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
facebook can do whatever they want
who wants to pay for news anyway
they paywall their websites so whats the point in fb paying thembrb reading about prince harry getting sucked off by megan
no one cares
This doesn't bother me one bit. Good on Facebook for calling the Governments bluff. The law as drafted is bad, play stupid games and win silly prizes. The media outlets need Facebook more than they need them. Facebook and Google don't steal from the new outlets they just host hyperlinks or content put there by the media themselves to direct traffic to the media's websites who make money via paywalls or advertising on their sites. Do Google & Facebook make money off people using their platforms via advertising? They sure do but they have to make money somehow by giving away a free service.
The linking from one site to another site is one of the fundamental building blocks of the World Web Web, this is essentially a selective hyperlink tax. This is a slippery slope. The traditional media isn't losing money because big tech steal from them, they are losing money because they haven't adapted their business models to the new online world and they are facing far increased competition and frankly people will just go to the site that gives them their news for free rather than buy a news paper or pay for a online subscription.
I'm actually midly shocked that Google caved and Facebook is stepping up… Thought it would be the other way around. Facebook, taking the side of the people? Who could have seen that coming.
Anyway it's no secret that Fairfax and Newscorp are both nothing but LNP mouthpieces and that we have an almost complete media monopoly in this country. So I don't see it as terribly surprising that the government has decided to take full advantage of their "press release factory" and is taking steps to give them free advertising, funnel money into them, AND enable them to better "beat the system" by sharing the algorithm with them. And at the end of the day, media corporations like google and facebook aren't under the same pressures to bend the knee to the LNP. So it's very sad and cynical to see the LNP target the media that can't control in order to empower the media they DO control… but surprising it is not.
"Indirectly" subsidising them like this makes it look like they're "coming for facebook" rather than the truth: they're giving free moneybags to Murdoch.
However, in all honesty, from a consumer perspective, I think Facebook is not lying when they say that news content makes up less than 2% of their feed. Indeed, I think if we were to discount articles about The Bachelor from newscorp, probably closer to 0.2%. Indepedent publishers probably don't feature on people's feeds more than once a century.
From that perspective, I think the whole problem isn't reeeally that big, and I don' necessarily see either news companies, facebook, nor government backing down any time soon. ScoMo likes to call it "bullying" (the irony) but at the end of the day, none of these corporations is really out enough money to be under pressure to fold.
Independent journalists on the other hand might be harmed, but they were going to be effectively left out of the negotiations and censored anyway. So they're kind of in a "no matter what happens, we lose" boat.
I think Facebook is not lying when they say that news content makes up less than 2% of their feed
For Facebook, the business gain from news is minimal. News makes up less than 4% of the content people see in their News Feed
But Facebook loses out on engagement too. LIke I check Facebook for news, then end up wasting more time on there on videos and other posts.
Independent journalists on the other hand might be harmed
Well, people here keep saying that its msm fault for not adapting. I guess independents now too need to adapt, and its their fault if they don't?
no its that simple - murdoch offered the libs total support if they legislated like this because he couldn't lose - he would eradicate smaller outlets and channels and make money.
google said ok and paid up because they don't care about australia, and facebook didn't and eradicated most of the local independents who could provide alternative news in Oz.
everybody google paid will give the libs cheap airtime and suppress alternative views, its fascist government in full operation.
The media complained they were losing ad revenue to tech companies so Facebook has done them a big favour and stopped posting their stories and now the media can finally cut out the middle man and get all the ad revenue they deserve!
Facebook are such good guys, helping out our struggling media. Isn't that what the media wanted? What's the problem?
The worst part about Google caving in is seeing Frydenberg's smug face on TV knowing he just got his mates $30mil
If their platform no longer creates value for you go somewhere else. They can add or remove any features to their product they like, you don't have to keep using it.
I've noticed an amusing trend on the facebook debate (google is slightly different).
You have around 50% of people against the code, as per above and on other discussion threads.
You have about 5, maybe 10% for it with genuine arguments, or at least making some discussion points.
The other 40% are basically bitter people who complain about facebook only having peoples breakfast and dogs photos.
So they hate it, and the world, and hope we all suffer.yeah well oz has become a world joke now that's getting sicker all the time…
complain about facebook only having peoples breakfast and dogs photos
That is what Facebook was supposed to be. Keep in touch with your friends and extended family.
Was so much better when that's all it was.
FB doesn't need news on its platform, it gets little revenue for it but it cause a lot of work through mediation and fact checking.
The threat from the government could have given them a reason to test out how blocking news completely would be received.
Correct, and just because you hate that idea doesn't make this code correct.
I'm saying the majority of people for it don't actually think Facebook should be paying for the links (most don't even understand what the code is) , they just hate everything Facebook is about.
Maybe if people think of this like some kind of corporate socialism, they'd support it more 😂
Who actually uses facebook for news? LOL. I can only see a boomer would do this
canada's a trump town now like all the 5 eyes… trumpett'es dancing to the same fascist tune - about as interesting as 2 turds having a laugh with Boris kill my country.
It's Facebook. Who gives a toss?!?
Why is this a problem? If you want news, use a service that’s meant for it. I’m an iOS user and I use news app on phone and mac. If I want paid content I can easily upgrade to news+ subscription. (I was for 3 months and realised the paywalled news content arent worth at all and the local library has magazines I can borrow for free).
ah i remember 2009 and facebook
Honestly, the less news the better.
And no news is good news
you'll be pleasantly surprised then when your camp collectors rock up.
Love my ABC but not that side of it. I'd understand a host being taken aback by an unexpected extremist viewpoint, but here they seem to have been in such a bubble that they stumble on encountering a reasonable but non-conforming opinion.
It seems the journos have taken a side, their side. Which is a shame because it seems to be showing a bias which you don't normally see from some outlets.
The main issue here in my opinion was Google AMP, they were strangling the media organisations by requiring them to effectively convert their sites over to AMP in order to be featured in the news part of Google, and AMP only supports ads that are implemented using Googles Adsense. Even if the SMH did have its own advertising / content partnerships, it would still be forced to give Google a piece of the pie to be featured on the news carousel. I hate Murdoch as much as the next person, he is a cancerous danger to our democracy, but make no mistake, Google is evil in its own right as well. These new laws just seek to control companies that have monopolistic power over the market, and Google is basically a textbook monopoly.
Not that I have asked anyone as such, but the fact this is still being pursued by both parties really makes me wonder how many of the general populace really buy this candy story put forward by the government.
It's a pity Turnbull said this obvious point (because some people will ignore just because it's him), that in the end these outlets and government agencies are choosing to have FB accounts. They don't have to have one. Now they're demanding money for it. They're squirming over this realisation they are stupidly addicted to FB just like much of the country is addicted to Chinese money. At least with the latter I haven't heard anyone claim their "entitled" to it.
So really, who needs who …
If this gets people to actually get the news directly all the better if you ask me. Try and put some independent thinking back into society.
Had no idea Facebook was this vital to human survival.
Glad Australia has its priorities straight.
I can't help but think this is a ploy by Murdoch to kill independent outlets.
Apparently they need to adapt.
Private company doesn't promote other companies anymore, what's the big deal, too many eggs in one basket, freebies no longer working?
Didn't see any outcry when regional papers got purchased only to be shut down a few month later concentrating media power in established 'old' media handsGlad to see the news gone, now let's ban all American news from Australia. Or just ban Facebook completely.
Then you'll have people complaining about freedom etc
No one should be getting their news from Facebook. This is actually a really good thing.
I deleted my Facebook account ages ago. Best thing anyone can do.
No one should be getting their news from Facebook.
When people say this, do they not realize that Facebook doesn't write the news, they link it?
Of course.
The problem being any news can be linked. Legitimate or not. Propaganda, conspiracies, real news, fake news… It's all mixed together purposely to make the vortex of hate that is Facebook.
Merged from Have You Boycotted Facebook?
Based on recent events Facebook blocking Australians from accessing news. Specially at a time when there is a pandemic and a new vaccine is about to be rolled out. Are you boycotting Facebook? If so how are you doing it? Or don’t care?
I still need Facebook to spam comps and to indicate to my immediate family that I'm still alive.
I have no love for social media so at this stage, I'll just hold on to Facebook for the time being. My feed is mostly just competition posts, product announcements and cute dog videos. I've already unfollowed anyone who relentlessly posts pics of their babies/kids or 'look at me' lifestyle selfies.
Why were people using fb for their news? Surely anything selected to be shown on fb has to be influenced by zuckerberg and his values just like murdoch and his media empire. FB is a huge money making mostly tax free business; know the animal it is, make use of it, give them as little as possible of your own details. I misinform with all my personal info on fb. The friends I have on fb actually know me, so they don't need my details.
I don't know why this is making the news. If fb went tomorrow I'd laugh.
Why were people using fb for their news?
I was listening to the radio, which happened to be discussing this topic. One caller said she only reads trending news that appear on FB. Only cared about things that her friends have decided to be important and shared on FB.
If one wants to step on crap and roll in it, no one can stop them.
If fb went tomorrow I'd laugh
me 2… would be so awesome!
…. but think of the mass suicides.. most people cant even stand up without it.
"…. but think of the mass suicides.."
That's just called survival of the fittest. But I suppose in this day and age it's closer to survival of the ones with even half a brain.
read an article that 40% of Americans read their news on FB, wouldn't be surprised if Oz had similar stats
Based on recent events Facebook blocking Australians from accessing news.
Because the didn't want to pay media outlets for sharing their news. Not blocking seems like it would be against the new laws?
I’d wonder why FB should be forced to pay for content they don’t want to carry?
@studentl0an: While I agree, this is up to the individual. I personally despise Facebook etc, however if people choose to use, that's their own problem. It's not exactly a secret that they only allow what they want, the same as most "journalists" these days. It's extremely seldom that there is no agenda being pushed.
@brendanm: A few years ago I would have said yeah it's a private company and they can blah blah blah. I'm ashamed that I held that view, but I did for a very long time.
Since then I've grown to realise that when people said in the past that we need regulations to protect us from private companies, that they were onto something.
The reason - I've watched society devolve and dissolve and I'm willing to make concessions to keep us civil. When private companies can control the flow of information and have everyone as a 'client' because that's their business model, their own rules become defacto law of the land and that's just terrible. Their rules are to make them the most money, even if it means the end of civil society.
@studentl0an: They aren't the law of the land though. You have chosen not to.use Facebook, as have I, and we do not have to follow any of their "rules". They are not law.
Allowing them to be controlled by law is giving the government too much power, they also can't be trusted.
While I also agree that society is worse off over all with Facebook, that is still peoples personal choose to make.
It's the same as any private business, they have their own rules, if you don't like it, you don't have to shop there or use their service.
Hopefully this "getting rid of the news" thing will finally wake people up as to how much Facebook etc is controlling what they see.
@brendanm: The government has accountability, they can be voted out or local backbenchers can lobby based on their constituents
We can't do that to private organisations and they have taken over. We already have given them all the power, the fact you don't doesn't change that 90% of people have and the power FB has over us.
We need to regulate social media, this should be supported by both sides of the political divide.
@studentl0an: Everything you say here is a red herring.
The reason why people can be "controlled" is not because of social media companies, but because as a society, our education system has failed in teaching people to be critical thinkers, to consider multiple sources, to do research and to not blindly just take whatever is force-fed to them.
The only way that we can have better, more informed and more free public discourse is if people are more informed, less opinionated and are more interested in researching and seeking out the truth.
I'm not against regulations on social media companies, but I think you're seriously misguided as to what effects regulations can have. What exactly do you expect will happen? You can say "regulation" all you want, but what regulation are you actually going to implement? All you've said so far is ideological without any practical application in the real world.
My issue with enforcing regulation on Facebook on the basis that "our society is more important than private companies profit/loss statements" is that it opens up a can of worms to all sorts of non-sensical situations. For example, where do we stop? Are we also going to regulate Reddit, Twitter and Instagram. If we do, then what about small forums like OzBargain? What if an overseas entity refuses to comply with our regulation? Do we simply just ban them? Back to good old censorship again.
It's an uncomfortable truth, but the issue is ignorant, lazy and uninformed people. We need to address the root issue. Regulating "social media" (which I put in quotations because it's not even clear what that means) is just a band-aid on a deep problem. It won't do anything.
@p1 ama: It's already happened man, you're too late to the party. Young people live in the system, they have already been shaped by social media more than they have their local communities, or even family in a lot of cases. It's the rule now, not the exception. I wish this wasn't the case.
The only thing we can do now is catch up, and regulations on social media is the only way. You're welcome to not use it and live in a bubble, but eventually your bubble will have them coming for it, and in the future you may wish we had protected us now even if it came with the concession of giving the government more power. You still don't have to use it if they were to regulate it.
Free market capitalists such as yourself (sorry if you're not, I just gathered that from what you wrote) may find in the near future there's no free market left because we didn't put protections in.
It's already happened man, you're too late to the party. Young people live in the system, they have already been shaped by social media more than they have their local communities, or even family in a lot of cases. It's the rule now, not the exception. I wish this wasn't the case.
This validates what I said, which was, and I quote:
The reason why people can be "controlled" is not because of social media companies, but because as a society, our education system has failed in teaching people to be critical thinkers, to consider multiple sources, to do research and to not blindly just take whatever is force-fed to them.
So what exactly are you disagreeing with?
The only thing we can do now is catch up, and regulations on social media is the only way.
What exact regulations are you proposing we put in place? You can say "regulation" all you want, but that's just an ideological talking point, not something you can actually implement until you specify exactly what you wish to regulate, who you wish to regulate and how you are going to enforce it.
You're welcome to not use it and live in a bubble, but eventually your bubble will have them coming for it, and in the future you may wish we had protected us now even if it came with the concession of giving the government more power. You still don't have to use it if they were to regulate it.
That's not my point at all, my point is that even if we regulate it, the same problems will continue because the root cause is that people are mis-informed, lack critical thinking and are not seeking out multiple sources of information and doing due dilligence in their research. No amount of regulation can help this root cause.
Free market capitalists such as yourself (sorry if you're not, I just gathered that from what you wrote) may find in the near future there's no free market left because we didn't put protections in.
Hahahahahhahahahaha. This is a joke. Where did I say anything about "free market" or "capitalism". Read my post again and get off your ideological high horse.
Since when was advocating for education and for people to be more informed "free market capitalism"? Please do let me know.
By the way, if you didn't actually bother to read my post before putting labels on me, I clearly said (and I quote):
I'm not against regulations on social media companies
So yes, do keep attacking me with labels instead of addressing the argument.
@p1 ama: How sad you would chose to attack me for the position rather than see the merits. Everything I wrote is true.
I guess there really isn't a hope for us.
Oh, and the reason I wrote free market capitalist is because you flat out disagree with regulations using the 'how long is a piece of string example' (which is a free market capitalist talking point), I even apologised for it if you weren't - and you laughed and attacked me for it.
Yet after that attack you think other people are going to see that you're the person to be taken as rational and intelligent? Hrmmm.
How sad you would chose to attack me for the position rather than see the merits.
Where did I attack you? Give me a quote?
Oh, and the reason I wrote free market capitalist is because you flat out disagree with regulations using the 'how long is a piece of string example' (which is a free market capitalist talking point), I even apologised for it if you weren't - and you laughed and attacked me for it.
I clearly said (if you bothered to read it, for the second time) that I'm not opposed to regulation of social media, but that it is not the solution to the problems you are describing.
Yet after that attack you think other people are going to see that you're the person to be taken as rational and intelligent? Hrmmm.
Well you're the one who started throwing bombs, not me. Perhaps it's a little ironic, but this is exactly the sort of thing that I'm talking about. Rather than address the merits of my point, you imply that my points are not valid simply because I must be of some political leaning (which I'm not, as clearly stated by the fact that I'm not opposed to regulation on social media) as a way of simply disengaging.
I could easily label you as some authoritarian communist for wanting to nationalise social media, but did I do that? No, because I don't think that labelling people does anything and to be honest, I couldn't care less what your political beliefs are because I take it in good faith that you are actually trying to logically discuss a real problem and propose solutions. Too bad that's seemed to fly over your head.
This is quite literally what I was talking about.
Also, let me just add (since you're accusing me of using talking points), that "regulate social media" is literally a talking point. You haven't once said what regulations you actually propose.
but because as a society, our education system has failed in teaching people to be critical thinkers
Very true.
Stopped using Facebook years ago after all the privacy scandals and turning into a cesspit of garbage posts from people. It was great in mid-2000s when was focused on Uni students connecting to each other. Nowadays, life's much MUCH better without it.
I keep my account for marketplace only, and I don’t use the app.
Why should Facebook have to pay media companies that voluntarily put their links to articles on their site?
Because Facebook is a publisher whether it likes to admit it or not and has the power to influence people's views. It should be regulated.
"Regulated" means they (FB) have to pay up to the free loaders (i.e. Australian media) by the mandate of ScoMo government?
Sounds like unreasonable cash grab to me
Isn't this between Facebook and the people and the government?
And yet Australian media is the one to receive some benefit? Not the people or the government?
What does Australian media have to do with Facebook's influence on people and the regulation on publisher?
If you believe it's a publisher, isn't last week's deletion then just editorial choice?
@SBOB: This isn't Communist China. Editorial choice doesn't involve a mass ban in democracies.
Look at how much facebook makes in aus. Who cares about US tech?
Don't really care.
I think it's hilarious watching large companies squabble. Murdoch Empire vs Big Tech, I hope they both lose.
No idea why people get invested in this. They're both terrible entities.
What would you do if someone put a sticker on your car and demanded you pay them. You would rip that sticker off asap. Facebook is much better without Murdoch and News Corp.
Never had it in the first place
But who goes to stalkerbook to get news anyway?
Been off FB for years, and agree re the news. Just sensationalist and subversive crap. Goes some way to explaining the rise of Trumpism and misinformation.
no
sporting club info still posted there
never used for anything else other than entertainment
.I genuinely don't get the fuss. If anything, I'm actually enjoying FB a lot more now. I use FB to keep in contact with my friends, not to be force fed news articles and often, very silly and questionable comments that come with those news articles. It's been a relief to see all of that gone and most of my feed is now back to things that my friends are posting. In a way, it's actually more similar to Instagram now and I think that's a good thing. Twitter is already the platform for political discourse, and I generally like to keep that separate from my personal social life.
FWIW, I think this is a good thing. Facebook (and other social media platforms) should not be in the business of curating news using algorithms that are based on what a person likes and/or reads otherwise it just becomes an echo chamber where people keep reading the same news sources, hear from the same sort of people and are never presented with an opposing point of view. Also, the force feeding of news as opposed to people actually going out and seeking news and information (at least to me) is really worrying and troublesome.
Instead of begging for FB to force feed us news, we should be encouraging people to go out there and read widely. My favourite source of news is The Age/SMH (which I find to be relatively unbiased in reporting news). For opinion, I enjoy reading The Guardian (which matches up relatively well with my politics) and also sometimes The Herald Sun (I love Andrew Bolt's writing even though I vehemently disagree with him). I also read from other sources internationally, particularly the US. The Conversation is also a good source for more academically oriented topics.
A suggestion for anyone annoyed by Facebook removing news. How about you find some news sources that you like, bookmark them and make a habit of checking different sources. In regards to the removal of "emergency" posts from government sources, again, how about you find the websites of those government agencies and bookmark them too. I just don't get why everyone wants Facebook to be the centre of their world. I also have no doubt that some who already hate Facebook will find any reason to criticise them. I'm not a big Facebook user myself, so I'm not defending them, but rather, just wanting to see people be more rational.
My point is, everyone should have a variety of different sources of news and be aware of the biases and/or political leanings of each source. The entire point is to read critically and know who is writing what (e.g. when reading opinion pieces, I'll regularly Google the author to see who they are and what they've written in the past). This whole idea of having an algorithm force feed you news that you already agree with is cancer IMO and only serves to reinforce echo chambers and turn people into drones who can't think critically for themselves, who are not open to the fact that many people have different points of view and is just anti-intellectual in a really concerning way.
I know this isn't why FB banned the sharing of news and is only coincidental, but I think an important conversation needs to be had over the algorithmic pushing of news and the impact that creates on society.
Also, might I add, from the OP:
Based on recent events Facebook blocking Australians from accessing news.
This is completely bollocks - Facebook is not blocking anyone from accessing news. They are refusing to share news on their platform. How about we not make Facebook the centre of our world?
only serves to reinforce echo chambers and turn people into drones who can't think critically for themselves
It's almost like this is what Facebook wants.
Facebook (and other social media platforms) should not be in the business of curating news using algorithms that are based on what a person likes and/or reads otherwise it just becomes an echo chamber where people keep reading the same news sources, hear from the same sort of people and are never presented with an opposing point of view.
But friends or acquaintances also share things that think others might find interesting or important. Facebook just makes it easier. Search engines also give us different results. Google News is huge, Facebook probably even bigger. https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/064/988…
People only want to spend so much time reading the news.
I just don't get why everyone wants Facebook to be the centre of their world.
Convenience?
I am actually enjoying Facebook a lot more now. I say they should keep the news off it forever. I have my other sources for news and don't need it cluttering up my FB feed.
And I dont think FB did anything wrong. They are following the law which says they need to pay news providers if they carry it. They don't want to pay; so they are not going to carry it. I actually think news publishers should be paying FB if they want it to carry their news.
…. Facebook blocking Australians from accessing news.
Hmm! Facebook isn't blocking anyone from accessing the news. Everyone can access the news from the source, as anyone should. Facebook has blocked AU news outlets from its platform, since that's what Murdoch wanted. I feel sorry for the small publishers, but don't give a flying f about the Murdoch empire and its minion, ScoMo. I am not buying into their fake news outrage. They tried to bullsh!t Facebook and FB called their bluff.
Not boycotting them because again this is simply a cash grab by unsophisticated Australian news outlets. Same with Google. These news outlets are just throwing tanties the way I see it. Straya!
Facebook blocking community pages, important Government department pages was way too far but otherwise I agree with the comments above. I deactivated my Facebook account ages ago and I think it's better that people are made to source their own news information instead of what's fed to them by Facebook and their algorithms.
The Government is saying Facebook risks having only unverified/unprofessional news being circulated on it's platform, but previously it was conspiracy theories and unverified news spreading on Facebook.
So in otherwords no change except no Murdoch media. I think we can live with the changes.
Miss those times when Facebook was:
"A and B are now friends"
"C commented on D's post"I miss the days when a new iOS facebook update was released. That was always exciting. Now it's like they're up to version 162.0
Facebook can do whatever they like, people are free to choose whether they use it or not. Peoples who use Facebook as their only news source must have an IQ a couple of standard deviations below mean.
Facebook is just a place for memes
Yes Im off facebook for good now.
I get my news straight from fox/sky news direct.
Loyal employees like Frydenberg and Morrison and gonna teach this geek Suckerberg a lesson - pay your Murdoch cut or get sliced.
Go WAR.
Go team Murdoch!
Underrated satire
I dont understand people putting down others who go to facebook for their news. What is the difference between going directly to SMH website or going to their facebook page where they post links to the same news articles?
Is smh the only place you can get news?
Relying on a corporation with their own agenda for your news is daft.
Do you think facebook does anything they do for your own good?
I was just using smh as an example. All major news sources have their own official facebook page where they post their own articles. The page is run by the news company and not by facebook. I just dont see why going to their individual websites is deemed acceptable but reading the same articles on their facebook page is considered stupid.
@Mango1: People aren't going to the individual facebook pages of each "news" publisher. They are getting whatever comes to them.
I agree, there's no difference really. Very strange for people to criticise this sort of thing.
I dont understand people putting down others who go to facebook for their news.
Firstly, Facebook's algorithm does not curate news with any sort of editorial control nor with any agenda aside from feeding you what you are likely to read, like, share (i.e. what you will react positively to based on your past history).
Secondly, Facebook's algorithm is simply pushing down your throat what is controversial, sensational, things which would draw out strong reactions. This is not what news is (most news is quite boring) and does not represent accurately what is going on around the world.
When you read news from another source, that news is presented with some sort of editorial objective, whether it be tabloid sensationalism, a business-centred broadsheet, whether it is Fairfax, The Guardian, Murdoch…etc. You (should) know exactly who are the owners of each news source and their political leanings and read news with an understanding of such inherent biases.
The issue with Facebook is that it usually reduces news down to a mere headline. If you actually look at the comments on news articles on Facebook, it's obvious that most of the people have not even read the article, do not even know who wrote the article, where the article was published. They simply read the headline and then create echo chambers based on that with other people.
This way of consuming content deserves to be put down because it is uncritical, unintelligent, and most of all, just downright ignorant and lazy. Obviously I don't agree with everything I read, but the point is that I hear both points I vehemently agree and vehemently disagree with, I have the time and space to reflect and think about those ideas, I'm able to read from different and other sources.
There is a culture of holding the media accountable in Australia, whether it be Keating blocking Packer's intention of taking over Fairfax or Rudd's recent push to have an inquiry into Murdoch, the point is that mastheads are responsible for what they write. Anybody can share anything on Facebook, or any media source can just pay to push ads down people's throat and there is absolutely no editorial control nor editorial standards.
Facebook is better now with the news…. Bring it on!!!
Why do people use Facebook at all?
Reddit is where it's at!
They are the same side of the same coin.
Assuming they re-enable the gov/emergency services/bom/etc pages (and they arent categorised within the new laws as 'news') I have zero issue with them not allowing news agencies to post their content.
I still cant understand the argument for
- Media outlets maintain social media pages, and post articles/links to their news stories on their pages or facebook host their videos etc
- Users see this, as people share media outlets posts and users may or may not follow it to the media outlets actual website etcMedia outlets and the government now want facebook to
- continue to allow them posting content on their platform,
- but now facebook must pay them for this privilege?How is that a logical argument? And im totally shocked that all the mainstream media are complaining that facebook is abusing their power etc etc
I half get the basis for google, though thats just going to be the big media/news agencies able to negotiate for $ and priority in search results, meaning smaller news sources will likely be disadvantaged in the rankings.
Always despised it. Only have a fake account for competitions and on the rare occasion to get in touch with a company.
Competition is code word for stalking
Agreed, and it is worrying to be honest. Everyone is pointing their finger at Facebook without stopping to ask why Facebook blocked the news, and why they took down so many “non-news” pages.