Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

All things Rugby
User avatar
Anonymous 1
Posts: 41634
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:15 pm
Location: Planet Rock

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Anonymous 1 »

True Blue wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 7:10 pm Facebook is terrible. All it does is feed extremists, creates echo chambers as it just feeds you shit you constantly browse, and is a platform for all the nutters like anti-vaxers and Irishmen. Worse than all of that though is that your geriatric family use it and post outdated jokes, outdated memes from ten years ago, and racist xenophobic stuff that was appropriate back in the 1950s when they were 80 years old.
All i ever read on facebook is personal stuff posted by friends and see their pictures. All this other stuff is ignored.
User avatar
Mog The Almighty
Posts: 12888
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Mog The Almighty »

eldanielfire wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:43 am Murdoch has always pushed for Newspaper content to eb paid for.

Now, while I detest Murdoch's toxic business practices and influence. I do think he has a point. Many newspapers/Media have effective worked with declining profits and budget cuts this past decade. This has badly impacted local news and pushed the whole "twitter stories as news" clickbait style of journalism.

Murdoch has for all his faults kept funding some good Newspapers (The Times for example) in his empire and creating a dynamic where Newspapers can properly fund themselves and not rely on cheap toxic opinion and clickbait articles will be a good thing.
You make an interesting point, however I think it's absolute hide to publish your news on Facebook -- which is intended as a social networking tool, not a news distribution app -- and then turn around and demand that they pay for the privilege of hosting your content. It would make more sense if they paid Facebook!

I also think Facebook is totally within their rights to say, "sure you can charge us for your content if you want ... we just won't use any of your content, problem solved".

If it's absolute hide to charge them for it, then it's even worse to effectively force them to host your content and then force them to pay for it!

I mean wtf.

More to your point, if Facebook just refused to publish your content, that would solve the cheap toxic opinion style of Twitter-news that you're talking about. At least as far as Facebook is concerned.
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 34171
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by guy smiley »

Mog The Almighty wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:22 am
eldanielfire wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:43 am Murdoch has always pushed for Newspaper content to eb paid for.

Now, while I detest Murdoch's toxic business practices and influence. I do think he has a point. Many newspapers/Media have effective worked with declining profits and budget cuts this past decade. This has badly impacted local news and pushed the whole "twitter stories as news" clickbait style of journalism.

Murdoch has for all his faults kept funding some good Newspapers (The Times for example) in his empire and creating a dynamic where Newspapers can properly fund themselves and not rely on cheap toxic opinion and clickbait articles will be a good thing.
You make an interesting point, however I think it's absolute hide to publish your news on Facebook -- which is intended as a social networking tool, not a news distribution app -- and then turn around and demand that they pay for the privilege of hosting your content. It would make more sense if they paid Facebook!

I also think Facebook is totally within their rights to say, "sure you can charge us for your content if you want ... we just won't use any of your content, problem solved".

If it's absolute hide to charge them for it, then it's even worse to effectively force them to host your content and then force them to pay for it!

I mean wtf.

More to your point, if Facebook just refused to publish your content, that would solve the cheap toxic opinion style of Twitter-news that you're talking about. At least as far as Facebook is concerned.
MOG’s right. Facebook isn’t forcing anyone to run a page on their platform. They allow it free of charge. Why should they pay anyone for doing that?

Why should new platforms, using their own technology (targeted advertising) be forced into supporting outdated technology... news media that hasn’t adapted?
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 31505
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Ali's Choice »

It's quite amazing that with the stroke of a pen, the Australian govt has made Facebook the financial slave of Rupert Murdoch's Australian based news sites. Facebook must host News Ltd's content and must pay them whatever they demand until the end of time. I've never previously seen a business and a govt collaborate in the shakedown of another business quite so openly and shamelessly.
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 34171
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by guy smiley »

Ali's Choice wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:29 pm It's quite amazing that with the stroke of a pen, the Australian govt has made Facebook the financial slave of Rupert Murdoch's Australian based news sites. Facebook must host News Ltd's content and must pay them whatever they demand until the end of time. I've never previously seen a business and a govt collaborate in the shakedown of another business quite so openly and shamelessly.


Sorry... I haven’t seen any detail of any agreement that either party has entered into, yet you are saying you have.

What is the nature of this agreement and how does that preempt the redrafted legislation that Facebook has announced the govt will put in place allowing them the liberty of a return to business as before?
User avatar
Ali's Choice
Posts: 31505
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Ali's Choice »

guy smiley wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:33 pm
Ali's Choice wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:29 pm It's quite amazing that with the stroke of a pen, the Australian govt has made Facebook the financial slave of Rupert Murdoch's Australian based news sites. Facebook must host News Ltd's content and must pay them whatever they demand until the end of time. I've never previously seen a business and a govt collaborate in the shakedown of another business quite so openly and shamelessly.


Sorry... I haven’t seen any detail of any agreement that either party has entered into, yet you are saying you have.

What is the nature of this agreement and how does that preempt the redrafted legislation that Facebook has announced the govt will put in place allowing them the liberty of a return to business as before?
I was talking about the old legislation. And given Josh Frydenberg has repeatedly boasted that the govt won't be backing down to FB, I just assumed the bill hadn't changed to any significant extent.
Flyin Ryan
Posts: 10943
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Indiana

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Flyin Ryan »

To push back on a segment of that article, what is a splintered internet and what would it look like?
towny
Posts: 20066
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by towny »

I got a bored reading some of this drivel after half the first page. I can’t imagine it was going to get better. I thought the ignorance here was mostly focused on rugby, but it seems it extends to every topic. I’ll make some points and then you guys can use emojis in place of reasoned argument.

This entire episode is government extortion from a corrupt administration that obediently does Murdoch’s bidding. Google paid Murdoch off last week and the government did somersaults of joy. Now Google is off the hook. They don’t need to hand over their algorithms and all of the other apparently essential things that were demanded of them - they paid Murdoch cash and they have no case to answer according to the government. Facebook is a completely different case, and good on them for calling the corrupt government’s bluff.

But let’s see what the current status is:
- Facebook links zero (0) content from Australian news sites
- Facebook users post links on Facebook
- Australian news sites posts links on Facebook

When someone clicks on one of these links, the user is directed to the news site, which creates advertising revenue for the news company. Facebook gets $0 of this advertising revenue on the news site.

That’s right - Facebook generates traffic and over $400m of revenue for Oz news sites and takes nothing for it.

So, what are they being asked to do? Pay the news sites. For what? For...... the news sites failing business model.
It’s just a shake down.

So, how much are they being asked to pay? Well, there’s a simple process:
- Facebook nominates a number
- News site nominates a number
- Arbitration selects one of these numbers
- Can the arbitrator choose a number in the middle? No they can’t.

Can Facebook choose not to have any Australian news content? No they can’t. They must have all Oz news content by the above rules or no news content of any kind. And don’t forget, if they want to have Oz news content, they must pay whatever they’re told to.

So, Facebook does the right thing and tells the corrupt, inept government and their corporate masters to go f*ck themselves. News content is about 4% of their business - pics of cats is just as good. What happens? The Australian media industry blows up because they’re farked without Facebook. They’re heavily dependent on the platform to generate traffic to their failing sites and without it many won’t survive. They’re angry because Facebook isn’t going to pay them whatever they demand to send free visitors to their sites and now they’re out of pocket to the tune of $400m.

Fark them all. The Australian media can suck my dick. They knew that this corrupt shakedown was on and they all quietly stood by with their hands out. None of them wrote an article with any facts - they wrote outright lies to justify the shakedown. And the Australian people generally aren’t bright enough to know anything more than “Facebook = bad”; however they’ll all still spend their time there trading pics of cats.

Half of me wishes Google pulled the trigger as well. Of course, this would have destroyed thousands of businesses and had a noticeable effect on the Australian economy, but at least Murdoch wouldn’t have gotten his way.
towny
Posts: 20066
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by towny »

:D
guy smiley wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:47 am
Mog The Almighty wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:22 am
eldanielfire wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:43 am Murdoch has always pushed for Newspaper content to eb paid for.

Now, while I detest Murdoch's toxic business practices and influence. I do think he has a point. Many newspapers/Media have effective worked with declining profits and budget cuts this past decade. This has badly impacted local news and pushed the whole "twitter stories as news" clickbait style of journalism.

Murdoch has for all his faults kept funding some good Newspapers (The Times for example) in his empire and creating a dynamic where Newspapers can properly fund themselves and not rely on cheap toxic opinion and clickbait articles will be a good thing.
You make an interesting point, however I think it's absolute hide to publish your news on Facebook -- which is intended as a social networking tool, not a news distribution app -- and then turn around and demand that they pay for the privilege of hosting your content. It would make more sense if they paid Facebook!

I also think Facebook is totally within their rights to say, "sure you can charge us for your content if you want ... we just won't use any of your content, problem solved".

If it's absolute hide to charge them for it, then it's even worse to effectively force them to host your content and then force them to pay for it!

I mean wtf.

More to your point, if Facebook just refused to publish your content, that would solve the cheap toxic opinion style of Twitter-news that you're talking about. At least as far as Facebook is concerned.
MOG’s right. Facebook isn’t forcing anyone to run a page on their platform. They allow it free of charge. Why should they pay anyone for doing that?

Why should new platforms, using their own technology (targeted advertising) be forced into supporting outdated technology... news media that hasn’t adapted?
I see that I agree with Mog and GS.

Suddenly my confidence is shaken.
User avatar
Salient
Posts: 3766
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Queensland!

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Salient »

towny wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:36 pm I got a bored reading some of this drivel after half the first page. I can’t imagine it was going to get better. I thought the ignorance here was mostly focused on rugby, but it seems it extends to every topic. I’ll make some points and then you guys can use emojis in place of reasoned argument.

This entire episode is government extortion from a corrupt administration that obediently does Murdoch’s bidding. Google paid Murdoch off last week and the government did somersaults of joy. Now Google is off the hook. They don’t need to hand over their algorithms and all of the other apparently essential things that were demanded of them - they paid Murdoch cash and they have no case to answer according to the government. Facebook is a completely different case, and good on them for calling the corrupt government’s bluff.

But let’s see what the current status is:
- Facebook links zero (0) content from Australian news sites
- Facebook users post links on Facebook
- Australian news sites posts links on Facebook

When someone clicks on one of these links, the user is directed to the news site, which creates advertising revenue for the news company. Facebook gets $0 of this advertising revenue on the news site.

That’s right - Facebook generates traffic and over $400m of revenue for Oz news sites and takes nothing for it.

So, what are they being asked to do? Pay the news sites. For what? For...... the news sites failing business model.
It’s just a shake down.

So, how much are they being asked to pay? Well, there’s a simple process:
- Facebook nominates a number
- News site nominates a number
- Arbitration selects one of these numbers
- Can the arbitrator choose a number in the middle? No they can’t.

Can Facebook choose not to have any Australian news content? No they can’t. They must have all Oz news content by the above rules or no news content of any kind. And don’t forget, if they want to have Oz news content, they must pay whatever they’re told to.

So, Facebook does the right thing and tells the corrupt, inept government and their corporate masters to go f*ck themselves. News content is about 4% of their business - pics of cats is just as good. What happens? The Australian media industry blows up because they’re farked without Facebook. They’re heavily dependent on the platform to generate traffic to their failing sites and without it many won’t survive. They’re angry because Facebook isn’t going to pay them whatever they demand to send free visitors to their sites and now they’re out of pocket to the tune of $400m.

Fark them all. The Australian media can suck my dick. They knew that this corrupt shakedown was on and they all quietly stood by with their hands out. None of them wrote an article with any facts - they wrote outright lies to justify the shakedown. And the Australian people generally aren’t bright enough to know anything more than “Facebook = bad”; however they’ll all still spend their time there trading pics of cats.

Half of me wishes Google pulled the trigger as well. Of course, this would have destroyed thousands of businesses and had a noticeable effect on the Australian economy, but at least Murdoch wouldn’t have gotten his way.
Nail on head Bro.

People need to wake up to the fact that it also creates a very dangerous precedent. Someone links a news article here to some dribble on news.com.au, does that mean PR should pay for the link? Anyone see where I'm going with this.

In short the ScoMo Gov are once again out of their depth, admittedly shallow to begin with, when it comes to understanding the internet. What they don't actually acknowledge is they have the tiger by the tail, what happens when the Murdoch empire turns on them and actually reports on their ineptitude, they will be well and truly rooted. But at least Murdoch gets propped up as his "rivers of gold" dry up.

News just in, as expected SocMo has done some sort of back flip, waiting on actual news rather than Murdoch conjecture.
farmerdave
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by farmerdave »

Watched a video from a Facebook rep putting their point of view. By the end she had totally convinced me of the need to charge for content.
Basically she ended up emphasizing that it wasn't just the links that were important but the piece of written content that they show along with the link.
I'm sure she didn't mean to but that was the impression I got.
Tbf Facebook has been dead to me for a year or two now it became so full of crap and putting up what it's almighty alogrythm thought I liked. I still use messenger though.
User avatar
kiwigreg369
Posts: 5777
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by kiwigreg369 »

Awesome to see that your ignorance stretches away from PE to this topic Towny. To be fair you’re on the money with the REds but wrong above.
towny
Posts: 20066
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by towny »

farmerdave wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:24 pm Watched a video from a Facebook rep putting their point of view. By the end she had totally convinced me of the need to charge for content.
Basically she ended up emphasizing that it wasn't just the links that were important but the piece of written content that they show along with the link.
I'm sure she didn't mean to but that was the impression I got.
Tbf Facebook has been dead to me for a year or two now it became so full of crap and putting up what it's almighty alogrythm thought I liked. I still use messenger though.
If I send you an email with a story I wrote will you be willing to pay me big bucks? Sure, you didn’t ask me to send the info and you’ll see the advertising I embedded with the info, which means my advertisers got value (they pay me btw), but because I consider the info I sent you to be valuable expect you to pay me and it sounds like you would consider this fair, right?

I want you to tell a 3rd party - who agrees with me btw - how much you are willing to pay.
I will tell him what I want. I think the info was worth $1,400,000 - seems fair to me.

He will choose one of these two numbers - then you’ll pay me.


I presume that this all seems fair to you, right? By the way, if you aren’t willing to receive my message, then you’re not allowed to get messages from anyone anywhere in the world ever again.

Seems fair, right? Cool. What’s your email?
towny
Posts: 20066
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by towny »

kiwigreg369 wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:51 pm Awesome to see that your ignorance stretches away from PE to this topic Towny. To be fair you’re on the money with the REds but wrong above.
PE - do you mean like the exact thing I described is happening to the ABs?

But let’s not get distracted - what is one thing incorrect about my post? Be specific.
User avatar
Mog The Almighty
Posts: 12888
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Mog The Almighty »

Salient wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:48 pm
towny wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:36 pm I got a bored reading some of this drivel after half the first page. I can’t imagine it was going to get better. I thought the ignorance here was mostly focused on rugby, but it seems it extends to every topic. I’ll make some points and then you guys can use emojis in place of reasoned argument.

This entire episode is government extortion from a corrupt administration that obediently does Murdoch’s bidding. Google paid Murdoch off last week and the government did somersaults of joy. Now Google is off the hook. They don’t need to hand over their algorithms and all of the other apparently essential things that were demanded of them - they paid Murdoch cash and they have no case to answer according to the government. Facebook is a completely different case, and good on them for calling the corrupt government’s bluff.

But let’s see what the current status is:
- Facebook links zero (0) content from Australian news sites
- Facebook users post links on Facebook
- Australian news sites posts links on Facebook

When someone clicks on one of these links, the user is directed to the news site, which creates advertising revenue for the news company. Facebook gets $0 of this advertising revenue on the news site.

That’s right - Facebook generates traffic and over $400m of revenue for Oz news sites and takes nothing for it.

So, what are they being asked to do? Pay the news sites. For what? For...... the news sites failing business model.
It’s just a shake down.

So, how much are they being asked to pay? Well, there’s a simple process:
- Facebook nominates a number
- News site nominates a number
- Arbitration selects one of these numbers
- Can the arbitrator choose a number in the middle? No they can’t.

Can Facebook choose not to have any Australian news content? No they can’t. They must have all Oz news content by the above rules or no news content of any kind. And don’t forget, if they want to have Oz news content, they must pay whatever they’re told to.

So, Facebook does the right thing and tells the corrupt, inept government and their corporate masters to go f*ck themselves. News content is about 4% of their business - pics of cats is just as good. What happens? The Australian media industry blows up because they’re farked without Facebook. They’re heavily dependent on the platform to generate traffic to their failing sites and without it many won’t survive. They’re angry because Facebook isn’t going to pay them whatever they demand to send free visitors to their sites and now they’re out of pocket to the tune of $400m.

Fark them all. The Australian media can suck my dick. They knew that this corrupt shakedown was on and they all quietly stood by with their hands out. None of them wrote an article with any facts - they wrote outright lies to justify the shakedown. And the Australian people generally aren’t bright enough to know anything more than “Facebook = bad”; however they’ll all still spend their time there trading pics of cats.

Half of me wishes Google pulled the trigger as well. Of course, this would have destroyed thousands of businesses and had a noticeable effect on the Australian economy, but at least Murdoch wouldn’t have gotten his way.
Nail on head Bro.

People need to wake up to the fact that it also creates a very dangerous precedent. Someone links a news article here to some dribble on news.com.au, does that mean PR should pay for the link? Anyone see where I'm going with this.

In short the ScoMo Gov are once again out of their depth, admittedly shallow to begin with, when it comes to understanding the internet. What they don't actually acknowledge is they have the tiger by the tail, what happens when the Murdoch empire turns on them and actually reports on their ineptitude, they will be well and truly rooted. But at least Murdoch gets propped up as his "rivers of gold" dry up.

News just in, as expected SocMo has done some sort of back flip, waiting on actual news rather than Murdoch conjecture.
That's a great rant. I actually copied and pasted it and sent it to some of my other friends who have been discussing this.

But yes, absolutely spot on. The hide of it all is insane.
towny
Posts: 20066
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by towny »

Salient wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:48 pm
towny wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:36 pm I got a bored reading some of this drivel after half the first page. I can’t imagine it was going to get better. I thought the ignorance here was mostly focused on rugby, but it seems it extends to every topic. I’ll make some points and then you guys can use emojis in place of reasoned argument.

This entire episode is government extortion from a corrupt administration that obediently does Murdoch’s bidding. Google paid Murdoch off last week and the government did somersaults of joy. Now Google is off the hook. They don’t need to hand over their algorithms and all of the other apparently essential things that were demanded of them - they paid Murdoch cash and they have no case to answer according to the government. Facebook is a completely different case, and good on them for calling the corrupt government’s bluff.

But let’s see what the current status is:
- Facebook links zero (0) content from Australian news sites
- Facebook users post links on Facebook
- Australian news sites posts links on Facebook

When someone clicks on one of these links, the user is directed to the news site, which creates advertising revenue for the news company. Facebook gets $0 of this advertising revenue on the news site.

That’s right - Facebook generates traffic and over $400m of revenue for Oz news sites and takes nothing for it.

So, what are they being asked to do? Pay the news sites. For what? For...... the news sites failing business model.
It’s just a shake down.

So, how much are they being asked to pay? Well, there’s a simple process:
- Facebook nominates a number
- News site nominates a number
- Arbitration selects one of these numbers
- Can the arbitrator choose a number in the middle? No they can’t.

Can Facebook choose not to have any Australian news content? No they can’t. They must have all Oz news content by the above rules or no news content of any kind. And don’t forget, if they want to have Oz news content, they must pay whatever they’re told to.

So, Facebook does the right thing and tells the corrupt, inept government and their corporate masters to go f*ck themselves. News content is about 4% of their business - pics of cats is just as good. What happens? The Australian media industry blows up because they’re farked without Facebook. They’re heavily dependent on the platform to generate traffic to their failing sites and without it many won’t survive. They’re angry because Facebook isn’t going to pay them whatever they demand to send free visitors to their sites and now they’re out of pocket to the tune of $400m.

Fark them all. The Australian media can suck my dick. They knew that this corrupt shakedown was on and they all quietly stood by with their hands out. None of them wrote an article with any facts - they wrote outright lies to justify the shakedown. And the Australian people generally aren’t bright enough to know anything more than “Facebook = bad”; however they’ll all still spend their time there trading pics of cats.

Half of me wishes Google pulled the trigger as well. Of course, this would have destroyed thousands of businesses and had a noticeable effect on the Australian economy, but at least Murdoch wouldn’t have gotten his way.
Nail on head Bro.

People need to wake up to the fact that it also creates a very dangerous precedent. Someone links a news article here to some dribble on news.com.au, does that mean PR should pay for the link? Anyone see where I'm going with this.

In short the ScoMo Gov are once again out of their depth, admittedly shallow to begin with, when it comes to understanding the internet. What they don't actually acknowledge is they have the tiger by the tail, what happens when the Murdoch empire turns on them and actually reports on their ineptitude, they will be well and truly rooted. But at least Murdoch gets propped up as his "rivers of gold" dry up.

News just in, as expected SocMo has done some sort of back flip, waiting on actual news rather than Murdoch conjecture.
What shits me most is the hypocrisy. They don’t like Facebook so they cheer anything that sounds bad for Facebook. Morons.

They don’t realise that this will hasten the decline of traditional journalism. Facebook is essential for many media businesses - now they’re on their own trying to acquire customers. Until now they’ve had the most efficient customer acquisition machine in the world driving visitors to their sites - now they’re screwed.
Meanwhile, this will have negligible impact to Facebook’s business.

The ignorance to think this is a good thing and the hypocrisy to overlook the govt corruption because they think evil Mark Zuckerberg is getting his arse kicked.
towny
Posts: 20066
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by towny »

:smug:
Mog The Almighty wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:58 pm
Salient wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:48 pm
towny wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:36 pm I got a bored reading some of this drivel after half the first page. I can’t imagine it was going to get better. I thought the ignorance here was mostly focused on rugby, but it seems it extends to every topic. I’ll make some points and then you guys can use emojis in place of reasoned argument.

This entire episode is government extortion from a corrupt administration that obediently does Murdoch’s bidding. Google paid Murdoch off last week and the government did somersaults of joy. Now Google is off the hook. They don’t need to hand over their algorithms and all of the other apparently essential things that were demanded of them - they paid Murdoch cash and they have no case to answer according to the government. Facebook is a completely different case, and good on them for calling the corrupt government’s bluff.

But let’s see what the current status is:
- Facebook links zero (0) content from Australian news sites
- Facebook users post links on Facebook
- Australian news sites posts links on Facebook

When someone clicks on one of these links, the user is directed to the news site, which creates advertising revenue for the news company. Facebook gets $0 of this advertising revenue on the news site.

That’s right - Facebook generates traffic and over $400m of revenue for Oz news sites and takes nothing for it.

So, what are they being asked to do? Pay the news sites. For what? For...... the news sites failing business model.
It’s just a shake down.

So, how much are they being asked to pay? Well, there’s a simple process:
- Facebook nominates a number
- News site nominates a number
- Arbitration selects one of these numbers
- Can the arbitrator choose a number in the middle? No they can’t.

Can Facebook choose not to have any Australian news content? No they can’t. They must have all Oz news content by the above rules or no news content of any kind. And don’t forget, if they want to have Oz news content, they must pay whatever they’re told to.

So, Facebook does the right thing and tells the corrupt, inept government and their corporate masters to go f*ck themselves. News content is about 4% of their business - pics of cats is just as good. What happens? The Australian media industry blows up because they’re farked without Facebook. They’re heavily dependent on the platform to generate traffic to their failing sites and without it many won’t survive. They’re angry because Facebook isn’t going to pay them whatever they demand to send free visitors to their sites and now they’re out of pocket to the tune of $400m.

Fark them all. The Australian media can suck my dick. They knew that this corrupt shakedown was on and they all quietly stood by with their hands out. None of them wrote an article with any facts - they wrote outright lies to justify the shakedown. And the Australian people generally aren’t bright enough to know anything more than “Facebook = bad”; however they’ll all still spend their time there trading pics of cats.

Half of me wishes Google pulled the trigger as well. Of course, this would have destroyed thousands of businesses and had a noticeable effect on the Australian economy, but at least Murdoch wouldn’t have gotten his way.
Nail on head Bro.

People need to wake up to the fact that it also creates a very dangerous precedent. Someone links a news article here to some dribble on news.com.au, does that mean PR should pay for the link? Anyone see where I'm going with this.

In short the ScoMo Gov are once again out of their depth, admittedly shallow to begin with, when it comes to understanding the internet. What they don't actually acknowledge is they have the tiger by the tail, what happens when the Murdoch empire turns on them and actually reports on their ineptitude, they will be well and truly rooted. But at least Murdoch gets propped up as his "rivers of gold" dry up.

News just in, as expected SocMo has done some sort of back flip, waiting on actual news rather than Murdoch conjecture.
That's a great rant. I actually copied and pasted it and sent it to some of my other friends who have been discussing this.

But yes, absolutely spot on. The hide of it all is insane.
Man, don’t send them my drivel. 😂

Wait..... are they hot?
User avatar
Mog The Almighty
Posts: 12888
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Mog The Almighty »

towny wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:02 pm
Man, don’t send them my drivel. 😂

Wait..... are they hot?
:lol: I thought it was a quality rant. You could be a writer or journalist.

It's hard to write huge long slabs of text and keep people engaged and interested.
towny
Posts: 20066
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by towny »

Mog The Almighty wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
towny wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:02 pm
Man, don’t send them my drivel. 😂

Wait..... are they hot?
:lol: I thought it was a quality rant. You could be a writer or journalist.

It's hard to write huge long slabs of text and keep people engaged and interested.

My thumbs are rapid!
User avatar
kiap
Posts: 20279
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by kiap »

Mog The Almighty wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm :lol: I thought it was a quality rant. You could be a writer or journalist.

It's hard to write huge long slabs of text and keep people engaged and interested.
The truest thing he wrote was this...
towny wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:42 pm I see that I agree with Mog and GS.

Suddenly my confidence is shaken.
towny
Posts: 20066
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:53 pm
Location: Perth

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by towny »

kiap wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:00 pm
Mog The Almighty wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm :lol: I thought it was a quality rant. You could be a writer or journalist.

It's hard to write huge long slabs of text and keep people engaged and interested.
The truest thing he wrote was this...
towny wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:42 pm I see that I agree with Mog and GS.

Suddenly my confidence is shaken.
Is that so? What errors in fact did I make?
User avatar
Mog The Almighty
Posts: 12888
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Mog The Almighty »

kiap wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:00 pm
Mog The Almighty wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm :lol: I thought it was a quality rant. You could be a writer or journalist.

It's hard to write huge long slabs of text and keep people engaged and interested.
The truest thing he wrote was this...
towny wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:42 pm I see that I agree with Mog and GS.

Suddenly my confidence is shaken.
Yes I saw that, I just ignored it.

The truth is that having a minority opinion and being shouted down on PR is a sure sign that you're not a f-cking idiot.

Which part of what he said do you think is untrue?
User avatar
kiap
Posts: 20279
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by kiap »

towny wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:04 pm Is that so? What errors in fact did I make?
Are you saying your rant was omni-perfection?

It wasn't just slapped together with balloons and doof-doof music for Mog?
User avatar
Mog The Almighty
Posts: 12888
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Mog The Almighty »

kiap wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:19 pm
towny wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:04 pm Is that so? What errors in fact did I make?
Are you saying your rant was omni-perfection?

It wasn't just slapped together with balloons and doof-doof music for Mog?
That's just insulting. What the f-ck makes you think I listen to doof-doof music??? I'm a country boy young son.

As a side-note, what makes you think he composed that especially for me ... ? :lol:
User avatar
danthefan
Posts: 23423
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by danthefan »

I enjoyed that rant, saw this nice condensed version of it earlier:
Aus media: You need to pay for our news
Facebook: But....you post it all yourself?
Aus media: You still need to pay for it
Facebook: Ok, we have removed the ability for you to post your own news so we don't have to pay for it
Aus media: Wtf! Ok you don't have to pay for it, but you need to agree to let us post it
Facebook: Deal
Zuckerberg is the most stubborn human being on the planet. There was no way he was ever going to go along with this.
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 34171
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by guy smiley »

Still waiting for the supporters of this attempted legislation to put up a solid case backing it up.
User avatar
kiwigreg369
Posts: 5777
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by kiwigreg369 »

GS - try this - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/google.

The Guardian will appreciate the click, and it not be viewed via Facebook feed where they get no benefit.
User avatar
Slim 293
Posts: 6005
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Straya plum

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Slim 293 »

kiwigreg369 wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:43 am GS - try this - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/google.

The Guardian will appreciate the click, and it not be viewed via Facebook feed where they get no benefit.
You don't actually view it via Facebook... you would still have to click on the article link that would direct you to their website to read the article. :?
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 34171
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by guy smiley »

kiwigreg369 wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:43 am GS - try this - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/google.

The Guardian will appreciate the click, and it not be viewed via Facebook feed where they get no benefit.
I cancelled my subscription to the Guardian over their stance on this issue.

Still waiting.
User avatar
kiap
Posts: 20279
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by kiap »

The previous time I block-quoted one of Towny's posts his reply was ... chirping crickets ...

But, one for the road:
towny wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:36 pm I got a bored reading some of this drivel after half the first page. I can’t imagine it was going to get better. I thought the ignorance here was mostly focused on rugby, but it seems it extends to every topic. I’ll make some points and then you guys can use emojis in place of reasoned argument.
Nothing here yet. But I can see why Mog laps this shit up....
This entire episode is government extortion from a corrupt administration that obediently does Murdoch’s bidding. Google paid Murdoch off last week and the government did somersaults of joy. Obviously not only Newscorp but Seven, Nine and others. And have they actually paid $$ yet? Not so much.
Now Google is off the hook. They don’t need to hand over their algorithms and all of the other apparently essential things that were demanded of them As you well know, the essential bottom line here is the money. The algorithms are the means to the end, on both sides of the coin. - they paid Murdoch cash and they have no case to answer according to the government. Facebook is a completely different case, and good on them for calling the corrupt government’s bluff.
The outcome for Facebook here is yet to be seen. Will the status quo remain in place? Ultimately I suspect not.
towny wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:36 pm But let’s see what the current status is:
- Facebook links zero (0) content from Australian news sites
- Facebook users post links on Facebook
- Australian news sites posts links on Facebook

When someone clicks on one of these links, the user is directed to the news site, which creates advertising revenue for the news company. Facebook gets $0 of this advertising revenue on the news site.

That’s right - Facebook generates traffic and over $400m of revenue for Oz news sites and takes nothing for it.
Facebook are not a charity. They take plenty. So, what are they being asked to do? Pay the news sites. For what? For...... the news sites failing business model. Correct.

It’s just a shake down.
Nah, it’s not just a shake down. It is a legislated government shakedown --- a levy, a speeding fine, a tax. A licence to do business. Happens every day, everywhere.
towny wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:36 pm So, how much are they being asked to pay? Well, there’s a simple process:
- Facebook nominates a number
- News site nominates a number
- Arbitration selects one of these numbers
- Can the arbitrator choose a number in the middle? No they can’t. That's not the full process, but the fallback. I'll add a bit more later.

Can Facebook choose not to have any Australian news content? No they can’t. They must have all Oz news content by the above rules or no news content of any kind. And don’t forget, if they want to have Oz news content, they must pay whatever they’re told to.

So, Facebook does the right thing and tells the corrupt, inept government and their corporate masters to go f*ck themselves.
You're contradicting yourself a bit here. If they're saying geffarked, then they're not paying whatever they’re told, are they?

And that goes to the arbitration point. These big tech multinationals are not powerless. The arbitrator (and any govt) knows that. They could , to use your terminology, be shaken down - or as I put it, be levied a licence to do business - but they're not outright bullied too easy.

Do these multinational corporations, f'rinstance, pay big tax? Of course not....

Google will come away with their perfumed pompadour perfectly intact. It's a mere speeding fine.
towny wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:36 pm News content is about 4% of their business Awesome - pics of cats is just as good. What happens? The Australian media industry blows up because they’re farked without Facebook. They’re heavily dependent on the platform to generate traffic to their failing sites and without it many won’t survive. How many won't survive? I thought you said Google had been "shaken down" to cash them up? They’re angry because Facebook isn’t going to pay them whatever they demand to send free visitors to their sites and now they’re out of pocket to the tune of $400m.

Fark them all. The Australian media can suck my dick. They knew that this corrupt shakedown was on and they all quietly stood by with their hands out. None of them wrote an article with any facts A big claim. Did you read many? - they wrote outright lies to justify the shakedown. And the Australian people generally aren’t bright enough to know anything more than “Facebook = bad”; however they’ll all still spend their time there trading pics of cats.

Half of me wishes Google pulled the trigger as well. Of course, this would have destroyed thousands of businesses and had a noticeable effect on the Australian economy, but at least Murdoch wouldn’t have gotten his way.
If only Google had sent an email to towny's-top-tips @ hotmail.com

... they woulda changed their mind ... Amirite
User avatar
kiap
Posts: 20279
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by kiap »

guy smiley wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:10 am
kiwigreg369 wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:43 am GS - try this - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/google.

The Guardian will appreciate the click, and it not be viewed via Facebook feed where they get no benefit.
I cancelled my subscription to the Guardian over their stance on this issue.

Still waiting.
LOL
User avatar
kiwigreg369
Posts: 5777
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by kiwigreg369 »

Try this one - from the AFR - https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and ... 218-p573jg

Includes comments from Sarah HY - assuming you still support the Greens even though they support the Government (and generally dislike big corporates - they can’t be brought etc)....
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 34171
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by guy smiley »

kiwigreg369 wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:58 am Try this one - from the AFR - https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and ... 218-p573jg

Includes comments from Sarah HY - assuming you still support the Greens even though they support the Government (and generally dislike big corporates - they can’t be brought etc)....
Paywall :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
kiwigreg369
Posts: 5777
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by kiwigreg369 »

Must be you - I don’t have an issue, and don’t have an account.

Facebook restricts news viewing, sharing in Australia
Timothy Moore, John Kehoe, Max Mason and Miranda Ward
Updated Feb 18, 2021 – 6.19am,
first published at 6.16am

Facebook has restricted publishers and people in Australia from sharing or viewing Australian and international news content, in a move that will send shockwaves through the local media industry.
Facebook’s Australian boss William Easton said Australia’s proposed new media bargaining code, which may become law as soon as next week, “fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between our platform and publishers who use it to share news content.

A Nine spokesperson says Facebook's decision to ban news content in Australia will inhibit news content creators from sharing quality news and information.

“It has left us facing a stark choice: attempt to comply with a law that ignores the realities of this relationship, or stop allowing news content on our services in Australia. With a heavy heart, we are choosing the latter.”

Communications Minister Paul Fletcher said Facebook’s move removed “authoritative” news sources from its platform, and he called into question the credibility of other remaining non-mainstream news it would carry.

“We will be making the point that the position that Facebook has taken means that the information that people see on Facebook does not come from organisations with a fact checking capability, with paid journalists, with editorial policies and so on.”

“At a time there are already questions about the credibility of information on Facebook that is something that they will obviously need to think about.“

The government was ready to continue to engage with Facebook but the company must comply with the “law of the land” that the government was pressing ahead with, Mr Fletcher said on ABC radio on Thursday.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg tweeted that he had a “constructive discussion” with Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg this morning.

“He raised a few remaining issues with the government’s news media bargaining code and we agreed to continue our conversation to try to find a pathway forward,” the Treasurer said.

Mr Frydenberg had signalled as recently as yesterday that he expected Facebook to announce deals with media companies after the Nine and Seven West agreements with Google this week.

“People and news organisations in Australia are now restricted from posting news links and sharing or viewing Australian and international news content on Facebook.

“Globally, posting and sharing news links from Australian publishers is also restricted. To do this, we are using a combination of technologies to restrict news content, and we will have processes to review any content that was inadvertently removed.”

Mr Fletcher said the government “has been clear” that Australia wants Facebook to stay here and “to comply with the laws of the land”.

“We’ve obviously had continuing discussions with Facebook,” Mr Fletcher told morning radio.

“One of the reasons there is a concern is because it’s very important that we have a diverse and well resourced news media sector in Australia. That’s a critical part of our democracy,” Mr Fletcher also said.

Mr Easton argued that Facebook generated about 5.1 billion free referrals to Australian publishers worth an estimated $407 million.

Facebook, Mr Easton also argued in a post, has “fundamentally different” relationships with news than Google.

“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.”

Google rejected Mr Easton’s claim, asserting publishers do choose to appear in Search or its news product, with Danny Sullivan, Google public liaison for search, tweeting links to how publishers can block their content from Google products.

Mr Easton said Facebook has worked over the last three years with the Australian government to find a solution that “recognises the realities of how our services work”, adding the proposed legislation “does not do that. Instead, it seeks to penalise Facebook for content it didn’t take or ask for”.

“We will now prioritise investments to other countries, as part of our plans to invest in new licensing news programs and experiences.”

Facebook Australia news partnerships lead Andrew Hunter emailed news publishers on Thursday morning, in a note seen by The Australian Financial Review, saying he was “disappointed” after the social media giant deliver the news via a blog post.
Mr Hunter told publishers he would be contacting them to talk about the changes.

A spokeswoman for Nine, the owner of the Financial Review, said it was unfortunate the social media giant has followed through on its threat to block news in Australia.

“Nobody benefits from this decision as Facebook will now be a platform for misinformation to rapidly spread without balance. This action proves again their monopoly position and unreasonable behaviour,” she said.

“But today’s statement does not mean Facebook will not have to abide by the federal government’s proposed code. Value has already been transferred and Facebook has benefited from our content for many years. We should be able to access their monopoly platform and have the right to monetise our content as a result.

“We have been negotiating with Facebook in good faith, and we remain willing to do a deal with them that provides a mutually beneficial outcome and ensures quality information is available to all Australians on their platform.”

Nine CEO Hugh Marks has called on the government to reconsider including Instagram in the news media bargaining code following its owner Facebook blocking news content on the social platform this morning.

Describing the move by Facebook to not allow news content to be shared to its platform this morning as a “real shock”, Mr Marks said he was also surprised when government decided to not include Facebook-owned Instagram in the code.
“In light of this we have to have further consideration of that,” he said.
“If these businesses are going to exercise monopoly power like this, this is a real worry for all Australians.”

Guardian Australia managing director Dan Stinton argues Facebook’s decision means Australians should ask themselves if they want to engage with the social giant’s products.

“Facebook is already struggling to moderate the mass of disinformation that is so prominent in its news feed. The best antidote to this is the promotion of fact-based journalism, so this decision risks making the platform the permanent home of cat videos and conspiracy theories - right in the middle of a public health crisis and just as Australia plans to roll out coronavirus vaccinations,” he said.

“People should ask themselves whether they want to continue using products from a company that refuses to engage in regulation from the democratically elected Australian government.

ABC managing director David Anderson said the public broadcaster will continue their discussions with Facebook following this development.
“The ABC’s digital news services will always remain free and accessible to all Australians on the ABC website and via the ABC News app, providing independent and reliable news, information and analysis,” he said.

“Despite key issues such as the COVID-19 pandemic having ongoing effects on all Australians, Facebook has today removed important and credible news and information sources from its Australian platform.”

Facebook had been in discussions with the larger publishers, including Nine and News Corp, however it is understood the talks stalled in the past week over explicit clauses in Facebook’s contracts allowing the social giant to exit any deal if the proposed media code were legislated.

If Facebook were to fail to comply with the law, it would face fines of up to 10 per cent of its local revenue. Failure to comply would include de-prioritising articles of news outlets asking for payment.

Junkee Media, owned by outdoor company oOh!Media, said it is disappointed by the decision by Facebook to remove news from its platform.

“This decision will mean Australians no longer have access to a vital source of public interest journalism at a time when the truth has never been more valuable,” Junkee Media CEO Neil Ackland said.

“This decision will undoubtedly have an outsized effect on small and medium-sized digital publishers, which will have a significant detrimental impact on the diversity of media voices available to Australians. We urge the federal government and Facebook to work constructively to find a solution to this issue that is workable for all parties.”

Greens communications spokeswoman senator Sarah Hanson-Young said Facebook has proven they are too big, reinforcing the need to regulate “this corporate bully”.

“Instead of coming to the negotiating table in good faith and to pay the journalists that create their content, they pulled a major component of their service,” she said in a statement.

“Facebook constantly makes excuses for why it allows fake news to be spread on their platform yet overnight has blocked real news. The platform profits off the spread of hate speech, dangerous conspiracy theories and fake news and has now restricted any possibility of balancing that with the truth.”


Timothy Moore is an online editor. He also writes on monetary policy, equities, commodities and currencies. Connect with Timothy on Twitter. Email Timothy at timothy.moore@afr.com
John Kehoe writes on economics, politics and business from the Canberra press gallery. He is a former Washington correspondent. Connect with John on Twitter. Email John at jkehoe@afr.com
Max Mason is an award-winning senior reporter at The Australian Financial Review. He is a former media editor at the masthead and has previously worked at The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, Fox Sports Australia and News Corp. Connect with Max on Twitter. Email Max at max.mason@afr.com
Miranda Ward is a journalist covering media and marketing for The Australian Financial Review based in the Sydney office. Connect with Miranda on Twitter. Email Miranda at miward@afr.com
User avatar
Slim 293
Posts: 6005
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Straya plum

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Slim 293 »

Nope, definitely paywalled...

Also, if the AFR posted that article on Facebook I wouldn't be able to read it, as I would be redirected to their web page where I would be blocked by said paywall...

But I can now read it on PR for free. :lol:
User avatar
guy smiley
Posts: 34171
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: in transit

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by guy smiley »

Much is made of the blanket blocking of a multitude of sites by Facebook. I mentioned this before but it bears repeating... Facebook suspended the pages of all sites that fell under the governments definition of news site. That included such unlikely entities as the BOM and a multitude of blogging sites. The terms of the legislation were written to match... exactly... the description that was included by NewsCorp in their submission.

There’s an inference made that Facebook were guilty of some sort of vindictive action in blocking sites other than news sites but all they did was comply with the mooted legislation and remove their exposure.

I don’t like Facebook’s reach and influence myself, but I support their commercial decision here to protect their interests from a poor piece of legislation.
User avatar
CrazyIslander
Posts: 20336
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:34 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by CrazyIslander »

We should be able to access their monopoly platform and have the right to monetise our content as a result.
Fair enough. But monetise from customers, not the service you're demanding to access. Murdoch really does own the Liberal party.
User avatar
Sensible Stephen
Posts: 3178
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by Sensible Stephen »

guy smiley wrote: Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:09 am Much is made of the blanket blocking of a multitude of sites by Facebook. I mentioned this before but it bears repeating... Facebook suspended the pages of all sites that fell under the governments definition of news site. That included such unlikely entities as the BOM and a multitude of blogging sites. The terms of the legislation were written to match... exactly... the description that was included by NewsCorp in their submission.

There’s an inference made that Facebook were guilty of some sort of vindictive action in blocking sites other than news sites but all they did was comply with the mooted legislation and remove their exposure.

I don’t like Facebook’s reach and influence myself, but I support their commercial decision here to protect their interests from a poor piece of legislation.
The governments proposed legislation is not great, but this is just lies. Even Facebook didn't go as far as saying that.
User avatar
kiwigreg369
Posts: 5777
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by kiwigreg369 »

Ali's Choice wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:36 pm
guy smiley wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:33 pm
Ali's Choice wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:29 pm It's quite amazing that with the stroke of a pen, the Australian govt has made Facebook the financial slave of Rupert Murdoch's Australian based news sites. Facebook must host News Ltd's content and must pay them whatever they demand until the end of time. I've never previously seen a business and a govt collaborate in the shakedown of another business quite so openly and shamelessly.
SS - this is what happens when the human caterpillar GS-AC turns to quickly, some of the shit causes a blockage.

On the actions of Facebook - GS, having read the legislation and Newscorps submission, has confirmed this as fact. They are the same.


Sorry... I haven’t seen any detail of any agreement that either party has entered into, yet you are saying you have.

What is the nature of this agreement and how does that preempt the redrafted legislation that Facebook has announced the govt will put in place allowing them the liberty of a return to business as before?
I was talking about the old legislation. And given Josh Frydenberg has repeatedly boasted that the govt won't be backing down to FB, I just assumed the bill hadn't changed to any significant extent.
User avatar
kiwigreg369
Posts: 5777
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: the Aus news ban on Facebook

Post by kiwigreg369 »

Ali's Choice wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:36 pm
guy smiley wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:33 pm
Ali's Choice wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:29 pm It's quite amazing that with the stroke of a pen, the Australian govt has made Facebook the financial slave of Rupert Murdoch's Australian based news sites. Facebook must host News Ltd's content and must pay them whatever they demand until the end of time. I've never previously seen a business and a govt collaborate in the shakedown of another business quite so openly and shamelessly.
SS - this is what happens when the human caterpillar GS-AC turns to quickly, some of the shit causes a blockage.

On the actions of Facebook - GS, having read the legislation and Newscorps submission, has confirmed this as fact. They are the same.


Sorry... I haven’t seen any detail of any agreement that either party has entered into, yet you are saying you have.

What is the nature of this agreement and how does that preempt the redrafted legislation that Facebook has announced the govt will put in place allowing them the liberty of a return to business as before?
I was talking about the old legislation. And given Josh Frydenberg has repeatedly boasted that the govt won't be backing down to FB, I just assumed the bill hadn't changed to any significant extent.
Post Reply