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

Simple link is nonsensical. That open the door to charge anyone for linking (which has always been free and is a fundamental part of the internet). I thought this was about curated content that yield ads revenue. Simple link should not be charged.

 

They aren't siphoning revenue though. These publishers make more because Google and Facebook bring them visitors. Google makes a fee for doing that (also from advertisers) but it's a legitimate service. It seems like a win-win for everyone.

I'm fine with additional regulations and the like. But what Australia is doing is completely backwards. They are trying to make Facebook pay for helping send visitors to other websites.

It's a little more complicated because they sometimes show previews to the content, but the whole point is to drive people to click the links because the previews themselves don't exactly show much useful content on their own. Websites literally pay Facebook to have their content shown and promoted on FB but now Australia is trying to make Facebook pay the publishers to do what they already want and pay Facebook to do? The whole thing seems backwards - the giant publishers that can negotiate with the big social media companies are huge winners in this. All those smaller Australian publishers will lose viewers across the board - both from Facebook (refusing to play the game) and Google (partnering with Murdoch). This is a lose-lose except for the giant publishers.

 

Why should a news site create all of the content that Facebook takes for free and advertises off of it? The scale of Facebook’s ability to decimate news organizations vs ClutchFans is apples and oranges.

Facebook is a scourge anyway.

 

Australians like BBQ like Texans
INXS is also underrated

 

FB has got it right. Unlike Google who are now in bed with Rupert Murdoch and his propaganda machine. Going forward Google should be held accountable for spreading disinformation.

These new laws help News Corp to push the competition, smaller media outlets out of business.

 

But the preview of the contents itself can drive people to FB (or Apple Devices, or buying Newspaper [j/k]). The main difference is now we have these 2 or 3 huge players in FB, Google, and Twitter.

FB is arguing that the "free ads" content provider gets from these preview/links is worth more than the views FB attracts. Show us the raw data.

My personal preferences are
1- Simple links are free, as they always had been. The AU proposed law is too aggressive here. It's dangerous.
2- Aggregated or "polished" (preview, etc) of contents are NOT free.
2a- but this shouldn't necessarily be up to private party negotiations which leaves the smaller players out in the cold. There should be a uniform and fair method to determine profits sharing based on metrics.

ps. my motive here is also about how do we get into a profit sharing method with users. I think this could be a stepping stone.

 

Raw data:

https://www.politico.eu/article/australian-news-sites-traffic-drops-after-facebook-ban/

Web traffic to Australian news sites fell by 13 percent from within the country and 30 percent from overseas after Facebook blocked news content from its platform for Aussie users earlier this week, according to figures from web analytics firm Chartbeat.

...

The drop is different from what publishers have experienced during temporary Facebook outages, Chartbeat Chief Technology Officer Josh Schwartz told the ABC. "In prior research, we've found that when Facebook was completely down, users shifted from Facebook to other platforms and traffic remained constant or even increased," Schwartz said. This time, "when Facebook traffic dropped off, overall Australian traffic did not shift to other platforms."

I think the proof is that Australia is irate that FB didn't agree to their terms and just said they will stop linking to their media sources. They were saying things like "if you want to do business here, you work according to our rules." Facebook was OK with that - they just stopped doing business there. And now Australia is complaining. They clearly thought they were getting value from all that free exposure. If they thought this was benefiting FB at the expense of Australian publishers, they should have no problem at all with Facebook leaving - all these publishers will get the additional revenues FB was taking from them, right?

Is it really much different than, say, the Yellow Pages back in the 1980s? They had a complete monopoly on business information - anyone who wanted to find a plumber went to them. Businesses paid to be featured (or did SEO manipulation by naming themselves AAA Plumbing to get listed first). Yellow Pages made money off of promoting all these businesses, just as FB/Google do now. But no one ever thought the Yellow Pages should have to pay businesses to include them in their free directory that benefits their business. I'm not sure why it's different here.

 

They don't have to. Facebook said they are fine with that and will stop doing it. But now Australia and their publishers are complaining about that option too. Why? Because they were massively benefiting from Facebook giving them free exposure. They literally wanted Facebook to pay them for the opportunity to drive people to their own sites, and now they are upset that Facebook picked the alternative they offered.

It's not a loss for Facebook - they don't generate their ad revenue by providing links to Australian news sources. They generate ad revenue from having users, and none of their users are leaving because people can't get Australian news anymore.

It's like me complaining that Google doesn't pay me to include me in their search engine, even though they make ad revenues from having the best search engine. They are doing me a favor including my website - not the other way around.

 

Doesn’t matter where the link appears to users, with regard to tracking where it was clicked.

every visit (request) to a website has Header info per HTTP protocol. Contained in the visit info (request info) is a REFERER variable. That variable is what the media company will use to charge for revenue...and it will still indicate Facebook resources as the source, whether a DM or User TL.

maybe the content company and the social media companies can negotiate p2p DM links as free, but they can’t hide the fact it was clicked from a Facebook resource ... without FB spoofing Header Info ... which won’t stand up to more thorough tracking methods, regardless.

 

And how much did traffic to FB dropped? I'm perfectly fine with FB asking the AU gov for a true balance. If news sites benefit more, then they should pay FB instead.

There are several big differences between YP and FB/Google/Twitter. YP is printed once a year (not dynamic). Due to that nature, traffic to YP doesn't grow with contents that are dynamic in nature (news for example). The content itself is never posted in the YP, whereas, that's the whole argument here - contents are being posted on social media platforms and who should pay for what. The only similarity potentially is how much of a monopoly power ... but I think even that is not really comparable. YP is a directory list that didn't impact social movement, political movement, or threaten a state. Social media platforms have and potentially can do much more.

 

Everyone can still get Australian news content, you just don't link to them in Facebook.

 

FB traffic isn't going to drop any noticable amount. News comes across FB feeds - but that's not the primary reason people use Facebook. It's just an extra thing people can share. FB makes their revenue advertising to people.

We already know news sites benefit more - that's why they are now complaining about FB's decision to just walk away.

The content isn't posted on FB either. Take a look at any FB preview of a news article - it has maybe one sentence at most. You get no content from that - if you have any interest at all, you have to click the link.

Content being dynamic in nature has little to do with anything - it's just that FB is a more efficient version of it that can update in real-time. That makes FB better at what it does and more able to benefit publishers. None of that switches the relationship to one where Facebook should have to pay for being better at getting consumers to use other companies.

I have no problem with Australia setting whatever dumb laws they want. They just shouldn't then b**** and whine when Facebook follows those laws, decides they aren't a good fit for them, and walks away. It's this crap that I have a problem with:

A local campaigner with rights group Amnesty International said it was "extremely concerning that a private company is willing to control access to information that people rely on". (How is Facebook controlling access? They were willing to offer it for free)

"This is not just about Australia. This is Facebook putting a marker down, saying to the world that 'if you do wish to limit our powers… we can remove what is for many people a utility'." (If Facebook is providing a utility, why is Australia asking them to pay to provide it??)

In a statement posted on Facebook, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the social media company's actions to "unfriend Australia" were "as arrogant as they were disappointing". (It seems to me Australia wanted FB to pay to be friends)

Western Australia Premier Mark McGowan accused Facebook of "behaving like a North Korean dictator". (Being a dictator by following the laws Australia implemented?)

Sure - but what does any of that have to do with whether publishers have a right to revenues earned from a distribution system? YP vs FB's ability to impact a social movement has nothing to do with any of that.

 

Ok, disclaimer: I don't use FB.

On my iPhone, contents (headlines, a few sentences) are shown. I click on it if I want to read more. Top stories, Trending stories, For-me stories, etc is a value-add service - I like to see the various sources in one place instead of going to various sites manually. This has benefits to both the device or platform that provides that service (I come back for more) and the content providers. Whatever the profit values, it's there for both, otherwise, why do it? So, while the complete content isn't being posted, a good enough snippet of it is. We have one platform that lives on this type of snippets - Twitter, which demonstrates that a "preview" of content is significant enough to drive values.

The dynamic nature of contents is almost everything. I didn't pick up my YP to get today's weather or news. A once-a-year update to FB, Google, Twitter would ruin it completely.

Already agreed that the AU proposed laws go too far. But I don't think the idea of sharing values is bad and should be considered - in fact, as I stated, maybe it should go the other way around. And again, I like to think this is a stepping stone for individual users to get more values in return.

I only brought up social impact due to the comparison of monopoly - not all monopoly has the same impact was the point.

 

I was going to make the same reply, but you beat me to it. A little change in the title would fix that, OP.

 

George Reeves! He played Superman on TV, Adventures of Superman. It was during the 1950's and was quite famous at the time. The show ran from 1952 to 1958. I was a fan. The special effects were comically bad. That was due to the budget more than anything else. Forbidden Planet, filmed in1956, is a great example of what was possible.

 

Facebook is doing what is right for their company, oh well.

DD

 

The funny things is News Corp's content was already blocked by their own doing. News Corp's websites in Australia are all paywalled. Clicking through a FB link doesn't bypass their paywall. Murdoch's claims of FB stealing their content was/is ridiculous.

 

What ?

Facebook Restores News Content After Brokering Deal With Australian Regulators : NPR

The Australian government said it would add an amendment that "must take into account whether a digital platform has made a significant contribution to the sustainability of the Australian news industry through reaching commercial agreements with news media businesses."

Additional amendments to News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code | Treasury Ministers

Additional amendments to News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code
Note
Joint media release with
The Hon Paul Fletcher MP
Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts

The Morrison Government will today introduce further amendments to the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code.

These amendments will provide further clarity to digital platforms and news media businesses about the way the Code is intended to operate and strengthen the framework for ensuring news media businesses are fairly remunerated. These amendments will make it clear that:

• a decision to designate a platform under the Code must take into account whether a digital platform has made a significant contribution to the sustainability of the Australian news industry through reaching commercial agreements with news media businesses;
• a digital platform will be notified of the Government’s intention to designate prior to any final decision - noting that a final decision on whether or not to designate a digital platform would be made no sooner than one month from the date of notification;
• non-differentiation provisions will not be triggered because commercial agreements resulted in different remuneration amounts or commercial outcomes that arose in the course of usual business practices; and
• final offer arbitration is a last resort where commercial deals cannot be reached by requiring mediation, in good faith, to occur prior to arbitration for no longer than two months.

Importantly, the amendments will strengthen the hand of regional and small publishers in obtaining appropriate remuneration for the use of their content by the digital platforms.

The Explanatory Memorandum will confirm that the Code only applies to the extent a digital platform is making covered news content available through those services.

These amendments also add further impetus for parties to engage in commercial negotiations outside the Code - a central feature of the framework that the Government is putting in place to foster more sustainable public interest journalism in Australia.

The Government has been advised by Facebook that it intends to restore Australian news pages in the coming days.