Haha part of me thinks this backfires, personally I wish FB would ban all stories. Take us back before we had the share button.
FB is now cleaner, less drama, less fake news, all in Australia. Lucky them.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Facebook Blocks All News Sharing on Its Platforms in Australia
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
FB is now cleaner, less drama, less fake news, all in Australia. Lucky them.
I believe in the following statements:-
1. Facebook should be operated ad / business / news free.
2. Facebooks' general site should be for friends / families / loved ones.
3. No business / government advertising or ads should be on the normal Facebook site.
4. Business / Governments should be on a Facebook Business site where people can search for business / services required.
5. Government sites should not be listed on FB or any other social media.
6. People should visit the original / genuine websites for the latest information such as bom.gov.au / health.gov.au.
7. Facebook is officially a publisher, not a social network.
8. Not everyone wants to see / hear MSM' news which is mostly lies and misinformation to push an agenda.
9. If I want news I will find / search for it myself and don't need a social network to tell me.
1. Facebook should be operated ad / business / news free.
2. Facebooks' general site should be for friends / families / loved ones.
3. No business / government advertising or ads should be on the normal Facebook site.
4. Business / Governments should be on a Facebook Business site where people can search for business / services required.
5. Government sites should not be listed on FB or any other social media.
6. People should visit the original / genuine websites for the latest information such as bom.gov.au / health.gov.au.
7. Facebook is officially a publisher, not a social network.
8. Not everyone wants to see / hear MSM' news which is mostly lies and misinformation to push an agenda.
9. If I want news I will find / search for it myself and don't need a social network to tell me.
Lot of people here saying "don't news sites want people to share links".
Isn't the issue that Facebook are not just showing links but showing the contents, within Facebook? Same with Google?
Isn't the issue that Facebook are not just showing links but showing the contents, within Facebook? Same with Google?
I am a U.S. Citizen living in the U.S. and unusually, I also agree with Facebook.
My problem is not that they are doing to support Mr. Murdoch, but that they are doing this at all.
Facebook is slime, but this law is completely unreasonable.
If media outlets feel that they are not getting the right amount of money from Facebook, they should have to right to ban Facebook from carrying their content. The should not be able to arbitrarily decide how much Facebook owes them for the privilege of allowing them to post their own content.
I started laughing when you mentioned the ABC and "non-partisan" in the same sentence.. the ABC is Australia's version of CNN, just more left.. the difference is Taxpayers have to fund this mouthpiece.. It should be privatised, and if it survives good, if not, then also good..
Right there...that's what is wrong. People who get all their news from FB and Twitter. Get your news from a reliable source instead of these platforms known for misinformation and lies.
I don't use FB at all, and Twitter only to communicate with companies for support. There are plenty of ways to get real news.
Well, I guess we will see if that is true. If you are right, Facebook will not be able to live long in Australia without carrying local news and or international news.
I am sure that is true. They they do this for all content.
Yup, so the news site should be able to ban them from carrying their content. If you are right, it if is much more important to Facebook than it is to the news site.
The government did not decide how much the news agent paid, the news paper did. Facebook has decided that this content does not have the value that these newspapers feel it does. By refusing to carry it and/or pay for it, we will see who is right.
This.
And it’s time to more fully regulate social companies - they are a baleful influence on our societies and they have been for at least half a decade. It’s long overdue.
(and in the spirit of fairness, it’s obvious that the status quote cannot stand regarding the App Sore. There now needs to be be an independent board running the App Store and different payment options & commission %ages too).
It staggers me why people dont go direct to the news source, rather than Facebook. A drawback to this, is that there is now a void that will be filled with poorly educated Opinion and Rhetoric, which would be more dangerous.
Sure. God forbid songwriters get paid from the playing of their compositions. Why, the next thing they'll want is to get paid for their recordings.
So you should be fine with their decision not to carry the news. They will no longer be making money off of that content. Seems like exactly the result you want.
I’m from the UK. In Europe, the attitude is that we (generally!) see government as being positive & the ultimate legitimate power in our countries vs markets/companies.
We’re used to seeing it being active participants in markets with far more regulation than many other countries.
Whereas I’ve noticed in the USA, there seems to be a widespread attitude that (generally!) accepts that companies/markets are a force for good and that government should get keep out of their way as much as possible (US citizens - I’m happy to be corrected on this point 🙂).
So I guess, Australia is being a little more ‘European’ here.
No, that's not quite correct about the US - I'd say the nation is fairly split over the role of government intervention in private markets. It tends to run along party lines, which as you've seen in our recent elections, is very evenly divided. There is widespread mistrust of large companies and especially financial markets. Trouble is, there is also widespread mistrust of the government, and rightfully so.
Google threatened to pull their search engine in Australia.
Can they do that here in the USA, and actually go through with it?
Can they do that here in the USA, and actually go through with it?
Australian here.
The only reason the government is taking on Google and Facebook is because Rupert Murdoch told them to. He is the one that ultimately benefits from all this.
It’s no surprise the politicians in government are more scared of Rupert than they are of Facebook or any public backlash against their ridiculous idea to force payment for content being shared on their platform (often by the media outlets themselves).
Rupert has got every politician in his pocket (one of the perks of having hordes of “journalists” and media outlets all over the world at your disposal) and he owns more than 60% of the news outlets in Australia.
The only Australian politicians that dare stand up to him currently are ex-Prime ministers (one left wing, one right wing):
I’m not a fan of Facebook for many reasons, but I don’t think it is fair to be expecting a business to pay for news content that gets posted to their site without their consent (often by the creators themselves).
Facebook probably could have handled today’s actions with a little more finesse, but I’m not sure they had much choice given they did not want to enter into the agreement/demands the government had laid out.
I was not surprised at all to read that News Corp was one of the first in line to receive payment from Google 🐽💰📰
This is just the start for Rupert, once he establishes precedent in Australia (by far the weakest link in getting BS technology legislation to pass), he’ll continue making his way around the world pressuring governments to legislate Google and Facebook make payments to him.
The only reason the government is taking on Google and Facebook is because Rupert Murdoch told them to. He is the one that ultimately benefits from all this.
It’s no surprise the politicians in government are more scared of Rupert than they are of Facebook or any public backlash against their ridiculous idea to force payment for content being shared on their platform (often by the media outlets themselves).
Rupert has got every politician in his pocket (one of the perks of having hordes of “journalists” and media outlets all over the world at your disposal) and he owns more than 60% of the news outlets in Australia.
The only Australian politicians that dare stand up to him currently are ex-Prime ministers (one left wing, one right wing):
I’m not a fan of Facebook for many reasons, but I don’t think it is fair to be expecting a business to pay for news content that gets posted to their site without their consent (often by the creators themselves).
Facebook probably could have handled today’s actions with a little more finesse, but I’m not sure they had much choice given they did not want to enter into the agreement/demands the government had laid out.
I was not surprised at all to read that News Corp was one of the first in line to receive payment from Google 🐽💰📰
This is just the start for Rupert, once he establishes precedent in Australia (by far the weakest link in getting BS technology legislation to pass), he’ll continue making his way around the world pressuring governments to legislate Google and Facebook make payments to him.
FB should have to pay ... their essentially a news book shelf and you sharing wares of news - looses paying the actual content creator of that news. Not just the topic or the pics ... sometimes the news article written itself may have relevant or exclusive content and thus should be paid for. Not everything you read is for free.
I don't feel a need to pick a side on this one.
What I cannot fathom is how we allowed a company to become so powerful, monopolistic and anticompetitive that it can actually pick a fight with a sovereign state on the other side of the planet.
I live in the UK where Parliament summoned Zuk to give evidence. He didn't come and I don't think he cared. To me that should have been a point for the UK to start pulling its market away from Facebook. If companies don't play by the rules then they should not get to play at all.
What I cannot fathom is how we allowed a company to become so powerful, monopolistic and anticompetitive that it can actually pick a fight with a sovereign state on the other side of the planet.
I live in the UK where Parliament summoned Zuk to give evidence. He didn't come and I don't think he cared. To me that should have been a point for the UK to start pulling its market away from Facebook. If companies don't play by the rules then they should not get to play at all.
Unless I'm massively misunderstanding this, I'm with Facebook on this issue. Sharing news content on Facebook just puts up a preview and a link to the publisher's website, right? Why should Facebook have to pay for that? They're not reposting stories, and the publisher gets the traffic from Facebook. Maybe I don't understand, but it sounds stupid to me.
This is legitimate if unfortunate response. It also highlights how politicians care disproportionately about reporters. Artists of all types have their work shared without recompense on Facebook. But who do Australian politicians worry about - the reporters. Weird.