Facebook vs Australia.

[antaeus]

Australians woke up on Thursday to find the Facebook pages of all local and global news sites - as well as some key government sites - had been blocked.

The government said the ban threatened the tech giant's "credibility".

Facebook's move is in response to a proposed law in Australia which would make tech giants pay for news content.

Tech giants like Google and Facebook have argued the law doesn't reflect how the internet works, and unfairly "penalises" their platforms.

Those outside of Australia are also unable to read or access any Australian news publications on the platform.

The Australian government has said it is proceeding with the law, which passed parliament's lower house on Wednesday.

- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56099523

As of today, any posting on Facebook that goes to, from, or within Australia that contains anything remotely considered news has been blocked. Facebook has used the broadest possible definition of news that has left healthcare authorities (including Covid and vaccination information) fire services (including those fighting active wildfires), and other private business who use the platform for marketing and public service information also blocked.

The context for this disruption comes within an ongoing dispute between online services on the one side (primarily Facebook and Google) and news organisations on the other who feel that these online services do not pay for articles that are shared or catalogued. The Australian Federal Government is currently working through a new media code which places a heavy burden on these online services to pay for news sources shared on their platforms.

Previously Google has also threatened to leave Australia, however over the last week they have softened their tone and struck a number of deals with news organisations over content.

Firstly, I don't think this is specifically about the legislation in Australia that would force Facebook to come to an arrangement with news organisations. There are similar pieces of legislation going before governments in Europe and elsewhere as well. Also there are upcoming court cases in the US over their market monopoly position. Part of Facebook's calculation is a warning shot to other countries over the impacts of messing with their service model. They have power to negatively impact on your voting populace and they're not afraid to use it.

Secondly, the new law does actually call into question a fundamental part of how Facebook exists. Zuckerberg is correct when he suggests that charging them for shared posts is threatening to their viability as a platform in it's current state. If laws like this were replicated in Europe or elsewhere, viability of many key Facebook abilities and services would be called into question.

On the other hand, Facebook have also played directly into the hands of the Australian Government, who have already sought to frame this in parochial terms. It's little ole Australian news against the big foreign corporates (even if the reality is actually about Rupert Murdoch). Virtually all news media have unified in the face of the ban and both liberal and conservative media are scathing of Facebook's decision, and highlighting every innocent bystander that is caught.

The most likely outcome is that both sides will come to an agreement that allows for a backdown (as seems to be happening with Google). But for Facebook the damage may have been done. The government and media have placed them squarely on the shelf alongside China as an "enemy of freedom" in Australia. By attempting to coerce law changes by impacting on ordinary people's experiences, Facebook have damaged their brand right at the moment where people across political spectrums are questioning their ethics.

We've had an ongoing conversation regarding freedom of speech on social media. The freedom of speech issues here are all over the show, I don't know where to start. However this action by Facebook hints at something different going on here. I think this cuts to the heart of the issue: Are Facebook a public utility, or private company? At what point does a private company platform become ubiquitous, and thus a public space? When does private become too important to be private?

Further reading

[Gaidin]

Yea say what you want but....what's Australia's freedom of speech law?

[Cyclops]

Interesting test case. A lot of Facebook based businesses will go bust and the Government will cop some blame but its a worthwhile principle. We are controlled by a lot of foreign corporations so its nice to see one slapped a bit. Google broke ranks to cut the required deals so there's that, and in the end I think Ant is right, this is about Murdoch getting the deal he wanted using the Australian Commonwealth Government as his solicitor.

Yea say what you want but....what's Australia's freedom of speech law?

We have no Commonwealth Bill of Rights. There's a ramshackle common law position allowing "fair comment" I believe but also some pretty harsh legislated exceptions. IIRC not as undemocratic as the UK but nothing like the US. There was a discrimination act that allowed convictions where the test was if the comments were made in "good faith", a somewhat nebulous test.

By custom many infringements are not punished by the authorities at there's the usual ****heads of all stripes who love sailing close to the wind (eg we have a turd called Andrew Bolt who was convicted under the above mentioned law). This particular "champion of truth" has also defended Catholic school staff who attempted to rape a student below the age of consent stating "he was only trying to hit on him" so good faith isn't really a working defence here.

However having Rupert Murdoch behind you give more freedom of speech than most people get, as well as politicians abusing Parliamentary privilege to "name and shame" alleged offenders. Yes Parliamentarians have almost complete freedom of speech in the chamber (some animals being more equal than others). They have to be polite about each other, thats all.

[Basileos Leandros I]

This is a very delicate case and could have a huge effect down the line on how social media works.

I will reserve judgement on this case until the final decisions are taken, but forcing search aggregators to pay for publishing is not the way forward. Watching this very closely as it can have an outsized impact on the whole tech world.

[PointOfViewGun]

The news broadcasters seriously wanted this law?

[antaeus]

The news broadcasters seriously wanted this law?

I think what the politicians (and their news magnate overlords) wanted was a middle ground solution where aggregators and search engines negotiate something for content that is catalogued in a way that replaces a news website and bypasses that actual news website (and in some cases, their paywalls). The law makes more sense relating to Google, in particular Google news as a service, and the news search tab that often has enough of a preview that a searcher doesn't need to read the article it links to. Which perhaps is why Google have come to the table and started negotiating deals with various news websites to more legitimately syndicate their articles.

But as Facebook have pointed out over and over, the proposed new law has been drafted with a very wide catchment and probably in such a way that it purposely fails to clarify what 'news' is effectively. And is loose enough that posts on Facebook by news providers themselves, and shared posts by random Joe public are also caught. Facebook could end up having to pay millions to News websites who share material themselves on their own Facebook pages.

But as I suggested in the OP. Facebook might have justification for their position. But their response has been nothing short of blunt, and by being so broad in their description of news (to make their point clearly) they have alienated a lot of the people they were hoping would pressure the government into not passing the law in it's current state. Especially harmful were blocks on government information services about Covid and wildfires at the height of wildfire season. They have made it really easy for the government to couch this issue in patriotic terms and win over the public even though the government is probably in the wrong. Facebook, by subjecting an entire country to an arbitrary and collective action, hoped to make the public pressure their politicians, instead they have pulled back the curtain and have made it impossible for governments anywhere in the world to pretend that Facebook don't have power and leverage. Ultimately this could actually accelerate legislation against them elsewhere.

The ultimate irony, is that as-of this morning, you can't receive emergency weather notifications through Facebook, or any of it's apps or services, but articles that are 'fake news' are largely unaffected. As one news website was quick to point out, one Covid vaccination service that was using Facebook to publish it's open hours and procedures was blocked, while paid anti-vax websites reached broad audiences. Facebook have over-played their hand by literally placing people's welfare below their business goals.

[Gaidin]

The ultimate irony, is that as-of this morning, you can't receive emergency weather notifications through Facebook, or any of it's apps or services, but articles that are 'fake news' are largely unaffected. As one news website was quick to point out, one Covid vaccination service that was using Facebook to publish it's open hours and procedures was blocked, while paid anti-vax websites reached broad audiences. Facebook have over-played their hand by literally placing people's welfare below their business goals.

Facebook going "this is what your law says" isn't overplaying your hand. Laws have consequences. Facebook could've waited until the law passed, and then the legislators would've had to spend another year hashing crap out both through the courts and/or through the legislative process.

[Cyclops]

Facebook going "this is what your law says" isn't overplaying your hand. Laws have consequences. Facebook could've waited until the law passed, and then the legislators would've had to spend another year hashing crap out both through the courts and/or through the legislative process.

Facebook has literally said "we won't pay for content, even though we profit from it". The Australian Commonwealth is enforcing the rights of content generators (in this case Murdoch but other publishers can profit too) to be paid if their content is re-used to raise funds.

Facebooks offer in Australia now consists of 100% user generated tripe.

There is a market for tripe eg TikTok, but the massive volume Facebook previously enjoyed was based on useful content as well as tripe.

The Commonwealth has played its cards reasonably well so far. Facebook shutting off health, fire, and weather services paints them as evil money grabbers who now only serve up brainlet climate change denial, anti-vax Karens and other Trump tier goop.

[antaeus]

Facebook going "this is what your law says" isn't overplaying your hand. Laws have consequences. Facebook could've waited until the law passed, and then the legislators would've had to spend another year hashing crap out both through the courts and/or through the legislative process.

Even once it does pass into law, which is likely now tat it has become a public relations political argument, it depends on what you believe is going on here. A narrow legalistic and strict viewing of the issue suggests you are correct. I agree with you, based on this kind of viewing. Facebook are taking the widest possible view of an issue that does seriously impact on their bottom line. I am also sympathetic to their position, as I mentioned above. Facebook are in the right with regard to the technicalities of this issue.

On the other hand, as I also mentioned, from the perspective of governments around the world who all use Facebook services as a primary information platform, and other non-news businesses who have come to depend on Facebook, this pulls away the curtain that reveals how much power Facebook now has. We can pretend they don't have that power when they don't show it off. Which in turn increases the possibility of further legislation elsewhere - not just over media licensing, but over Facebook's role in society in general. Given the act that there is already significant desire amongst lawmakers in the US and Europe to take on Facebook over a wide gamut of issues. It is in this respect that I think Facebook has possibly over-played their hand.

[PointOfViewGun]

I think what the politicians (and their news magnate overlords) wanted was a middle ground solution where aggregators and search engines negotiate something for content that is catalogued in a way that replaces a news website and bypasses that actual news website (and in some cases, their paywalls). The law makes more sense relating to Google, in particular Google news as a service, and the news search tab that often has enough of a preview that a searcher doesn't need to read the article it links to. Which perhaps is why Google have come to the table and started negotiating deals with various news websites to more legitimately syndicate their articles.

But as Facebook have pointed out over and over, the proposed new law has been drafted with a very wide catchment and probably in such a way that it purposely fails to clarify what 'news' is effectively. And is loose enough that posts on Facebook by news providers themselves, and shared posts by random Joe public are also caught. Facebook could end up having to pay millions to News websites who share material themselves on their own Facebook pages.

But as I suggested in the OP. Facebook might have justification for their position. But their response has been nothing short of blunt, and by being so broad in their description of news (to make their point clearly) they have alienated a lot of the people they were hoping would pressure the government into not passing the law in it's current state. Especially harmful were blocks on government information services about Covid and wildfires at the height of wildfire season. They have made it really easy for the government to couch this issue in patriotic terms and win over the public even though the government is probably in the wrong. Facebook, by subjecting an entire country to an arbitrary and collective action, hoped to make the public pressure their politicians, instead they have pulled back the curtain and have made it impossible for governments anywhere in the world to pretend that Facebook don't have power and leverage. Ultimately this could actually accelerate legislation against them elsewhere.

The ultimate irony, is that as-of this morning, you can't receive emergency weather notifications through Facebook, or any of it's apps or services, but articles that are 'fake news' are largely unaffected. As one news website was quick to point out, one Covid vaccination service that was using Facebook to publish it's open hours and procedures was blocked, while paid anti-vax websites reached broad audiences. Facebook have over-played their hand by literally placing people's welfare below their business goals.

I believe this is a kind of entitlement people are starting to feel as services like Google and Facebook, through their success, become such an integral part of our daily lives. In reality, its the news agencies that choose to utilize these services to reach their viewers. This is not Facebook placing people's welfare below their business goals. This is petty politicians trying to pass a law about a service they don't understand. It's ludicrous to expect Facebook to pay for every news piece shared on it. They've already made the investment to help people reach others. I see no logic in this law. Facebook is right to take the measures it took to make a point.

[Cyclops]

Facebook has apologised for its hamfisted blanket ban of Australian news sharing which affected charities, emergency services etc as well as news sites.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/comp...19-p5745a.html

They are up against Murdoch in a propaganda war and he's fairly experienced in the game. I think Facebook has already blundered twice, first "hurting the charities" and now admitting they did by apologising (the Murdoch ploy would have been to double down and insist it was the other side's fault no matter what).

Zuckerberg is very good at his algorithms etc, no doubt, and collecting data, but actual political campaigns are not his forte so it seems. IIR he ran a minicampaign in 2017, sort of testing the waters and it was pretty bad, and the politicians had him before an inquiry in short order where he performed like a robot.

[antaeus]

Interestingly...

The fallout so far has been (as above) Facebook were forced to issue a ham fisted apology about blocking emergency services. News websites registered an initial 13% drop in linked traffic as people find other ways to access their articles. The Federal Government announced that they would no longer use Facebook as an information service...

Then nothing... People noticed that after all the trash relinked articles are cleared out of Facebook all they see is family and friends again. Sure there are a few editorials about how bad this is for democracy, but it turns out that Facebook decoupling itself from news is both an acknowledgement of how bad over-reliance on social media is for democracy, and also points at a potential cure.

Ironically, now that Facebook are banning anything remotely legitimate news, it's fairly clear that the anti-vax, anti-climate change and anti-Covid stories that remain are illegitimate.

Who would have thought...

Meanwhile...

Microsoft has thrown Google under the bus