole litany of them if you want! How far would you like me to go back? I know of no other country that so comprehensively fucks everything it touches when it comes to communications—from the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1905 to the NBN and beyond. And the reason specifically is that the media and other vested interests have such an incredible lobby in Canberra; and the damn politicians are gutless lilies, they'll swing whatever way the vested-interest wind blows.

Let me give you a starting point. How about in 1946 when Keith Murdoch—Rupert's father and war corespondent at Gallipoli—used his political power to put the kibosh on the development of FM Radio in Australia? In fact, he very effectively killed it off for 28 years (until 1974) even though he was long since dead (d. 1952). Did you know that? Anyway, the Chifley Labor Government was about to overrule the bastard but they lost the '49 election to another first-class bastard, Pig-Iron Ming Menzies (a mate of Murdoch senior), so it was curtains for a very long while.

Right, I'm fully agreeing with you here, we all know how seedy Canberra is.

Re: Changes to sharing and viewing news on Facebook in Australia

#365

> Google Search is inextricably intertwined with news and publishers do not voluntarily provide their content. On the other hand, publishers willingly choose to post news on Facebook, as it allows them to sell more subscriptions, grow their audiences and increase advertising revenue. This is technically not correct. Publishers can opt out from Google Search if they want to, so one may also argue that they willingly c…

Not to defend Facebook, but a failure to opt-out is not really the same as volunteering.

I find the argument made by Facebook to be sound. They're making a comparison between Google crawling the web and indexing content vs. a news site intentionally posting their content to Facebook.

The difference between getting your webpage crawled and explicitly posting on a public forum is significant. I read their comment as "users explicitly post contend on Facebook vs. passively having their content scraped by Google".

Re: Changes to sharing and viewing news on Facebook in Australia

#367
post #60

A key part of this legislation is the requirements for tech companies to provide selected news organisations with advance notice about changes to ranking algorithms. This has been generally overlooked in the reporting and discussion but I believe it is the actually the most important part of the legislation. It will give the selected news organisations an enormous advantage over other companies not included and prote…

Nice try, Facebook.

Re: Changes to sharing and viewing news on Facebook in Australia

#368

The Bureau of Meteorology, a government department that provides forecasts has just tweeted that their Facebook page has been impacted by this change which is odd as this is not a media company and provides arguably vitally important information to mariners and other transport modes. It looks like the blast radius from this decision is impacting organizations that is out of scope of this legislation. https://twitter.…

I guess if you take Facebook's point of view: erring on one side of this is a violation of the law, erring on the other is just a piece of content missing. Which should they choose?

Re: Changes to sharing and viewing news on Facebook in Australia

#369
post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I agree with you but I am still scared of racism. My suspicion is that the concern with machine learning over racism is rooted in two things. The first is just the general modern trend of accusing anything you don't like of being racist, because everybody hates racism and wants to fight it. And the second is the fear on the part of people who make a living fighting racism that machine learning might actually put th…

No, the racism is a real issue, though a lot of it is caused by limited training data. Having an image recognition algorithm identify Africans and South Asians as gorillas doesn't happen because the designers intended it, but because their training data had only light-skinned human faces and dark-skinned primates. But the effect is racist even though this wasn't the intent. Likewise, if the system is trained to dupli…

> Having an image recognition algorithm identify Africans and South Asians as gorillas doesn't happen because the designers intended it, but because their training data had only light-skinned human faces and dark-skinned primates. But the effect is racist even though this wasn't the intent.

This isn't racism at all. It's just bad PR because humans take the implication that calling black people monkeys is calling them stupid, since that's the implication you would draw if a person did that.

An algorithm doing that is just recognizing that humans and gorillas are both primates:

http://www.aquilaarts.com/bushmonkey.html

And then it's a bug, in the same way that recognizing a black balloon as a balloon but a white balloon as a light bulb is a bug. It has nothing to do with race at all. The algorithm isn't racist against white balloons. The solution is a general increase in the amount of training data, which is what you want in all cases regardless.

> if the decision-makers unconsciously favored whites over blacks, the algorithm could wind up weighing skin color or stereotypically Black or Latino names negatively, meaning that the final model is explicitly racist, just because there is a correlation in the training data.

Except that this is exactly the thing that a paperclip optimizer will smash to bits because it interferes with the goal of making more paperclips.

Re: Changes to sharing and viewing news on Facebook in Australia

#370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it's just like GDPR? Guidelines intentionally kept vague so that some bureaucrat can slap a huge fine and collect the rent? I wonder if that rent-seeking attitude will accelerate or curb the current brain drain Australia faces.

Google has been busy making major deals with news organisations. Facebook has chosen the opposite track. The problem Facebook has is government in Australia is wildly popular because of the pandemic. They can do what they want right now it won't lose them any votes. Ministers are already telling Facebook to leave the country completely!

I would not call the federal government “wildly popular”. Most people are (rightly, IMO) laying our pandemic success at the feet of state politicians and realising that the federal level had been ineffective at best.
Post reply on HN