Facebook, Australia, and (mis)information

[lewisnotmiller]

Hi all,
I know that there was a thread up about Facebook's recent actions in Australia, and I know that there was some controversy within that thread. I was almost tempted to put this OP in General Discussion, since I'm not looking for a debate, really. But that seemed like it was tempting fate, so here we are.

Apart from some of the problematic pejoratives I've seen around this issue, I was a little concerned by the level of misinformation or misunderstanding around this that I saw in that thread. Australia is not America, nor is it Europe, and some of our issues are probably somewhat unique, and are also (seemingly) not accurately represented internationally. I suspect recent actions by Facebook will only further cause this to be true, but nonetheless...

So, first I'm planning to deal with some of what appears to me to be erroneous assumptions on all this. Kinda like FAQS;

1) Facebook is a private company. They are allowed to block content, and the Australian government can't force them to pay for news content.

Correct. Legally, there is no issue with what Facebook has done, in terms of anything I have read. If there is any issue, it would be civil (I suspect) and based around a sudden and deliberate disruption to community/emergency service messaging. Still, this really isn't part of the discussion, and is a red herring in terms of a nuanced discussion.

2) The Australian government was trying to get a piece of that sweet, sweet Facebook revenue. This is a money grab.

Nope. The government legislation seeks to force amalgamators, or other services which display news content (named services only) to strike a commercial arrangement with the news service whose stories they are displaying. So, if Facebook wants to display ABC news stories, it should have a commercial arrangement in place with the ABC. That's it.

3) Facebook can't commit to something that has an unknown cost to them. Who knows how many news stories will be displayed by Facebook users, and how many clicks are involved in all this?

It doesn't matter. The arrangements are intended to be lump sum arrangements with the content authors/owners. So...again....Facebook would need an arrangement in place with the ABC to display ABC content. If that news service thought it worthwhile, there is nothing preventing them from giving Facebook a cheap (or free) arrangement, but it would need to be a contractual arrangement.

4) No company would agree to this type of deal.

They don't need to if they don't want to. But Google has already been negotiating with the two largest free to air tv channels (Seven and Nine) and the Murdock media empire (ugh) to put deals in place. Facebook was doing the same, but local execs were told to cease this by HQ (ie. Zuckerberg), presumably because of the precedent it sets.
Facebook news ban: Australian media ban galvanises a new world (afr.com)

5) Well, looks like Australian users will need to get their news service from somewhere other than Facebook. No biggie.

Meh. For me, it's really not. I don't do Facebook, and never have. But the literal overnight banning of Australian news content had a LOT of casualties.
It wasn't just news services that were blocked.

• Health services were completely prevented from sharing information of any sort without any notice. That alone is ridiculously immature and potentially culpable on the part of Facebook.
• Our fire services were prevented from posting fire warnings...kind of a big deal in certain (large) parts of Australia.
• Social services, including homeless shelters, and religious support groups were blocked.
• Police forces were blocked.

Facebook officially declared this was done because the Australian government legislation was unclear on what constituted a 'news service'.
However, the former CEO of Facebook in Australia agreed that such wide scale blocking of non-commercial content could only be;
1) Due to a rushed and poorly implemented method of blocking, resulting in potentially life-threatening outcomes for some people or
2) Due to an attempt to flex some muscle, and show how disruptive legislation would be if they decided to play hardball.
Former Australian CEO says Facebook is using 'sledgehammer' to squish news media - Drive - ABC Radio

Neither of these is a mature response, imho, and I'd happily argue why from a business ethics point of view.

6) People shouldn't be looking for their news in Facebook anyway

No argument from me. But there is a whole lot of completely junk content that is apparently still fine to post on Facebook, since they decided it wasn't 'news'. And the Children's Hospital still can't post. Because Facebook decided it was news.
So on Facebook, I can get anti-vaccer memes to my heart's content. I just can't access actual health information from the actual health services. If you think that's a sensible tech company response to a squabble with the government, then more power to you. I would strongly disagree.
Fake News Is Still On Facebook In Australia (msn.com)

7) You're just anti-Facebook, and backing the Australian government because homerism.

I am somewhat anti-Facebook. I balance this out by being somewhat anti-Scott Morrison. I have very little regard for either of them, and no trust.
I'm just trying to clarify a few things here that were being misrepresented. If you read this, and still think the legislation is a bad idea, I really have no problem with that view. I am undecided on that, I would say. But Facebooks actions here have been reckless, and potentially dangerous.

 

[Orbit]

Hi all,
I know that there was a thread up about Facebook's recent actions in Australia, and I know that there was some controversy within that thread. I was almost tempted to put this OP in General Discussion, since I'm not looking for a debate, really. But that seemed like it was tempting fate, so here we are.

Apart from some of the problematic pejoratives I've seen around this issue, I was a little concerned by the level of misinformation or misunderstanding around this that I saw in that thread. Australia is not America, nor is it Europe, and some of our issues are probably somewhat unique, and are also (seemingly) not accurately represented internationally. I suspect recent actions by Facebook will only further cause this to be true, but nonetheless...

So, first I'm planning to deal with some of what appears to me to be erroneous assumptions on all this. Kinda like FAQS;

1) Facebook is a private company. They are allowed to block content, and the Australian government can't force them to pay for news content.

Correct. Legally, there is no issue with what Facebook has done, in terms of anything I have read. If there is any issue, it would be civil (I suspect) and based around a sudden and deliberate disruption to community/emergency service messaging. Still, this really isn't part of the discussion, and is a red herring in terms of a nuanced discussion.

2) The Australian government was trying to get a piece of that sweet, sweet Facebook revenue. This is a money grab.

Nope. The government legislation seeks to force amalgamators, or other services which display news content (named services only) to strike a commercial arrangement with the news service whose stories they are displaying. So, if Facebook wants to display ABC news stories, it should have a commercial arrangement in place with the ABC. That's it.

3) Facebook can't commit to something that has an unknown cost to them. Who knows how many news stories will be displayed by Facebook users, and how many clicks are involved in all this?

It doesn't matter. The arrangements are intended to be lump sum arrangements with the content authors/owners. So...again....Facebook would need an arrangement in place with the ABC to display ABC content. If that news service thought it worthwhile, there is nothing preventing them from giving Facebook a cheap (or free) arrangement, but it would need to be a contractual arrangement.

4) No company would agree to this type of deal.

They don't need to if they don't want to. But Google has already been negotiating with the two largest free to air tv channels (Seven and Nine) and the Murdock media empire (ugh) to put deals in place. Facebook was doing the same, but local execs were told to cease this by HQ (ie. Zuckerberg), presumably because of the precedent it sets.
Facebook news ban: Australian media ban galvanises a new world (afr.com)

5) Well, looks like Australian users will need to get their news service from somewhere other than Facebook. No biggie.

Meh. For me, it's really not. I don't do Facebook, and never have. But the literal overnight banning of Australian news content had a LOT of casualties.
It wasn't just news services that were blocked.

• Health services were completely prevented from sharing information of any sort without any notice. That alone is ridiculously immature and potentially culpable on the part of Facebook.
• Our fire services were prevented from posting fire warnings...kind of a big deal in certain (large) parts of Australia.
• Social services, including homeless shelters, and religious support groups were blocked.
• Police forces were blocked.

Facebook officially declared this was done because the Australian government legislation was unclear on what constituted a 'news service'.
However, the former CEO of Facebook in Australia agreed that such wide scale blocking of non-commercial content could only be;
1) Due to a rushed and poorly implemented method of blocking, resulting in potentially life-threatening outcomes for some people or
2) Due to an attempt to flex some muscle, and show how disruptive legislation would be if they decided to play hardball.
Former Australian CEO says Facebook is using 'sledgehammer' to squish news media - Drive - ABC Radio

Neither of these is a mature response, imho, and I'd happily argue why from a business ethics point of view.

6) People shouldn't be looking for their news in Facebook anyway

No argument from me. But there is a whole lot of completely junk content that is apparently still fine to post on Facebook, since they decided it wasn't 'news'. And the Children's Hospital still can't post. Because Facebook decided it was news.
So on Facebook, I can get anti-vaccer memes to my heart's content. I just can't access actual health information from the actual health services. If you think that's a sensible tech company response to a squabble with the government, then more power to you. I would strongly disagree.
Fake News Is Still On Facebook In Australia (msn.com)

7) You're just anti-Facebook, and backing the Australian government because homerism.

I am somewhat anti-Facebook. I balance this out by being somewhat anti-Scott Morrison. I have very little regard for either of them, and no trust.
I'm just trying to clarify a few things here that were being misrepresented. If you read this, and still think the legislation is a bad idea, I really have no problem with that view. I am undecided on that, I would say. But Facebooks actions here have been reckless, and potentially dangerous.

I just wanted to say thank you for that concise summary.

 

[Lyndon]

A very biased survey!!! Seeing as most of my post was links to articles on the ABC I guess you think they're biased too??

 

[Lyndon]

Facebook is not an Australian company, if they want to operate in Australia they should be obligated to follow Australian rules and regulations.

 

[exchemist]

Hi all,
I know that there was a thread up about Facebook's recent actions in Australia, and I know that there was some controversy within that thread. I was almost tempted to put this OP in General Discussion, since I'm not looking for a debate, really. But that seemed like it was tempting fate, so here we are.

Apart from some of the problematic pejoratives I've seen around this issue, I was a little concerned by the level of misinformation or misunderstanding around this that I saw in that thread. Australia is not America, nor is it Europe, and some of our issues are probably somewhat unique, and are also (seemingly) not accurately represented internationally. I suspect recent actions by Facebook will only further cause this to be true, but nonetheless...

So, first I'm planning to deal with some of what appears to me to be erroneous assumptions on all this. Kinda like FAQS;

1) Facebook is a private company. They are allowed to block content, and the Australian government can't force them to pay for news content.

Correct. Legally, there is no issue with what Facebook has done, in terms of anything I have read. If there is any issue, it would be civil (I suspect) and based around a sudden and deliberate disruption to community/emergency service messaging. Still, this really isn't part of the discussion, and is a red herring in terms of a nuanced discussion.

2) The Australian government was trying to get a piece of that sweet, sweet Facebook revenue. This is a money grab.

Nope. The government legislation seeks to force amalgamators, or other services which display news content (named services only) to strike a commercial arrangement with the news service whose stories they are displaying. So, if Facebook wants to display ABC news stories, it should have a commercial arrangement in place with the ABC. That's it.

3) Facebook can't commit to something that has an unknown cost to them. Who knows how many news stories will be displayed by Facebook users, and how many clicks are involved in all this?

It doesn't matter. The arrangements are intended to be lump sum arrangements with the content authors/owners. So...again....Facebook would need an arrangement in place with the ABC to display ABC content. If that news service thought it worthwhile, there is nothing preventing them from giving Facebook a cheap (or free) arrangement, but it would need to be a contractual arrangement.

4) No company would agree to this type of deal.

They don't need to if they don't want to. But Google has already been negotiating with the two largest free to air tv channels (Seven and Nine) and the Murdock media empire (ugh) to put deals in place. Facebook was doing the same, but local execs were told to cease this by HQ (ie. Zuckerberg), presumably because of the precedent it sets.
Facebook news ban: Australian media ban galvanises a new world (afr.com)

5) Well, looks like Australian users will need to get their news service from somewhere other than Facebook. No biggie.

Meh. For me, it's really not. I don't do Facebook, and never have. But the literal overnight banning of Australian news content had a LOT of casualties.
It wasn't just news services that were blocked.

• Health services were completely prevented from sharing information of any sort without any notice. That alone is ridiculously immature and potentially culpable on the part of Facebook.
• Our fire services were prevented from posting fire warnings...kind of a big deal in certain (large) parts of Australia.
• Social services, including homeless shelters, and religious support groups were blocked.
• Police forces were blocked.

Facebook officially declared this was done because the Australian government legislation was unclear on what constituted a 'news service'.
However, the former CEO of Facebook in Australia agreed that such wide scale blocking of non-commercial content could only be;
1) Due to a rushed and poorly implemented method of blocking, resulting in potentially life-threatening outcomes for some people or
2) Due to an attempt to flex some muscle, and show how disruptive legislation would be if they decided to play hardball.
Former Australian CEO says Facebook is using 'sledgehammer' to squish news media - Drive - ABC Radio

Neither of these is a mature response, imho, and I'd happily argue why from a business ethics point of view.

6) People shouldn't be looking for their news in Facebook anyway

No argument from me. But there is a whole lot of completely junk content that is apparently still fine to post on Facebook, since they decided it wasn't 'news'. And the Children's Hospital still can't post. Because Facebook decided it was news.
So on Facebook, I can get anti-vaccer memes to my heart's content. I just can't access actual health information from the actual health services. If you think that's a sensible tech company response to a squabble with the government, then more power to you. I would strongly disagree.
Fake News Is Still On Facebook In Australia (msn.com)

7) You're just anti-Facebook, and backing the Australian government because homerism.

I am somewhat anti-Facebook. I balance this out by being somewhat anti-Scott Morrison. I have very little regard for either of them, and no trust.
I'm just trying to clarify a few things here that were being misrepresented. If you read this, and still think the legislation is a bad idea, I really have no problem with that view. I am undecided on that, I would say. But Facebooks actions here have been reckless, and potentially dangerous.

Thanks for this. I think this is probably a good move by the Australian government. Nobody needs Faecebook to get their news. But having it there encourages people to make it a one-stop shop, forward it to their friends etc, all adding to the data Zuckerbeg can hoover up on people for advertisers to sell them stuff. And that means less traffic for traditional news outlets, who actually do the work by sending our reporters to do actual newsgathering.

I have no wish to see Murdoch benefit from this, but I do think the people with the journalists need to make a living.

And Zuckerberg is a lizard. He denies it so it must be true: Mark Zuckerberg Denies Being a Secret Lizard Person.

 

[Martin]

Thanks for this. I think this is probably a good move by the Australian government. Nobody needs Faecebook to get their news. But having it there encourages people to make it a one-stop shop, forward it to their friends etc, all adding to the data Zuckerbeg can hoover up on people for advertisers to sell them stuff. And that means less traffic for traditional news outlets, who actually do the work by sending our reporters to do actual newsgathering.

I have no wish to see Murdoch benefit from this, but I do think the people with the journalists need to make a living.

And Zuckerberg is a lizard. He denies it so it must be true: Mark Zuckerberg Denies Being a Secret Lizard Person.

Yes, like the Farting Trumpet, Zuckerberg is a space-alien lizard.
And Aussies are bonza.
I rest my case, m'Lord.

 

[McBell]

So, if Facebook wants to display ABC news stories, it should have a commercial arrangement in place with the ABC. That's it.

Um...
Why?
I mean, ABC created a Facebook account...
Why would Facebook need a "commercial agreement" with ABC outside of ABC having a Facebook account?

Seems to me that ABC should be paying Facebook for using Facebook as a delivery platform for ABC's content.
That is, if one is going to be pushing for a "commercial agreement" between the two.

 

[McBell]

Facebook is not an Australian company, if they want to operate in Australia they should be obligated to follow Australian rules and regulations.

Since Facebook is not an Australian company, Australia should be paying Facebook to allow Australians to use Facebook.

 

[Lyndon]

I see you can't call Zuckerberg a Nazi, but calling him a lizard person is fair game!!

 

[Lyndon]

Since Facebook is not an Australian company, Australia should be paying Facebook to allow Australians to use Facebook.

Facebook is making tens of millions of dollars in advertising revenue from Australians, that's part of the issue.

 

[Martin]

I see you can't call Zuckerberg a Nazi, but calling him a lizard person is fair game!!

All lizards are Nazis, it's the dominant political philosophy on their home planet in the Naff Nebulous. The Farting Trumpet is from there too. They have to inject themselves with bleach regularly to survive in earth atmosphere.

 

[McBell]

Facebook is making tens of millions of dollars in advertising revenue from Australians, that's part of the issue.

And?
Perhaps Australia should make their own media network instead of trying to mooch off Facebook...

 

[Lyndon]

And?
Perhaps Australia should make their own media network instead of trying to mooch off Facebook...

if this was happening in your country, you'd be flying off the handle!!

 

[McBell]

if this was happening in your country, you'd be flying off the handle!!

 

[danieldemol]

I see you can't call Zuckerberg a Nazi, but calling him a lizard person is fair game!!

I think you can if its clear you are only joking - which is clear in the case of @exchemist 's post

 

[danieldemol]

Personally I can't understand why the government is involving itself in Facebook.

We can read news stories all the time for free on the internet, or via a charge if its behind a paywall.

If free news stories are sending journalists broke I would think the proper response is to hide more stories behind paywalls.

 

[Secret Chief]

All lizards are Nazis, it's the dominant political philosophy on their home planet in the Naff Nebulous. The Farting Trumpet is from there too. They have to inject themselves with bleach regularly to survive in earth atmosphere.

One reason I like RF is that it's educational.

 

[oldbadger]

Hi all,
I know that there was a thread up about Facebook's recent actions in Australia, and I know that there was some controversy within that thread. I was almost tempted to put this OP in General Discussion, since I'm not looking for a debate, really. But that seemed like it was tempting fate, so here we are.

Apart from some of the problematic pejoratives I've seen around this issue, I was a little concerned by the level of misinformation or misunderstanding around this that I saw in that thread. Australia is not America, nor is it Europe, and some of our issues are probably somewhat unique, and are also (seemingly) not accurately represented internationally. I suspect recent actions by Facebook will only further cause this to be true, but nonetheless...

So, first I'm planning to deal with some of what appears to me to be erroneous assumptions on all this. Kinda like FAQS;

1) Facebook is a private company. They are allowed to block content, and the Australian government can't force them to pay for news content.

Correct. Legally, there is no issue with what Facebook has done, in terms of anything I have read. If there is any issue, it would be civil (I suspect) and based around a sudden and deliberate disruption to community/emergency service messaging. Still, this really isn't part of the discussion, and is a red herring in terms of a nuanced discussion.

2) The Australian government was trying to get a piece of that sweet, sweet Facebook revenue. This is a money grab.

Nope. The government legislation seeks to force amalgamators, or other services which display news content (named services only) to strike a commercial arrangement with the news service whose stories they are displaying. So, if Facebook wants to display ABC news stories, it should have a commercial arrangement in place with the ABC. That's it.

3) Facebook can't commit to something that has an unknown cost to them. Who knows how many news stories will be displayed by Facebook users, and how many clicks are involved in all this?

It doesn't matter. The arrangements are intended to be lump sum arrangements with the content authors/owners. So...again....Facebook would need an arrangement in place with the ABC to display ABC content. If that news service thought it worthwhile, there is nothing preventing them from giving Facebook a cheap (or free) arrangement, but it would need to be a contractual arrangement.

4) No company would agree to this type of deal.

They don't need to if they don't want to. But Google has already been negotiating with the two largest free to air tv channels (Seven and Nine) and the Murdock media empire (ugh) to put deals in place. Facebook was doing the same, but local execs were told to cease this by HQ (ie. Zuckerberg), presumably because of the precedent it sets.
Facebook news ban: Australian media ban galvanises a new world (afr.com)

5) Well, looks like Australian users will need to get their news service from somewhere other than Facebook. No biggie.

Meh. For me, it's really not. I don't do Facebook, and never have. But the literal overnight banning of Australian news content had a LOT of casualties.
It wasn't just news services that were blocked.

• Health services were completely prevented from sharing information of any sort without any notice. That alone is ridiculously immature and potentially culpable on the part of Facebook.
• Our fire services were prevented from posting fire warnings...kind of a big deal in certain (large) parts of Australia.
• Social services, including homeless shelters, and religious support groups were blocked.
• Police forces were blocked.

Facebook officially declared this was done because the Australian government legislation was unclear on what constituted a 'news service'.
However, the former CEO of Facebook in Australia agreed that such wide scale blocking of non-commercial content could only be;
1) Due to a rushed and poorly implemented method of blocking, resulting in potentially life-threatening outcomes for some people or
2) Due to an attempt to flex some muscle, and show how disruptive legislation would be if they decided to play hardball.
Former Australian CEO says Facebook is using 'sledgehammer' to squish news media - Drive - ABC Radio

Neither of these is a mature response, imho, and I'd happily argue why from a business ethics point of view.

6) People shouldn't be looking for their news in Facebook anyway

No argument from me. But there is a whole lot of completely junk content that is apparently still fine to post on Facebook, since they decided it wasn't 'news'. And the Children's Hospital still can't post. Because Facebook decided it was news.
So on Facebook, I can get anti-vaccer memes to my heart's content. I just can't access actual health information from the actual health services. If you think that's a sensible tech company response to a squabble with the government, then more power to you. I would strongly disagree.
Fake News Is Still On Facebook In Australia (msn.com)

7) You're just anti-Facebook, and backing the Australian government because homerism.

I am somewhat anti-Facebook. I balance this out by being somewhat anti-Scott Morrison. I have very little regard for either of them, and no trust.
I'm just trying to clarify a few things here that were being misrepresented. If you read this, and still think the legislation is a bad idea, I really have no problem with that view. I am undecided on that, I would say. But Facebooks actions here have been reckless, and potentially dangerous.

So Oz journalists and their guvnors deserve to get some rewards for their work.

That seems reasonable.

 

[Martin]

One reason I like RF is that it's educational.

 

[Martin]

if this was happening in your country, you'd be flying off the handle!!

Streuth, cobber, the poms are flying off the handle about that Brexit thing, but mostly they just can't be buggered.