Google message

mike14

Likes Dirt
Yesterday I was pretty much:"who cares, bring on the lulz" - but I've since changed my mind a bit.

This disproportionately affects smaller and independent news outlets, and also the community groups (especially socially disadvantaged) who (rightly or wrongly) have implemented Facebook as the way to disseminate information and support. I don't think they should be blamed for setting up with Facebook - it was the mechanism at the time and allowed to develop into what it was without much regulation.

Do I care if Facebook exists? Not really - do I care if we subsequently alienate and disadvantage people because we allowed one bully to get in the ears of our Govt and provoke a retaliation that benefits the larger news media? yup.
This is true, and it really does suck for those orgs. But FB told everyone they'd do this, and it just seems that no-one believed them, or made any contiongency plans for what to do if/when they actually did it...
 

rangersac

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Yesterday I was pretty much:"who cares, bring on the lulz" - but I've since changed my mind a bit.

This disproportionately affects smaller and independent news outlets, and also the community groups (especially socially disadvantaged) who (rightly or wrongly) have implemented Facebook as the way to disseminate information and support. I don't think they should be blamed for setting up with Facebook - it was the mechanism at the time and allowed to develop into what it was without much regulation.

Do I care if Facebook exists? Not really - do I care if we subsequently alienate and disadvantage people because we allowed one bully to get in the ears of our Govt and provoke a retaliation that benefits the larger news media? yup.
The fact that it has affected Community groups shows what a fuck up this is, as a lot of these sites are not what most reasonable people would classify as 'news'. Most genuine news media outlets/ government departments etc have stand alone websites/ apps/ comms through other distribution so I don't really see why people think because shit isn't on Facebook the sky will fall in. People who want information will find it, and preferably through a medium that isn't tuned by algorithm to cater to unconscious/ conscious (delete as appropriate) biases.
 

Stredda

Runs naked through virgin scrub
Facebook did stuff up a bit with blocking some quite random sites, some having nothing to do with news. It's put them out of favor with a lot of people because of this, and given the media a point to aim at. You notice that the big news agencies only gloss over that their own pages were blocked but put the focus on the locking of the community groups and not for profits affected. If Facebook had been a bit smarter and been more focused and just hit the big media companies, there would be nowhere near as much outrage, except from the big media companies of course :p
 

nathanm

Likes Bikes and Dirt
You can't exactly blame them for that. When you're trying to get important information out you go where the audience is.
Well actually you probably can. They started this beef, if they are so reliant upon providing information via this source then why jeopardise it? The government started this pissing contest and quickly found their stream is far less powerful.
I would tend to also believe that this also started with Murdorch wanting more money thus told the government to storm ahead with this poorly thought out plan, hoping google and facebook would just fall in line to the mighty Australian Government.

At the end of the day you play silly games you win silly prizes.
 

stirk

Burner
Isn't it a bit like asking the newspaper delivery person to pay you for the privilege of delivering your news.

Smells like Murdoch is lurking somewhere in this.
 

Mr Crudley

Wheel size expert
That’s because you have some basic critical thought abilities. By no stretch of the imagination a universal situation.
Everything you read is an opinion. What you take on board is your own choice.
The more I see, the more I can't be bothered with it and let it go.

Have to admit that the world of rubbish news sites would make it difficult for many people to figure out what is real and what isn't - especially if the computer told them so.
 

Mr Crudley

Wheel size expert
Isn't it a bit like asking the newspaper delivery person to pay you for the privilege of delivering your news.

Smells like Murdoch is lurking somewhere in this.
Absolutely, knowing that News Corp invested in MySpace once upon a time which ended up getting sunk by the FB Zuck.
This could be a loose plan B to try to regain some digital turf.
 

rangersac

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Isn't it a bit like asking the newspaper delivery person to pay you for the privilege of delivering your news.

Smells like Murdoch is lurking somewhere in this.
Except the newspaper delivery boy doesn't make a fuck tonne of advertising revenue on the side instead of minimum wage. I get that Farcebook is providing a free delivery service, but I can see the side of the argument that they are rent seekers relying on unpaid creative content of others.
 
Last edited:

Asininedrivel

Likes bikes and dirt and has no idea why
Except the newspaper delivery boy doesn't make a fuck tonne of advertising revenue on the side instead of minimum wage. I get that Farcebook is providing a free delivery service, but I can see the side of the argument that they are rent seekers relying on unpaid creative content of others.
....and making absolute boatloads selling their user's data.
 

Plankosaurus

Hydraulic Jack specialist
Except the newspaper delivery boy doesn't make a fuck tonne of advertising revenue on the side instead of minimum wage. I get that Farcebook is providing a free delivery service, but I can see the side of the argument that they are rent seekers relying on unpaid creative content of others.
I think it'd be wrong to assume that they RELY on this content. They provide a platform for people to share, they're popular and worldwide so it's in the user's interest to take advantage of the platform. If you don't like the platform and the way they operate, pick a different platform.

Facebook are the devil, no doubt. They should be paying their fair share like the rest of us plebs, also no doubt. But forcing them to pay for other people using their platform is backwards as fark, you don't call up the newspaper and tell them they need to pay you to run an ad in the paper

And while we're on tax, get the fossil fuel industry to pay up too. If you're going to chase down the tech industry, you need to do the same across the board...

Sent from my H8324 using Tapatalk
 

Asininedrivel

Likes bikes and dirt and has no idea why
And while we're on tax, get the fossil fuel industry to pay up too. If you're going to chase down the tech industry, you need to do the same across the board...
The fossil industry does pay up, it's just in a novel way via lobbying and bribing politicians rather than all that boring tax stuff.

Seriously though, I think the reason the tech giants are under scrutiny (and it's not just here, they're under the microscope in the US too) is because politicians have finally (finally) twigged at just how far reaching their monolopic powers are*

*that and Murdoch throwing a hissy fit but you get the idea
 

rangersac

Likes Bikes and Dirt
I think it'd be wrong to assume that they RELY on this content. They provide a platform for people to share, they're popular and worldwide so it's in the user's interest to take advantage of the platform. If you don't like the platform and the way they operate, pick a different platform.

Facebook are the devil, no doubt. They should be paying their fair share like the rest of us plebs, also no doubt. But forcing them to pay for other people using their platform is backwards as fark, you don't call up the newspaper and tell them they need to pay you to run an ad in the paper

And while we're on tax, get the fossil fuel industry to pay up too. If you're going to chase down the tech industry, you need to do the same across the board...

Sent from my H8324 using Tapatalk
They certainly don't rely on the Australian content, but news content makes them relevant globally, which in turn brings in the advertising $$ which runs the company. That's why they are going hard on Australia because this has global ramifications.

I'd don't disagree that it's a backwards way to tax them, but frankly if we are going to have an equitable tax system then the list is endless. Let's start with the fact I get a discount for voluntary super contributions, because I am wealthy enough to be able to make them
 

Minlak

would blow a manky old hobo for $20
Its not about Tax that is a whole other issue - Its about them paying for the news content shared on their platform - and the legislation that the Aus Govt proposed does not take into account the scope of Facebook - Because as usual the people that have no fucking idea run the policies for these things.
The problem with the proposed legislation as it stands as Facebook will be forced to pay for content linked by any user - In its current form it is an open money pit for them to allow the content to be shared.
 

Asininedrivel

Likes bikes and dirt and has no idea why
Poor Rupert will be apoplectic.

Sent from my SM-A205YN using Tapatalk
Hang on let me find the world's smallest violin it's here somewhere
 

wesdadude

Likes Dirt
Dick move by Facebook censoring such a large swathe of pages.

I'm not going to comment on the legislation because I haven't read it myself and I don't want to jump to conclusions. My understanding, however, is that it's not as simple as linking to news costs money.

I don't want to see efforts for internet regulation abanadoned or written off as Murdoch cronyism because we do have real problems.

Access to quality journalism is important for a well functioning society but it's now extremely difficult to pay for. Journalism has traditionally been ad funded but now Facebook has eaten their lunch. Why would an advertiser buy space with publishers when they can access the same people through Facebook? Publishers can't make the same effectiveness promises because they can't profile and track people anywhere near as aggresively, as hard as they may try. I don't think we can save journalism's funding through patronage. It seems like the only option they have is keeping people on their site by serving a continuous stream of tabloid crap.

Facebook has unreasonable power. You can't switch to an alternative because there is no alternative. Facebook is the only provider of their type of social media. The only choice you have is to not use that type of social media. It's not a simple choice or a free choice for many people given how culturally ingrained that type of media is. You can't start your own alternative, even Google couldn't create an alternative, they tried and failed.

Facebook has a great gatekeeping effect. It controls which news people see and which publishers get directed to. It curates echo-chambers and can wield its power against whatever it chooses, including governments. That really needs correcting.
 
Top