Well you wouldn’t have google/bing/DuckDuckGo, Twitter, YouTube and even this site. As long as people share a fragment (not the entire content) and give credit, I don’t think it’s wrong at all. In fact, it helps the website being linked A LOT. As a matter of fact, blogs actually pay other blogs and Facebook group owners to share their content. Referral traffic is often more valuable than ad traffic.
Instead of being forced to pay for this content, they just decided to stop carrying it. Seems pretty fair to me. You should be happy with this move, as they are no longer using the content, ensuring that people can only go to the primary source for it.
You think the content has great value, Facebook disagrees with you. You think the writer generates the most value, Facebook thinks the aggregator does. In a few months we will see who is right.
Australia is a tiny market. They only 65% the size of California. Facebook serves a world wide audience and has over a billion users. Australia provides at most 2.5% of Facebook’s audience. However, in many respects, you have things reversed. They are not picking a fight with Australia, Australia’s government decided to bribe its local media with someone else’s money.
I hate Facebook and only use it begrudgingly, but the only reason it is interesting at all is the combination of its scale and reach. There is no real way for there to be two Facebooks, as people go there because that is where the people are.
Or it will have no impact on them and be disastrous for the local news sites. I guess it will be easy to know who is right in a few weeks.
It’s completely different.
I’d say that’s generally right for some segments of American.
So you are suggesting there’s symbiosis b/n the two, FB and media companies. So then there’s nothing to complain about. Reality is, media companies leverage FB to distribute and attract readers voluntarily while FB just acts as passive conduits. Now, media companies are trying to turn around and bite FB for it is functioning profitably. In practice, the reason why media companies have an increasing presence on FB is the fact that readers can discuss their articles, without those paywall restrictions on media’s own sites or their own sites don’t even bother to give readers any opportunities to comment. As such, it’s as media companies are palming services to FB. If media companies want even more traffic, then start to allow open commentaries and social discussions on their own sites. It’s a bit too bad if they refuse to transform their revenue models. Made worse by the fact that the Morrison govt was acting directly on behalf of Rupert Murdoch here who has just signed a contract with Google while small independent media outlets received nothing. There’s far more than what meets the eyes on this. FB is exactly entitled to walk away!
As on a smartphone, tablet or on a computer, FB doesn’t share the actual article but shows the headline. When clicked into it, a browser opens up and take the reader to the original site for the full article with all site advertising present. What’s wrong with that?
It just means those old media companies need to reform their business model and be compatible with the real world, as for those restaurants that opened delivery services during the pandemic lockdown. Rupert Murdoch doesn’t want to, so put pressures on both Scott Morrison Liberal-National and the opposition Albanese Labor to enact this law. It helps when Murdoch controls 50% of the media there, importance demonstrated by LNP election candidates would visit Murdoch in NYC before a federal election, for Murdoch can make or break a candidate. It’s dirty and corrupt!
