Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.


macrumors 6502a
Jul 26, 2005
Lil Marky Mark flexing his scrawny prickly arm....yes!

Highly doubtful he can beat a baby Kangaroo down under


macrumors G3
Nov 26, 2007
Is this just banning anything that looks like or something? Couldn’t people just share links to something like to share links bypassing Facebook’s rules? And if it’s all easy to read like that, somebody could just make a browser plug-in that makes the redirect occur locally and skip visiting the server that just redirects.
  • Like
Reactions: stepandy


Jul 18, 2011
Gonna have to side with Facebook on this one. At the end of the day, the sad reality is that news organisations need facebook more than facebook needs them. As such, Facebook has all the leverage in this relationship, and it simply doesn’t make sense to pass a law to force facebook to pay people money to post links on their platform, then act all offended when Facebook rejects the deal and does the logical move of deciding to withdraw from this relationship.

I think Australia has sorely overestimated their own hand and the importance of their media landscape.


macrumors 6502
Jun 8, 2017
After Australia passed that draconian encryption law, I don't trust anything they do these days. I was all set to sign up for Fastmail but found out that the government can coerce employees to build a backdoor for mass data collection-- and if they tell their boss (or anyone for that matter) they are being forced to do it, they face prison time. That's some iron curtain level stuff there.



macrumors regular
Apr 3, 2010
Facebook makes millions from Australia despite ‘not doing business in Australia‘ and paying no taxes.
Sharing content, like news, is one the features they use to drive user engagement - they are using other creators content to drive growth & profit while not contributing anything to the communities they profit from.

In a time when society is examining social media’s role in the spreading of BS, alternate facts, anti-vaxxers, Q-Anon etc. surely stipping a whole country’s legitimate media from it’s website is a risky move. Just pay the creators what they are due.

With no news outlets like BBC (UK), ABC (Aus), CBC (Canada), I don’t think Americans really appreciate a non-partisan news source. I don’t want a US system like theirs, it needs protecting.

And to one of the previous commentators - yeah, agreed, Rupert Murdoch can get stuffed.


macrumors 68040
Apr 18, 2018
That’s a great idea, the USA should do the same. Nothing like fair use. Imagine some people whine when firms like Amazon and Apple take a commission for doing business on their platforms, yet these firms freely take other companies work and give it away to make money for themselves


macrumors 603
Apr 13, 2010
Bedfordshire, UK


I can only hope the same happens in the UK. The amount of fake news, propaganda and BS I see my friends sharing every single hour does my head in.


macrumors regular
Nov 29, 2014
I don't really get it. Don't news outlets need people to share links to articles to gain traffic and as a result clicks which result in ad revenue? Why do Facebook have to pay someone if I decide to share a link to a news article?
News outlets have trouble generating ad revenue, because Google and Facebook dominate the ad market. So even when traffic reaches the news outlet, Google and Facebook already grabbed the majority of available ad money. In the eyes of the news outlets this is not "fair", so they want a part of the ad revenue from Google and Facebook.

It's similar to how in the pandemic restaurants have problems staying afloat, but online order/delivery services make a lot of money. Is this "fair"? Or how coffee farmers make hardly any money, but Starbucks makes a ton. Is this "fair"?

It's a political question. And Australia gave an answer.


macrumors 68000
Jan 29, 2003
Facebook is evil. End of.
Amazingly, I actually support FB on this as well. You could say that this is a battle between private and government control of what users can see and share. Hopefully, the user will win.

I have to agree with both of you. These are not mutually exclusive.

Facebook is evil and the Australian government isn't much better. Both big monopolies in their spheres.


macrumors 6502a
Feb 16, 2017
Amazingly, I actually support FB on this as well. You could say that this is a battle between private and government control of what users can see and share. Hopefully, the user will win.
I don’t understand what you’re saying. The government isn’t telling anyone what they can see or share. And it’s not a battle who gets to do so. Australia is telling Facebook to pay a bit to news agencies for their content. Kinda like streaming music rights - ish. Facebook gets money from the sharing. As other posters have said, they get far more than the news agencies themself.

Agree or disagree, it was Facebook that decided to not allow the public to share any news. Probably in an attempt to get people in a tizzy towards their legislators. Childish, in my opinion.

The most interesting thing will be what Facebook now - in their infinite wisdom - determines to be news.


Mar 7, 2007
Midwest America.
I’m Canadian living in Australia, and I’m actually on Facebook’s side on this one.

The Australian government is basically doing this for Rupert Murdoch and News Corp (Rupert is sort of a big deal around here), but even if they weren’t, it would still be wrong for thr government to do this. News outlets want Facebook to pay for news published on Facebook. Facebook probably has no problem with news links being posted on their site because it helps make them socially relevant.

On the other hand, news outlets benefit from the extra clicks, and ad revenue that goes with it. Some people get all their news on Facebook (and Twitter), so this seems to be a symbiotic relationship for the media and FB.

The government should stay out of it.

Yet I copied music when I was a kid. Who didn't when they were young. The problem was 'beyond me', and I saw nothing wrong with it. Then, as an adult, I befriended a local solo musician, and saw things from 'the other side'.

He was struggling to make a life for himself and his wife. He would spend hours playing, and doing other things to allow him to continue to perform. His instruments required maintenance, and such parts as strings and other things. I jokingly was a roadie for a few of his performances at local bars, and saw some of the worst behavior that rang hollow from my past. He had a large range of CDs that he sold at his gigs, and I heard multiple people urging their friends not to buy another CD as they would loan theirs to them to rip. The issue was the CDs weren't $50, or $25. He priced his CDs at between $5 and $10. People that would spend $20 at Starbucks refusing to help support a local musician that struggles to stay alive.

So, while the Australian moves appear to bolster News Corpse, they also boost other news outlets too I'm sure. If no one pays for them, and in FB's case, they actually make money off spreading the 'stolen' works, then is FB a 'scalper', hanging around trying to sell fake tickets? Are they a kid selling their compilation CDs to friends? I doubt that news organizations will go out of business, but they do have a beef about a company making money on their 'content' and not sharing the money.

Australia's issue with News Corpse and the Murdochs are regrettable, and they have paid a high price for it over the years, but trashing an entire industry is reckless.

And did anyone find FB's objections to carrying news part of a marketing campaign against FB? They don't see the need, or value, to be truthful. They don't want to pay to insure they are honest, and not marketing lies and distortions. They are fine with people popping off about 'Jewish space lasers' but refuse to share their money they make/made off of the work of others. *Some* remuneration is probably in order, but they have also functioned rather well without it, but the demand for payment recognizes the new method of 'broadcasting' news is through social media.

FB seems to be implicating themselves in the 'dumbing down of America', and the world. A disastrous self-own...


macrumors G5
May 16, 2015
This may sound crazy, but I have a Chinese internet vibe to how such regulation would go.
Would Australia completely expel American tech giants influence at some point and build their own?


macrumors 6502
Jul 26, 2010
It's funny how many comments are people taking sides - why do people feel so instinctively drawn to one side or the other? Like so many things, there is a lot of nuance and what's happening behind the scenes is probably quite different from what is being presented in headlines.

There are some pretty questionable actors on both sides here with MAJOR profit motives...I'm not taking anyone's side here.


macrumors regular
Dec 3, 2007
That’s a great idea, the USA should do the same. Nothing like fair use. Imagine some people whine when firms like Amazon and Apple take a commission for doing business on their platforms, yet these firms freely take other companies work and give it away to make money for themselves
And it also leads to tons of misinformation being shared and amplified along with valid news. They should drop it for the US, too. FB was a much better place before they started the sharing of links.


Mar 7, 2007
Midwest America.
I actually love the idea of Facebook blocking posting “news” stories. Seems like an ideal way to stop the viral spread of misinformation. Facebook is not a news site yet some people treat it like it is.

Many people treat it like it is because they are lazy, and they also are addicted to the base attraction of why FB exists at all. It's a bullying site. It's a site to stalk people. It's a site to harass people. It's a site to sell stuff. It's a site where people can foment all kinds of off the wall garbage, and FB can ignore it all.

Honest news would help deflate the lie factories that have setup shop across their various holdings. Instagram is another source of 'disinfotainment'. Lying os profitable, and the more outrageous, salacious, outlandish the lies, the better they sell.

FB is not in the business of educating their users, they are in the business to feed off of their users. To package their users data, and sell it to advertisers, and whomever else will pay their price. Being honest would be a sickness that could actually kill FB. They are fine, lying to their users, and having others lie to them too. Anything else that threatens Zuck's silver spoon (platinum spoon now?) is to be hated, fought, slandered.

Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.