Facebook has banned the entire world from getting Australian news content.

Good.

 

Sounds like a private entity didn’t like the rules a country was requiring them to have so they walked away from the table. One of these parties also has more power so they can ride it out.

 

Correct play by FB

Google just caved and paid out Rupert who owns more than 60% of Australian newspaper content.

Just another example of media/Murdoch blackmailing politicians with positive media coverage in exchange for more money.

 

You skipped a key part of the facts....

Facebook has banned the entire world from getting Australian news content ... on their privately owned Facebook platform because the government required it.

Facebook doesn't have the power to ban the world from getting Australian news content.

 

i bet you can fb message someone a link

 

At first I thought you were talking about FoxNews which is owned by an Australian... for which I thought .... good.

 

LOL trumpers...

 

@Os Trigonum
Does NewFoxFan know that ? I did
But I’m a 99er. My knowledge of the world and universe is vast
@Ziggy

 

We're in that age where Facebook can bully Australia, basically.

 

an explanation of what's going on with FB/Australia

https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2021/02/17/facebook-bans-australian-users-reading-sharing-news/

excerpt:

Facebook points to concerns voiced by Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the World Wide Web who says what Australia’s law would do is create a fee associated with a hyperlink.

This site argues that Facebook is doing more than proving links, it is taking headlines, experts and sometimes photos from stories which then get shared to readers. But even if that’s true aren’t these still elements of stories that the publishers chose to all readers to post on Facebook to garner further attention?

I don’t use Facebook a lot but I think I see how this would play out on Twitter. The Washington Post set up a Twitter account and regularly tweets out the headlines of stories complete with photos to alert people about the news and to garner readers. For example:



Should Twitter have to pay the Post for sharing this? The Post created the account. They chose to put the headline, a summary and a photo from the story on Twitter’s site. It was their choice, not Twitter’s so Twitter shouldn’t have to pay them for it.

Now take it a step further. The Post has a widget next to the story on their own site which allows readers to share it on Twitter (or Facebook). If I go there and click the link, it creates a similar looking tweet on my Twitter feed. Should Twitter have to pay the Post because I chose to share this story using a link the Post provided? I don’t think so. The Post could simply remove the link if they don’t want the headline and photo shared on Twitter. But clearly they encourage this because it advertises their work.

So if the U.S. passed a law saying Twitter had to pay the Post for each tweet mentioning this story, I can tell you what would happen. Twitter would delete the Post’s account and prevent anyone from sharing stories from the Post. That’s essentially what Facebook has done but in this case the block applies to all of Australia’s media. Zuckerberg is not allowing Australia to write a blank check off Facebook’s account.
​

more at the link

 

Clever move by Google imo, they don't need every news source covering the same story from 20 different angles, just go with a few big ones for coverage. If the rest play hardball and Australia insists they must be paid to be featured, just leave them out of news searches.

 

It started as a social media site. People sharing news on Facebook isn't necessary anyway. Go to the source for news.

 

Half my Facebook news feed is conservatives getting outraged at screenshots of an article headline that provides no link or source. Like it's literally a screenshot of a headline. Why post a screenshot of a headline when you can just click on the actual article? Then I find out half those articles don't exist. And the screenshot is the article as in it's abject fake news.

 

Everytime someone posts a thread about Fa**b***k no matter what the topic is I start getting crazy ads, pop ups, and redirects -- this only happens when FB is mentioned as a subject. It's like typing FB in the subject line unlocks a secret code in the ad network to release high volume spam. It's really weird.

 

@tinman would likely advise you to pony up some funds as a supporting member and then you wouldn't get ads . . . just sayin'

 

A win for Australia. Can FB do the same for U.S.? FB didn't want to pay for the content that they're 'aggregating' *cough* stealing.

 

There you go pushing another narrative.

 

Clever move, but bad for competition. Somehow or some way, (aussie) journalism will get shittier.