Yep probably. More video. I did think about putting it on Facebook, but they have spat the dummy, thrown all the toys out of the cot, and chucked their nappy against the wall over Australian government legislation.
Facebook War Against Australia
- Thread starter ngatimozart
- Start date
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
OT...so how is this Facebook thing playing out in OZ? Facebook and Rupert pi$$ing about, hardly two favourites. NZ thinking the same on this legislation?
Most of Australia is really p*****d off about it; at least so far as they care about farcebook. See it as an an act of bullying, which has never gone down well in this country - and also don’t see why a company which rakes in billions should not have to pay for its raw material like anybody else. Apparently it has been most popular with the sort of 35+ crowd, and there seems to have been leakage away from it to Instagram and the like starting over the last year or so. That might well accelerate.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Actually if the entire social media realm went to $hit, we might be better off.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #5
Instagram is owned by Facebook, so it kind of defeats the purpose of going there. @John Fedup NZ appears to have no such legislation in the works at the moment. I would suspect that the government would be keeping a close watch on developments because of their history with Facebook over the Christchurch mosque terror attack.
You can be excused, but the contest at this point is between the parliament including both major parties, and Facebook/Google. The legislation is supported not just by News Ltd (Rupert) but also by Nine Media, formerly Fairfax, and Guardian Australia, both left leaning news organisations. Zuckerberg is trying the bully act. We don't appreciate that crap. Not that it affects me. I use Facebook a lot, but not for News, which in my opinion is scarcely visible on FB for the rising tide of bullous that they curate.
oldsig
I think you’ll find the opposite is actually true. People are waking up to the ridiculous notion, that News Ltd creates a free page, posts a link to it’s own content (which is paywalled anyway) and then expects FB to pay them for it...
FB had two choices. Pay a fortune to News for posting their own content on FB’ services and comply with the act. Or not publish the articles, not pay a cent and comply with the act. I know what I would do...
I think soon FB will have had enough of News and just ban their pages and their journos accounts. Do the same on insta and twitter and watch how long this situation lasts...
Why single out News Ltd.
Many media companies do exactly the same on fb, refer to a paywall.
I’d suggest most informed readers go directly Online to their media company of choice. Going through Fakebook is fraught with peril.
I'm curious about why the Labor party and Greens would be supporting this legislation if it's there for the benefit of News Ltd. Nor why Nine Entertainment, Seven Media, The Guardian and various smaller media organisations have been behind it all the way.
You all know my opinion of News Ltd, but I appreciate a bit of balance and less knee jerk criticism around here.
oldsig
(Edit...spelling)
Because, News are the ones pushing this issue...
Btw, after one whole day and the below chart being the result of News’ efforts, apparently they have ‘re-engaged’ with FB and Google for talks...
The people pushing this are imbeciles. They know as much about the internet, as they do ‘tanks’ in the Royal Australian Army...
They are the ones who have pushed it, trying desperately to cleave to the last remnants of their outdated business model. The other news outlets, see the opportunity for some additional revenue, why wouldn’t they support it? But the thinking behind it is as muddle-headed as those who think we should turn OPV’s into combat vessels...
I think the answer is they are all afraid of Rupert and Zuckerberg has made many enemies on both sides of the political divide. The way Facebook in is set up makes it very easy for likeminded individuals to find each other and affirm their beliefs in sanity defying downward spirals, making it a haven for the darker side of politics.
All the mainstream political parties would be advantaged by curbing or damaging Facebook.
Sorry, doesn't begin to explain why all sides of politics are supporting the legislation. Surely if it was a matter of Uncle Rupert pushing his barrow and no better reason, they'd be fighting, or at least arguing against it. They aren't. There are questions about the effectiveness of this move, but sheeting it home to News is just a knee jerk anti-Murdoch press reaction straight out of student politics 101. I'm no fan of News Ltd and my posting history will show it, but this is a far more than just a money grab by them.
oldsig
Your graph represents all news outlets it’s not exclusive to News who, by the way have already concluded a $30m/pa deal with Google on Friday as have others. Google’s hollow threat to pull out of Australia was a PR disaster and I doubt Zuckerberg and his cronies can ever recover from his latest threats and arrogance.
Other democracies are watching with interest, all are concerned with the unbalanced influence of these tech giants and they will undoubtably act to curb it.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
The graphic - which is really interesting, thanks to ADMk2 for posting - also can be used to show how much traffic Facebook gets from news media. Remember those are referrals from Facebook. So just the clicks from a Facebook post through to the site the link is hosted on. All of those posts in news feeds is what keeps drawing eyes back to Facebook, and the more eyes on Facebook the more ad revenue Mr Zuckerberg gets. I've seen a graphic too - though I can't find it - of where online advertising revenue goes in Australia and what really stuck out is that Facebook and Google get the lion's share. It's interesting that Google have struck deals while Facebook is obviously worried about other countries' following Australia's example, like you say. For me, as a user of Facebook, it really is worrying how much influence the company has.
The argument should be, and is, about is it correct to “borrow” somebody else’s intellectual property and make money off it without paying the originator for doing so. In the music and movie businesses on the net that has been labelled “piracy”. Now appreciate that there is copyright in those cases which is not currently the situation with the news media; but maybe there should be - and that becomes the way to provide protection to all internet content which some group or person has put money into developing.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #17
An interesting article that looks at the wider issue of tech giant online censorship.
www.newsroom.co.nz
Online extremism: Censorship isn't the solution
If censorship ends up driven by private businesses acting to protect their bottom line and avoid regulation, it will be hard to find online views outside the 'approved' political centre
www.newsroom.co.nz
Indeed, it is all news agencies involved, but the majority of ‘news’ in this country springs from News Ltd or Fairfax and those organisations are the ones pushing this.
Uncle Rupert wants this, because he can’t think of any other way out of his failing business dilemna... It’s happening for the same reason why he was busy suing “pirates” whilst Netflix was attracting subscribers galore and going through the roof and now why his cable tv channels are failing almost as fast as his newspapers are...
As to why political parties are supporting this? Hmm... Would you want to run for office, when you haven’t supported Rupert OR Fairfax? There’s a Federal election next year...
That would be a fair summation, except for 3 problems.
1. News itself puts links to most of it’s content onto FB and;
2. Most but not all of that content is pay-walled.
3. The only thing published, is whatever News et al have allowed to be published. There is no copyright infringement involved. The links redirect to the original publisher, ie: News...
Hence why there is such push-back on this issue. News is perfectly happy to use a free service to advertise itself and it’s product, but due to falling revenue is pushing for others who get no direct benefit from it, to pay them for this... FB usage in Australia hasn’t dropped since this decision of theirs, but web-traffic to News sites has, by up to 20% in some reckoning... So who is really losing out by this decision?
News wants FB to pay it, for putting links to it’s own content onto FB and has cajoled the Australian Government into going along with them. Hence why this is such a stupid decision by Morrisson et al.
Would it be fair, for you to start a blog, splash your written work all over facebook, freely accept the incoming traffic from Facebook without payment for FB’s services, and then demand Facebook pay you for people viewing that work that you have published on the net? Because when you get down to brass tacks, that is what News etc, want...
Edit: and here we are, mere days later seeing both Government and News organisations backtrack... Personally FB chose their path, but I think they could have handled this more cleverly. Simply announcing they would now be charging a fee for every news link, in Australia, being posted on their platform seems to me, would have achieved much the same effect as a news block... in any case, it seems a “deal” will be reached and FB threatening to bill news organisations for using it’s platform, will likely be a bargaining chip they aren‘t much keen on...
Facebook promises to 'restore news' for Australians in wake of government agreement
Facebook will walk back its block on Australian users sharing news on its site after the government agreed to make amendments to the proposed media bargaining laws that would force major tech giants to pay news outlets for their content.
www.abc.net.au
Last edited: