Murdoch just got his way I suppose? News articles gone from Facebook. Thoughts?
In my mind the small players and local news outlets will be the ones struggling here.
News Articles and Content Banned from Facebook. Thoughts?
LittleMIssPanda on 18/02/2021 - 08:28
Last edited 18/02/2021 - 12:11 by 1 other user
Last edited 18/02/2021 - 12:11 by 1 other user
Related Stores
Comments
hilarious, i wish google would have stood firm too
what a joke this code is
Google can now charge the taxpayers for this huge deductible expense
How good is thatmurdoch will continue to do so and wont be paying anything on this new revenue
Lifetime Achievement Award: Rupert Murdoch’s News Australia Holdings racked up $16bn income but paid zero tax over six years even on the $246m they declared in taxable income.
How good is that
I read somewhere that Google still plan to remove Australian publishers if the code passes into law.
Will be interesting to see if they do.
So what is FB going to data mine now? Jelly beans….
Go onto any of these whinging media site's own pages and open a code inspection window. You won't have to look far to find the facebook beacon code.
Plot twist, Facebook demand News outlet to pay to post news article.
…that's how their current business model works.
"Suggested article"
"someone you know likes this"They can post as many articles and content as they like, but it costs money to make it appear in people's news feeds (unless it's trending like crazy)
This is good. News have no place no social media platforms.
In my opinion this bill is a joke by the Murdoch media who have now lost a HUGE revenue stream, no more 7 news post's going viral etc, instead media companies will have the opposite happen…they will have to PAY to get ad's on these platforms, whilst the smaller media companies will not be able to do this or spread their media as far reaching now. A disgrace and typical behavior from our favourite marketer Scomo and josh.
Media are loosing income because FB was getting the ad revenue.
That's why FB stepped back. So now media can get more ad revenue. Media should be happy with Facebook's decision.
They won't. Traffic to news websites decreased by 15% last week. The LNP government is retarded and shot newscorp and themselves in the foot.
How are media companies losing ad revenue? they put links to their own websites themselves which generates ad revenue and if they post videos it’s entirely their choice. no one is forcing them to post
Then surely they would have chosen to voluntarily delete themselves from Facebook earlier, to keep their ad dollars?
The action by FB is about them complying with the new legislation currently before our federal parliament. The current government is driving this.
Here is a definition (from the current bill):
"core news content means content that reports, investigates or explains:
(a) issues or events that are relevant in engaging Australians in public debate and in informing democratic decision-making; or
(b) current issues or events of public significance for Australians at a local, regional or national level"
The Bill is available here: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat…If you are not happy about it, take it up with your elected representative.
Maybe the news media should pay to feature their articles on social platforms…
I understand that however the Murdoch media who basically owns our government was the one pushing for this bill, hoping facebook would roll over.
Scomo and his party don't deal with questions, labor's the same.
This is awesome, lol. But I'd guess they will end up making a deal.
But I'd guess they will end up making a deal.
Why?
Because it is the global precedent that matters, not the piddling Australian market.
If Silicon Valley is forced to deal then they want a deal that is as favourable as possible. Sure, they're going to want to tell everyone to go to hell, but it's only a matter of time until some venal government digs in the heels for their old media buddies (to keep the bribes and favours flowing). If it isn't with Australia's government today it will be somewhere else tomorrow.
Some OzBargainers may be happier when they see this: https://www.facebook.com/HarveyNormanAU
No posts yet
"No Deposit, No Interest with 60 Equal Monthly Payments until February 2026."
?
Sorry should have clarified. All their posts have been removed.
I can see some of them if i don't log into facebook.
Ah crap, Gerry's FB posts are back. For a while there karma was doing great things.
"You must pay us if you link to our news articles"
"Ok, we won't link to your news articles"
"What?!?! That's not fair!!!! ScoMo!!!! Stop them!!!"google didn't even let you click through to a newspages (until recently) and had google hosted versions of these pages for you to visit, denying them even basic click throughs and advertising dollars. google and facebook produce NO content. they are absolute parasites on the internet, sucking value away from actual creators and doing very little to earn their revenue (hence google search having 98% gross profit margins on that segment) and pay <1% tax on almost $5b in revenue (Google). they only employ 1700 people across the country that covers their developers, search, maps, youtube, android and their other products.
compare this with CBA which earns net revenue of $23.6b and pays 30% corporate tax rate, which was $3b last year and employs 50,000 people.
(profanity) google and facebook in every way possible. our government should be able to name their tax rate with these platforms and if they don't like it, leave. its a free lunch for them, they will stay or someone else will come and eat it while playing by the rules.
You know, this tall poppy thing has got to stop. so what if Google makes billions - how does that affect the right or wrong? Are they tax cheats? Not according to the tax department, they use the same rules as every other company. Bottom line here is this is about making demons out of the 'greedy buggers'. If this new law was serious it would apply to everyone that posts links to content, not just demonizing the Google and Facebook style companies of the world.
Interesting about including Facebook in this law, the media companies have Facebook account so for posting links in Facebook to their own site they expect Facebook to pay. Good business model there, need some more cash this week so pump up the Facebook posts.
so what? they are literally using tax havens to shield themselves from paying hundreds of millions in tax in our country, they don't even pay anything close to what our most 'controversial' corporations pay here. on top of this the revenue they are earning was previously been earned by australian companies paying tax in this country.
so what? well, have you ever heard of the term 'social contract'? it implies a company has to have a positive purpose and impact on the broader society to be allowed to operate. these multinational tech companies, i would argue, are close to losing theirs. so facebook can turn off news in a day yet the fact that young people are having record issues with mental illness gets no attention from them? they are wolves and to see australians defending these US corporations is frankly sad.
@garygaz: they are wolves and to see australians defending these US corporations is frankly sad.
Hey hang on there you are not looking at this properly
morrison said pay up mark or don't have any news links on your free platform
FREE PLATFORM
So facebook said ok no clicky clicky so no cash for morrison easy fix
Why do all the news sites use facebook
Come grasshopper learn don't be blinded by the truth
Then come back and tell us of your wisdom and how many multinationals not just google or facebook are a leech on Australia and fleecing us dry on a grander scale
https://www.michaelwest.com.au/revealed-australias-top-40-ta…@garygaz: How much tax does Murdoch family pay? Humm…@garygaz please stop your nonsense.
Google atleast pays tax.
So much for free market liberals
This is great news. I don't even like or care much for FB, but I despise Murdoch and news giants that use their platform for their own personal agendas. And I hate the liberal government who claim to be anti government involvement, but put their hands in the pot when their major donors are losing money.
Libs are in panic mode now. After losing the game of chicken they started.
Lots of non news pages are being restricted. I'm assuming these pages were set up as publishers or news pages when they were made for whatever reason and now they need to get an exemption from the restrictions.
now they need to get an exemption from the restrictions.
Based on previous experience contacting Facebook, that could take months.
Yea FB is literally the worst people to get in touch when you have a problem. I guess being a non paid user gets you crap all service.
The journos and pollies are using this teething issue as an attack on FB, latching onto the fact that DHS and BOM can't get info out to people and trying to demonise Facebook for protecting their own interests from the government's decisions.
Frydo is about to speak about it now..
I don't think it is a teething issue. I think FB is starting early in compliance with the bill the federal government is currently considering.
I posted this earlier:
Here is a definition (from the current bill):
"core news content means content that reports, investigates or explains:
(a) issues or events that are relevant in engaging Australians in public debate and in informing democratic decision-making; or
(b) current issues or events of public significance for Australians at a local, regional or national level"
The Bill is available here: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat…Did Frydo explain why they structured the bill like this?
@GG57: That is just a definition of a term, it does not mean that facebook has to pay or remove any news other than those of media companies that meet some requirements and have registered with the ACMA!
Yea FB is literally the worst people to get in touch when you have a problem.
Silicon Valley figured out years ago that they simply don't need much user facing customer service. Why waste money on something that generates no revenue?
cough rove/the project cough
Poor peter, he just wants to make jokes and light humor of news and the poor bastard has to listen to his co workers political rants
what was a good idea has turned into day time talk show at night
FB should charge pay per click.
https://apple.news/ASLY-LxcIRBSe67j5BZu4AQ
State health and hospital pages have been swept up in Facebook’s mass ban of news publishers in Australia, a move which risks undermining public health messaging ahead of the coronavirus vaccine rollout which begins next week.
The official government health pages for Queensland, the ACT, South Australia and Tasmania were all blocked, while the federal Department of Health page remained active.
Hospitals were also affected by the ban, including Melbourne’s Royal Children’s Hospital and St Vincent’s Hospital, while St Vincent’s Hospital in Sydney remained unaffected, as did The Children’s Hospital at Westmead.This is going to be a funny issue to watch. The journos from all sides of politics will be on the side of the government on this one because they see tech companies making profits from their work while their offices get smaller because news is changing.
So I don't think we're going to see an unbiased opinions from the news on this one.
I wonder if people will side with the news and hence the government over the next few days because of negative news articles about Facebook from journos who support the deal.
I wonder if people will side with the news and hence the government over the next few days because of negative news articles about Facebook
Someone should message mark and tell him that it is all tax deductible and wont cost him a cent just bill the Australian Tax Department all fixed
What is it costing us now any figures out on the total amount google are going to charge?
There will be a swarm of new Australian news outlets nextIts more of an own goal by josh
How good is that
Didn't survive Ron's savagery though!
FB will do same deal as Google eventually.
FYI, the proposed laws will benefit whoever the government declares is a media organisation. Google/FB will have to tell declared media organisations if algorithm or feature changes happen, but not to any blogger, etc.
Got billions and want to start a media organisation? Good luck taking off unless you bribe whichever government is in power. Or buy ads. Lol.
Government: Pay for news!
Facebook: Remove news.
Government: You can’t do that!Government: You can’t do that!
Facebook: We just did.
The People: I'll go elsewhere for news then. Oh look, I didn't need Facebook after all - and Delete…
Or the other way around. I didn't need news after all. Às some say: No news is good news.
Cat pictures or Frydenberg's hideous mug? Hmmmm, that's a tough choice … facebook it is, then.
Question - something I don’t understand about this bargaining code.
Take Facebook for example - prior to today people would see a link on Facebook to a news story, click on it and be taken to the news publishers website to read that story, eg smh.com.au. The SMH website has ads on it - Nine/Fairfax are earning advertising revenue from this.
Given this, what is the point of the code?
Is the issue that lots of people use Facebook as basically a news aggregator and Facebook is earning ad revenue from ads on their site? And this upsets SMH because somebody else is making money from posting links to their stories? Why is this an issue - yes Facebook are earning ad revenue but so are SMH?
What am I missing?
Facebook seems to be profiting from publishing or allowing their users to publish the work of news outlets. I can see why they want a share of the pie.
from publishing or allowing their users to publish the work of news outlets.
Adding a link isn't publishing.
The publishing is done at the destination to that link.
The point is that MSM wants more money and they know that websites, including Google and Facebook will cave. In addition, MSM wants to confidential information that small news / bloggers can't get, ie news algorithm details. Knowing this, they can tailor news for maximum visibility.
Google already caved and will pay MSM millions per year.
Imagine starting a new Facebook in Australia and get threaten by MSM to pay millions to allow users to link to MSM content. Google/Facebook will laugh at you as users get angry at you for censoring MSM.
I've been trying to find the answer to this for weeks. It's very hard to get in-depth non bias information about this anywhere. From what I understand though, I believe the issue comes from people only reading the snippits of headline and summary and not actually clicking through to the news websites.
With Google I kind of understand this point… but when news agencies actively post to Facebook on one hand and then complain on the other, I have absolutely no sympathy.
I believe the issue comes from people only reading the snippits of headline and summary and not actually clicking through to the news websites.
All the proves is that there is very little value in the 99% of what was published…
Depends on how you define value. 'Perceived value' yes. But there is often value in the content. Users are just too lazy or time poor to read it.
@sevendollarsfifty: I don't use Facebook much but don't these media companies post the snippets themselves? I haven't seen anybody making snippets of news content except the news publishers themselves.
@sevendollarsfifty: So I guess it comes down to why the Murdoch empire wants big tech to pay for the links. If snippets are the real reason and it's not some power move to get more money out of big tech then big tech could have easily deleted snippets of news links instead of going scorched earth like Facebook did. If that's the case I would actually side with the Murdoch empire on this issue despite my strong dislike towards them.
But the part about the algorithm is just trying to abuse their status as a monopoly because independent news publishers won't be able to use that same information to their advantage.
they want to triple dip
-free marketing by publishing links themselves or by users tagging someone etc.
-fb to pay them for this free marketing
-then when you reach the website, you're paygated.
News outlet and politician is implying Facebook is censoring. Those News are readily available in the interwebs so is really no big deal that Facebook is blocking News.
Just shows Politician and Murdoch is pushing their agender
News outlet and politician is implying Facebook is censoring.
Censoring is examining and suppressing…
I don't think they are examining anything, just blocking everything posted from news sites.
yep blocking whats left of the small independents they haven't taken down already….their income just took a massive hit.
so far this might be the best one
West Australian Premier Mark McGowan has accused Facebook of behaving "like a North Korean dictator" and called on the United States government to step in after the digital giant blocked news distribution on its platform in Australia.
He even called on the United States government to step in, as Facebook is an American company.
"They shouldn't condone a company behaving like a North Korean dictator," he said.
"It is outside the spirit of the relationship between Australia and the United States."meanwhile…
The United States has urged the Australian government to ditch draft media laws that would force tech giants Google and Facebook to pay news organisations for sharing their content.
The US, in a submission to an Australian parliamentary inquiry, has said that the proposed legislation is unreasonable, impractical, “fundamentally imbalanced” and could run counter to the US-Australia free trade agreement.Is it too late for the USA to lobby the government? The bill is in review now.
Lol hilarious
The politicians have gone NUTS.
All the news is still available on the news websites.
All that Facebook has done is to prevent viewing news links… They have every right to do so. Nobody is forcing you to use Facebook…
I don't always side with JV. But when I do, it's because we both agree the Libs are batshit crazy.
lol
Ok jv, I disagree with your viewpoint in general on this post, but you're right there! McGowan is a fruitcake…
That nine piece is just total shit. The fact that mgowan talks crap shouldn't obscure the propaganda surrounding his ravings.
All hail Kim Jong Zuckerburger!
You have just got OzBargain into trouble for posting a link to 9news website. Scotty will be in touch with you.
So why do you think the ALP support this then? If this was all about the LNP and their mates at Murdoch press, they would be at least 110% against it (maths is never a politician's strong point)…
The bill supports workers (journos). So all sides of politics have to be on the side of the workers.
As much as the public hate Murdoch press and most media companies, they are made up of Australians who depend on their job and the bill is aimed at helping protect that.
There's a big problem with news in the digital world. They are losing a lot of money and don't know how to adapt. So they are annoyed that big tech can make money from their work and want a piece of it. It's a lazy solution imo.
I say the Libs are crazy because they started the game of chicken and Facebook have flexed their power. It's poor management of the situation and now news outlets are paying for it with loss in revenue from reduced exposure without Facebook.
Very poorly handled.
So they are annoyed that big tech can make money from their work
They're not more 'special' than everyone else…
If Facebook pay them, they should pay everybody else for posting on Facebook.
@jv: Agreed. News has not figured out how to be profitable in today's internet age. Big tech has, so they want to take the lazy option of asking for a handout instead.
News has not figured out how to be profitable in today's internet age.
Well crying out to get paid, on top of free advertising for links back to their website where they publish, isn't going to win them many friends…
The only people I've heard jumping up and down about this today have been all the journalists and the politicians. Everyone else I've spoken to has been on Facebook's side…
@petry: correct. and where do people who support this think the hundreds of millions google/fb pay will go?
Do you seriously think the journos will suddenly get nice bonuses or the newscorps will create more diverse reporting?
Its straight to the shareholders and murdoch who incidentally don't pay any tax to us Australians.
@Herbse: Go to news.com.au and have a quick look at the (lack of) locally produced content. This is not about local jobs, it's about corporate bottom line - the one that is shrinking because people are starting to realise 'news media' is a joke.
Go to news.com.au and have a quick look at the (lack of) locally produced content.
I just did and found out that Pamela Anderson got new breast implants…
I feel so much more informed now….
Lol look at all the news sites pumping how bad facebook is. Its getting to point of propaganda shoving their view down our throat. Not even trying hide their bias
It's like they think that if they just scream louder that facebook will suddenly need them.
Strange lib's started this before an imminent election and ongoing rape case. How they going to stop oz bargain, reddit, etc.
and ongoing rape case
Allegations.
Very convenient allegations from events of March 2019 …
Doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that it was covered up by the Liberals
Doesn't mean it did. Should the Liberal party announce it to the world, even if the alleged victim didn't even want to make a formal complaint?
@ozhunter: The Liberal party don't need to announce anything.
And the victim can claim it happened, regardless of when.But I'm seeing multiple reports of text messages, office cleaning, Fed Police meetings, etc., at the time, which suggest a lot of senior Liberal people knew about it, which is what our PM is denying.
Have a look at this analysis about the PM's press conference the other day:
https://infinite8horizon.wordpress.com/2021/02/18/translatin…Spin, spin, spin.
@ozhunter: Again, that does not mean it didn't happen.
And she can change her mind on making a formal complaint (to the police) at a later time.
But it is looking more and more that she did make a formal complaint to her employer, at the time.Again, that does not mean it didn't happen.
As above
And she can change her mind on making a formal complaint (to the police) at a later time.
Agreed, and what she should have done.
But it is looking more and more that she did make a formal complaint to her employer, at the time.
Doesn't look like it, and what should they do? If they were kfc workers and in happened in a kfc restaurant, I'd think it would be a police matter.
hilarious, i wish google would have stood firm too
what a joke this code is