Facebook War Against Australia

[Anthony_B_78]

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...

On the question of "would it be fair", it brings to mind for me the YouTube model. If you post videos that go viral, you can make money, right? YouTube pays content producers knowing those who are bringing the views are driving advertising revenue. I think in the same way it wouldn't be unreasonable for Facebook to pay a share of its - apparently incredibly significant - advertising revenue to those who are bringing the traffic.

In terms of what that looks like, well I'm not convinced that the media isn't a significant driver of traffic on Facebook. I know on my own feed that since they pulled the plug on Australian media it just became very ho-hum. Yeah, sure, I have kept looking over the past several days but that was starting to wane. So I think Facebook's action would, eventually, have hurt it in Australia. It just would take a little more time.

Anyway, the latest development is a welcome one, and it does seem Facebook has won some concessions and is already negotiating media deals. So who really came out on top? Hard to say. What I do think this whole situation shows is that Facebook does have too much power. I'm a capitalist but I don't believe in such market dominance.

 

[ADMk2]

On the question of "would it be fair", it brings to mind for me the YouTube model. If you post videos that go viral, you can make money, right? YouTube pays content producers knowing those who are bringing the views are driving advertising revenue. I think in the same way it wouldn't be unreasonable for Facebook to pay a share of its - apparently incredibly significant - advertising revenue to those who are bringing the traffic.

In terms of what that looks like, well I'm not convinced that the media isn't a significant driver of traffic on Facebook. I know on my own feed that since they pulled the plug on Australian media it just became very ho-hum. Yeah, sure, I have kept looking over the past several days but that was starting to wane. So I think Facebook's action would, eventually, have hurt it in Australia. It just would take a little more time.

Anyway, the latest development is a welcome one, and it does seem Facebook has won some concessions and is already negotiating media deals. So who really came out on top? Hard to say. What I do think this whole situation shows is that Facebook does have too much power. I'm a capitalist but I don't believe in such market dominance.

The problem is, those who want a share of FB’s revenue, only do so in the hope it achieves the same thing at their end and the only reason this whole scenario has kicked off, is because one side is ridiculously successful and the other is on the wane...

News is posted on FB, because it benefits News. They could simply pay-wall everything and not allow FB any “news” to post, but that would ironically, be counter-productive for them, due to the traffic their sites get from FB, down 20% as we’ve seen since they pushed the issue and our Government stupidly went along with it.

Does FB get a tangible benefit from news? Undoubtedly, but the reverse is true as well. I note full well, there is zero pressure on News from Government for News to pay FB for the benefit it obtains from the FB platform...

 

[Anthony_B_78]

The problem is, those who want a share of FB’s revenue, only do so in the hope it achieves the same thing at their end and the only reason this whole scenario has kicked off, is because one side is ridiculously successful and the other is on the wane...

News is posted on FB, because it benefits News. They could simply pay-wall everything and not allow FB any “news” to post, but that would ironically, be counter-productive for them, due to the traffic their sites get from FB, down 20% as we’ve seen since they pushed the issue and our Government stupidly went along with it.

Does FB get a tangible benefit from news? Undoubtedly, but the reverse is true as well. I note full well, there is zero pressure on News from Government for News to pay FB for the benefit it obtains from the FB platform...

I could be wrong, but I recall seeing that Facebook has a huge share of all online advertising, so it would seem - if that's right - that the benefit is very much in its favour. And, frankly, I'm not too happy with all that money going overseas to a massive company in the US that thinks it can do as it likes in a fairly unregulated industry. I agree that the traditional media were caught napping by the internet and everything it has given us. But in its "newness" it took luck and foresight to get it right. Obviously Zuckerberg had both, plus a canny sense for business. I do believe we need our traditional media more than we do Facebook. So I will unashamedly back them in this fight. Though they were terribly slow to adapt, I think with their subscription models they are getting it right. We should be prepared to pay for journalism. I would agree with you in that I'm not entirely convinced Facebook should pay, or not much perhaps, but I really don't like the action it took and I don't like our community's dependence on this method of communication.

 

[ngatimozart]

I could be wrong, but I recall seeing that Facebook has a huge share of all online advertising, so it would seem - if that's right - that the benefit is very much in its favour. And, frankly, I'm not too happy with all that money going overseas to a massive company in the US that thinks it can do as it likes in a fairly unregulated industry. I agree that the traditional media were caught napping by the internet and everything it has given us. But in its "newness" it took luck and foresight to get it right. Obviously Zuckerberg had both, plus a canny sense for business. I do believe we need our traditional media more than we do Facebook. So I will unashamedly back them in this fight. Though they were terribly slow to adapt, I think with their subscription models they are getting it right. We should be prepared to pay for journalism. I would agree with you in that I'm not entirely convinced Facebook should pay, or not much perhaps, but I really don't like the action it took and I don't like our community's dependence on this method of communication.

What actually concerns me is the recent tendency of the big tech social media companies to deplaform individuals, groups, or organisations that upset their major advertisers. Yet let the nutters nut off big time because they bring in punters and to hell with the consequences for the general public, whether they be social, health related, or national security issues. Then to top it off they have the cheek to think that they can dictate national policy to sovereign nations? I do think it is about time that they are pulled into line.

 

[John Fedup]

Nothing really new about social media organizations caving into advertisers. This was normal for broadcast TV in North America for years (which was why TV was so poor pre-cable).

 

[ADMk2]

I could be wrong, but I recall seeing that Facebook has a huge share of all online advertising, so it would seem - if that's right - that the benefit is very much in its favour. And, frankly, I'm not too happy with all that money going overseas to a massive company in the US that thinks it can do as it likes in a fairly unregulated industry. I agree that the traditional media were caught napping by the internet and everything it has given us. But in its "newness" it took luck and foresight to get it right. Obviously Zuckerberg had both, plus a canny sense for business. I do believe we need our traditional media more than we do Facebook. So I will unashamedly back them in this fight. Though they were terribly slow to adapt, I think with their subscription models they are getting it right. We should be prepared to pay for journalism. I would agree with you in that I'm not entirely convinced Facebook should pay, or not much perhaps, but I really don't like the action it took and I don't like our community's dependence on this method of communication.

But that market share is wholly dependant on the users of the platform, not because of news. FB had hundreds of millions of users and was worth a literal fortune due to advertising revenue before there was any news feature on the platform... It’s business premise remains social interaction between people, not news and that social interaction is what the advertisers are targetting.

If those advertisers could get their message to people through other means as efficiently as social media, I’m sure FB would see it’s revenue fall significantly. To date no-one has though and that is a large part of why traditional news is failing. People at large, are losing interest in it and consequently advertisers aren’t paying them for their failing product, they are paying the big successful guys who get their message out to more people.