Facebook Reverses Australian Ban on News Sharing

[MacRumors]

Facebook has announced that it will restore the ability for users in Australia to share news content on the social platform, following changes to the country's media code.

The company banned all news sharing last week in response to a proposed Media Bargaining Law, which aims to level the playing field between Australian news media businesses and digital platforms in terms of bargaining power.

The law would allow Australian news publications to negotiate for fair payment for their journalist's work, effectively forcing companies like Facebook and Google to pay for news content.

However, Facebook said on Tuesday that it had been reassured by discussions over the weekend with the Australian government about negotiated amendments to the bargaining code, adding that it was "satisfied" with the agreement they had reached.

"After further discussions, we are satisfied that the Australian government has agreed to a number of changes and guarantees that address our core concerns about allowing commercial deals that recognize the value our platform provides to publishers relative to the value we receive from them," Facebook's VP of global news partnerships, Campbell Brown, said in a statement.

"Going forward, the government has clarified we will retain the ability to decide if news appears on Facebook so that we won't automatically be subject to a forced negotiation. We have come to an agreement that will allow us to support the publishers we choose to, including small and local publishers," Brown said.

Australian authorities plan to introduce further amendments to the proposed law so that the government may not apply the code to Facebook if it can demonstrate a "significant contribution" to local journalism, and a two-month mediation period before enforced arbitration comes into effect, allowing parties additional time to reach a private deal.

Australian Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg had told him the ban would end "in the coming days", following the talks. "Facebook has re-friended Australia," he told reporters on Tuesday.

Despite Facebook's reversal, its original decision to ban news shared on its platform attracted negative headlines about the company around the world, and prompted other governments to consider moves to curtail its power. Canada has said that it is considering similar changes in its media law, while British politicians also called voiced concerns about Facebook's actions in Australia.

However, Facebook did receive support from some quarters when it complained that Australia's proposed law had been badly drafted. For instance, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the web, said he was concerned that forcing companies to pay for certain content could make the internet "unworkable."

"Specifically, I am concerned that that code risks breaching a fundamental principle of the web by requiring payment for linking between certain content online," Berners-Lee said.

Article Link: Facebook Reverses Australian Ban on News Sharing

 

[ian87w]

Imo people should be concerned how Facebook, and even Google, can influence how journalism worked by the nature of playing with how people get the news (algorithm and search).

 

[ds2000]

What is a Facebook?

 

[entropys]

The money quote

After further discussions, we are satisfied that the Australian government has agreed to a number of changes and guarantees that address our core concerns about allowing commercial deals that recognize the value our platform provides to publishers relative to the value we receive from them,"

they’ll get nuthin.

 

[bLackjackj]

Who the hell cares? Jump in a browser & hit the News sites directly 🙄🤦‍♂️

 

[steve09090]

It was great while it lasted...

 

[mungo2k]

> However, Facebook did receive support from some quarters when it complained that Australia's proposed law had been badly drafted. For instance, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the web, said he was concerned that forcing companies to pay for certain content could make the internet "unworkable."
> "Specifically, I am concerned that that code risks breaching a fundamental principle of the web by requiring payment for linking between certain content online," Berners-Lee said.

I'm not sure how this is any different to websites not allowing you to access unless you remove your Ad-Blocker, or requiring a subscription to view content that is linkable?

 

[nikusak]

Yes, Facebook might suck but this is such a bizarre law.

Facebook has to pay even if the author herself shares the link in Facebook.

It’s not like Facebook is showing the full article for free - it’s just a link with a short snippet.

Google has to pay for displaying links to newspapers in the search results. Ignore your opinion of Google, whatever it is, and think about that for a while.

They can’t refuse from showing this “content”. They have to show and they have to pay. For links.

When will someone come up with the idea that sites like MacRumors must start paying the newspapers they quote and link to?

I mean, why not? What’s different?

This is a good reading about all this:

Paying for news — Benedict Evans

We’ve been arguing about newspaper business models for a decade, and none of the questions have changed, but now things are heating up. Should internet platforms ‘pay for news content’, and is this a competition problem, or is this really a tax on links, and a subsidy?

www.ben-evans.com

 

[RadioHedgeFund]

If Facebook stopped the sharing of news articles worldwide and closed its groups feature it would largely eradicate most of its negative problems.

 

[obamtl]

What is a Facebook?

I think it's called The Facebook. It's this thing in Ivy league and other top universities that allows students to see what their friends are up to on campus and coordinate their study and social lives.

Oh wait... it's morphed into this cancerous monster that uses complex algorithms to maximise the amount of attention users give to a number of apps, so 'content' can be interspersed with ads, and Facebook can use those ads to ensure sustained micro-changes to users behaviours and make tons of money by selling changes to users' behaviours to the highest bidder, thus undermining the very fabric of society.

 

[alpi123]

Facebook is becoming a bigger clown every day

 

[DENZIE]

Bummer. This sucks. That dumb platform should never have become the default hub for information. Was a glimpse of what could have been - the industry moving from FB.

 

[obamtl]

If Facebook stopped the sharing of news articles worldwide and closed its groups feature it would largely eradicate most of its negative problems.

Doesn't help them make money though. They need people to spend as much time as possible scrolling through apps, so they can show more 'impressions' that can achieve measurable changes in behaviour, which they can sell to the highest bidder and make money. Articles (especially clickbaity ones) and groups where emotions run high, are really useful in keeping people scrolling.

 

[SurferPup]

Fine by me. I don't use ShareBook and I listen and view no news.

 

[ducknalddon]

When will someone come up with the idea that sites like MacRumors must start paying the newspapers they quote and link to?

There is a problem here though. In the past I have posted detailed technical articles on my blog only for them to be plagiarised by sites like MacRumors. They get all the traffic and profit and might not even link to the original source.

I don't think the Aussy law is a solution to this, it's clearly been implemented at the behest of the Australian media. None the less companies like Google and Facebook and to some extent MacRumors are profiting off other peoples work.

 

[Solomani]

"After further discussions, we are satisfied that the Australian government has agreed to a number of changes and guarantees that address our core concerns about...."

Ummm.... so in other words, the Aus government backed down and made concessions to FB.

 

[and 1989 others]

Imagine abandoning your Principles to Facebook of all things. It saddens me that a government qould bow down to a destructive, insidious web developer!

 

[Fomalhaut]

Who the hell cares? Jump in a browser & hit the News sites directly 🙄🤦‍♂️

Exactly...I was initially baffled by the claim that a significant number of people consume their news on Facebook. I thought "how?". It has never occurred to me to seek out a news organization's Facebook page, when it's much easier to just go to their website and get the "full-fat" version of their content.

All Facebook needs to do is limit extensive "quoting" of news content in links posted to personal feeds. If the news organizations choose to create their own pages and post content, then they can hardly complain if people read it on FB instead of their own websites. Just link to it with a one-line headline, like a Google search result, and everyone wins.

 

[Fomalhaut]

Imo people should be concerned how Facebook, and even Google, can influence how journalism worked by the nature of playing with how people get the news (algorithm and search).

In the past, most people chose their news consumption by just buying the newspapers they liked, or tuning in to their preferred news channels.

Whilst the Google/FB algorithms may promote a certain type of content following a pattern of user interaction, at least people are now exposed to a wider variety of sources than they used to be, which hopefully will at least lead to recognition that there are a wide variety of opinions and journalistic styles out there. I'm not sure if this changes much, because people are creatures of habit, but at least I have the option of consuming Fox/OAN at the same time as PBS/TheGuardian/CNN if I want to the spread of opinion (or inevitable bias).

 

[Fomalhaut]

Ummm.... so in other words, the Aus government backed down and made concessions to FB.

Sounds like it; but the Australian Media Sharing Code had all sorts of logical holes in it that failed to grasp how the Internet works, so needed updating.

 

[Fomalhaut]

Yes, Facebook might suck but this is such a bizarre law.

Facebook has to pay even if the author herself shares the link in Facebook.

It’s not like Facebook is showing the full article for free - it’s just a link with a short snippet.

Google has to pay for displaying links to newspapers in the search results. Ignore your opinion of Google, whatever it is, and think about that for a while.

They can’t refuse from showing this “content”. They have to show and they have to pay. For links.

When will someone come up with the idea that sites like MacRumors must start paying the newspapers they quote and link to?

I mean, why not? What’s different?

This is a good reading about all this:

Paying for news — Benedict Evans

We’ve been arguing about newspaper business models for a decade, and none of the questions have changed, but now things are heating up. Should internet platforms ‘pay for news content’, and is this a competition problem, or is this really a tax on links, and a subsidy?

www.ben-evans.com

This is my understanding too. I fail to see how a link to content (with a one-line textual summary or headline) can be construed as "news content". The logical conclusion is that if you are interested, you follow the link and go to the publisher's webstie...which is the whole point. This fabulous free referral service to publishers is the heart of the Internet...and news organizations are trying to make people hosting the links pay for it....

I simply don't see where people "read the news" on Facebook.. (Google has its News Showcase)...unless it is on the FB pages of the news organization themselves...which is kind of the point - so that people read it there with the publisher's blessing. If they don't want people to consume their content on FB, then don't publish it there..duh!

 

[Fomalhaut]

Imagine abandoning your Principles to Facebook of all things. It saddens me that a government qould bow down to a destructive, insidious web developer!

What principles? The extortion racket applied to the Australian Govt by Rupert Murdoch's news corporation...so that the former gets media support in their re-election bid? It's a scheme worthy of Al Capone.

Bear in mind that none of these funds actually go towards keeping or creating media/ journalism jobs. It's to line the pockets of media magnates. Disgusting!

 

[Abazigal]

Imagine abandoning your Principles to Facebook of all things. It saddens me that a government qould bow down to a destructive, insidious web developer!

At the end of the day, news outlets still need facebook more than Facebook needs them.

 

[wbeasley]

It was great while it lasted...

yeah this week has been the best FB has been in a long time.

Zuck should have stuck it out.
Small independent media would have missed out and Old Rupert would have made a killing.

FB retains the right after government notify them to do what they want.
Probably wont be the last time news gets pulled.

Anyway, people have proven tinyurl links work good for sharing info.
Anything workaround to minimize what gets into Murdoch's hands.

 

[himanshumodi]

Notwithstanding the "Facebook is evil" maxim, this law was pretty stupid. This sets the precedent where no one can share any links to news articles. And why stop there - why should it be just facebook (or google) who have to pay. Maybe the individual who shares links needs to pay too? Maybe the ISP has to pay too? Free news has its own problems. Facebook and Google manipulating news narratives is problematic too. But this law solved no problems and just sprinkled some nails in the mix.