61–70 of 73 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why did Google blink when FB didn't then?
Google actively indexes the news sites and offer present them in its search results. But on Facebook the news publishers voluntarily share their stories. That’s the biggest difference in my opinion.
Facebook had all the leverage here, so I find it really really odd that Zuck caved to Murdoch^WThe Liberal Party. Related: given the new proposed Australian law, I would love to see Twitter use this against News Corp - a hell of a lot of their articles is just commentary on a few tweets (i.e the actual news source of the story). Twitter should start demanding payment from News Corp because they’re stealing their reve…
How on earth did these two companies even agree to meet let alone completely roll over because they’ve now just let News Corp be part of their future CI/CD pipeline approval process?! :mindblown:
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…
It’s weird. They make this huge media circus for several days, then things change and nobody bothers to explain the new info that changed the situation.
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.
FB was right on the merits here. The news has no leverage, they want to shakedown FB for driving traffic to their own sites? I'm glad FB told them to fuck off. Meanwhile Google decided to pay Murdoch's extortion fee: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56101859 Google did the wrong thing.
> I'm glad FB told them to fuck off. Facebook is negotiating deals with media companies. The Australian government got what they wanted.
I hope FB’s offer is nothing.
Maybe FB will charge the media for the referral traffic that FB directs to them. That’d be where I’d start negotiations.
This isn’t what the Australia government wanted, they just realized that FB not showing news hurts the news more than it hurts FB.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm glad FB told them to fuck off. Facebook is negotiating deals with media companies. The Australian government got what they wanted.
Well we’ll see what the deal ends up being. I hope FB’s offer is nothing. Maybe FB will charge the media for the referral traffic that FB directs to them. That’d be where I’d start negotiations. This isn’t what the Australia government wanted, they just realized that FB not showing news hurts the news more than it hurts FB.
That's a futile hope. It won't be nothing.
> This isn’t what the Australia government wanted
Yes it is.
> they just realized that FB not showing news hurts the news more than it hurts FB
No. Facebook has realized that they just strengthened the Australian government's resolve to introduce the legislation, that they increased support for the media bargaining code within Australia, and that they gained Australia the support of governments all over the world.
Facebook has successfully convinced governments that Facebook is a problem that needs to be solved. It was a massive own goal for Facebook. More governments will introduce similar legislation now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well we’ll see what the deal ends up being. I hope FB’s offer is nothing. Maybe FB will charge the media for the referral traffic that FB directs to them. That’d be where I’d start negotiations. This isn’t what the Australia government wanted, they just realized that FB not showing news hurts the news more than it hurts FB.
> I hope FB’s offer is nothing. That's a futile hope. It won't be nothing. > This isn’t what the Australia government wanted Yes it is. > they just realized that FB not showing news hurts the news more than it hurts FB No. Facebook has realized that they just strengthened the Australian government's resolve to introduce the legislation, that they increased support for the media bargaining code within Australia, and t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I hope FB’s offer is nothing. That's a futile hope. It won't be nothing. > This isn’t what the Australia government wanted Yes it is. > they just realized that FB not showing news hurts the news more than it hurts FB No. Facebook has realized that they just strengthened the Australian government's resolve to introduce the legislation, that they increased support for the media bargaining code within Australia, and t…
I'm not following - the Australia government can introduce this if they want, FB can just block news on their platform (as they did).