Live data from Hacker News

Changes to sharing and viewing news on Facebook in Australia

about.fb.com

411–420 of 478 posts

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

#411
post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the Federal government is ignoring their constitutional responsibility to enact a quarantine for international travelers I assume your claim is true even though a quick Google doesn't show how. So doesn't Australia have any process to compel the government to comply with the constitution? It's entirely up to the whim of voters? Then it's fair enough that they don't comply since it's optional. Democracy is the gener…

> So doesn't Australia have any process to compel the government to comply with the constitution? Australia has the most volatile politics of any English speaking country. The two ways for a government to be forced to follow the constitution is for the Queen to fire them, or for a military coup. Both were considered during the last time the government was in deadlock: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_con…

OK, so the constitution's optional. No problem violating it then.

If you don't like what the government did, I don't mind you sharing your opinion. But how does it logically connect with my comment that you replied to? I thought you were giving an example showing that voters are not well informed and I pointed out that it's not objectively wrong, just different from what you want.

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

#412
post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stated rationale for the law is not copyright infringement, so fair use is not relevant. It’s an attempt by Australia’s competition (antitrust) regulator to address an alleged market failure: “The proposed bargaining code is intended to address bargaining power imbalances between Australian news media businesses and digital platforms in order to ensure that commercial arrangements between these parties do not und…

I'm reading between the lines, but my understanding of the (fixed) new law is that "plain linking" would still be okay, "previewing" would require sitting at the table. What's the difference between the two? Plain linking does not keep people on FB. Automated previewing does. Can't this be interpreted as raising the bar for fair use?

The bill says “the responsible digital platform corporation must ensure that the supply of the digital service does not, in relation to crawling, indexing, making available and distributing news businesses’ covered news content ... differentiate between registered news businesses and news businesses that are not registered news businesses ...” I don’t see any distinction between linking and previewing here. I think both involve “making the content available,” and since Facebook legally can’t “differentiate between” news content that is and isn’t covered by the mandatory bargaining code, they are choosing not to make news content available at all to Australian users.

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

#413
That is good. And Facebook just shoot it's leg. No news sharing on FB will make people go out from this closed garden to look for news. And this is good, because a lot of people treat FB like the whole internet (they just don't understand what is a blog, home page, vortal)

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

#414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Calling this blackmail seems hyperbolic." It's interesting to note that none of the key points I made about these corporations' very dubious place in history penetrated. Therefore I'll have to assume their behavior is acceptable with you. It seems you also missed the point that Australian users like everyone else were cajoled from an open web to a closed system. The fact is they had no choice whatsoever and that Fac…

What is their dubious place in history? Google created the first effective programmatically curated search engine. Facebook created en extremely popular social network. These companies were founded when the internet was still relatively nascent, and norms over privacy were yet to be established and that led to subsequent controversy. But to compare these to the Dutch and British East India Companies is laughable. Tho…

The comparison with those trading companies was not initially done by me, it's been around the net for a while now.

The comparison is obvious but if you want it spelled out then that is the trading companies were the richest and most profitable companies in history and their money was made by nefarious means. The Big Tech companies are the closest thing that rivals them in 350+ years - the math alone tells you that.

The values of Big Tech companies are a matter of public record so are the values of those trading companies. The records show that Big Tech's exponential growth is the closest in this 350+ year period. You may not like your favorite company being equated with the these traders but the stats alone show that there are remarkable parallels between them.

If you cannot draw a comparison between them then I can't help you. Others before me have pointed out that there is a parallel between the obscene and outrageous profits of Big Tech companies and the various exploitation done by the trading companies. For starters, Big Tech pays stuff-all tax anywhere, second, and as has been pointed out often, their rise in profits outstrips any known method of legitimate trading over this 350+ timeframe.

Re privacy, clearly you are not old enough to remember the laws that governed the POTS phone system. They were essentially almost uniform worldwide, the law was phones were strictly private and severe penalties - with long jail terms for anyone who violated privacy.

Moreover, there were extremely strict rules about third parties listening in without the full permission of both parties - for instance, if I were talking to you and someone at either my place or yours secretly listened to our conversation on an extension without explicit permission from both of us then technically that was unlawful and a long jail sentence could be imposed.

What Google did was to penetrate the telephone networks of the world in multiple ways, the most obvious one was to embed its spyware, Android OS, directly into the phone itself - the fucking unmitigated hide of them to do that.

If you don't understand the true significance of that and what has actually happened then it's perhaps because you don't want to. Right, I know it hurts when one's told your favorite thing - whatever that may be - actually stinks.

You may never feel violated by what has happened but many millions actually do so. And, unfortunately, there are millions still unaware that Google is snooping on them and stealing their data. The fact that governments haven't advised them of the threat is simply atrocious.

Anyone with a modicum of respect should accept the fact that many, many people feel genuinely violated and uneasy by what's happened, They should also accept the fact that smartphones are ubiquitous and people feel trapped, as they cannot avoid them. In practice, they've precious little alternative, either because they can't get Google-free phones, or they're forced to use them because they have family members who use Google or Facebook apps (this is perhaps the most nasty and insidious thing Big Tech has done - forcing users to use Google apps against their will in this way is about as bad and ethically low as it can get. Many now feel annoyed and letdown by the fact that their governments have left them stranded. No wonder there's rage over Facebook, Google and the other Big Techs.

Hovever, the fact is that this is now changing, it's the start of a new beginning. We're on a roll to eventually straightjacket them whether they like it or not, tough regulation is starting afoot everywhere across the world and it's not before time.

The question many ask is what is the motive for supporting shonky exploitive mobs like Google and Facebook when there's overwhelming evidence of their wrongdoing.

Of course, seeing justification or otherwise for such action depends on which quadrant of the political compass one's in. And most very large US companies are inevatibly in the top right hand quadrant. People like me who believe in the need for a much fairer and more equitable world will have an almost diametrically opposite political philosophy.

BTW, there were excellent search engines around before Google's monopolistic practices put them out of business. I know, I lost my favorite one, Northern Lights search engine, that way.

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

#415
post #58

Can anybody explain to me what the problem is with Facebook et el driving traffic to news sites? Most of the times I visit newspapers websites I was sent there from social media.

The complaint is that many users just read the headline and never click to leave the Facebook walled garden, generating 0 income or traffic for the news media. They complain that big tech gets the reward (content that drives user engagement) and further, it detracts from the potential traffic they would otherwise receive.

Thanks.

Have you reference for that?

That is the first coherent argument, IMO, for their position. Coherent, but so wrong I think.

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

#416

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…

>> Just because you (and I) don't like Facebook and Google doesn't mean they're wrong (in this particular case).

Have you ever considered that your dislike of this law stems from your dislike of News Corp?

If you hold the belief that our government is a puppet for News Corp, I could say to you: "Just because you and I don't like News Corp, doesn't mean they're wrong in this instance"

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

#417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could argue that taxes were designed before the "you are the product" age. If Apple sells a phone in Australia to a local customer, they pay Australian sales tax and possibly import dues to get the phone into the country. When Facebook sells data from an Australian user to a random advertiser, all tax is due in Ireland/Netherlands or some other tax haven and Australia makes nothing. So while this approach with ne…

While you're right that there's a reasonable argument, I can't say it's one I agree with. I already strongly dislike the change in US tax law that now requires all e-commerce companies to adjust their sales tax based on the location of the consumer. It added a bunch of new bureaucratic overhead for us on top of negating one of the competitive fringe benefits of having a business in a small state instead of California…

True, the US sales tax thing is a great case-study on how it doesn't work. Taxing revenue probably also doesn't work due to large differences in margin. If you tax 1% on the revenue of a 1.5% margin kind of business it sounds rather unfair, charging a 1% revenue tax on a business with 90% margin sounds low.

So indeed there is no clear simple implementation strategy for this yet.

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

#418

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.

Have you ever thought that the 'News' actually meant something?

Like, what you see on television or gets printed in a newspaper needs to go through an editorial cycle, fact checked etc?

The legislation is effectively giving actual journalists the ability to continue creating what we've historically considered news and protecting that form of occupation.

There's a lot of misinformation going on on the web and things can spread like wildfire.

No-one seems to care about this fact and instead focus on the wrong bits of this legislation.

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

#419

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.

Have you ever thought that the 'News' actually meant something? Like, what you see on television or gets printed in a newspaper needs to go through an editorial cycle, fact checked etc? The legislation is effectively giving actual journalists the ability to continue creating what we've historically considered news and protecting that form of occupation. There's a lot of misinformation going on on the web and things c…

>>The legislation is effectively giving actual journalists the ability to continue creating what we've historically considered news and protecting that form of occupation.

Would you mind explaining how exactly does it do that? Maybe I am focusing on the wrong thing, but I haven't seen the side you've mentioned at all.

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

#420
post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you say, explaining the intracicies of the algorithm is a fools errand. I guess it is more reasonable if you turn it around: these changes have drastic impact on businesses, so there is a duty to behave responsibly in administering them. If Google really has no idea what the impact of a change will be then it is fairly irresponsible to make that change given the real world harm it can cause. But I suspect in gener…

Monitoring search engine and social network ranking and filtering updates should be more efficient than complaining about biased parrots (language models). This is a tip to certain ethics researchers who are raising scandals about search bias, but not in the right place - go in the field, check the fucking feeds, leave your abstract ethical tower and measure the reality.

I'm sorry, but this post sounds pretty abstract itself. What exactly do you propose they should do?
Post reply on HN