The proposed News Media Laws

[Tiger5150]

Facebook wins. News will be back shortly.



Golf clap...

Dogs doing stupid things better stay...

not sure if you are having a crack at me, **more simple**.

Im having a had time giving enthusiastic applause to Facebook for upholding anything resembling a principle.

 

[Geo]

Facebook wins. News will be back shortly.



Golf clap...

Dogs doing stupid things better stay...


not sure if you are having a crack at me, more simple.

Im having a had time giving enthusiastic applause to Facebook for upholding anything resembling a principle.

Not having a go at you at all..

More people that rely on FB for their news..really..

Dogs doing stupid things..for sure

 

[Tiger_Fanatic3]


 

[mike]

Facebook wins. News will be back shortly.


I don't think there was a winner? Aust Govt got the legislation past the big two techs with some tweaks. I don't expect FB would be doing deals with the publishers without some pressure.

A huge win for Facebook and the Internet. Whatever they pay won’t be based on the content that the news media corporations voluntarily post or that people link to. In addition Facebook get to decide which media companies they support, which will include the small independents. Additionally Facebook can decide if news appears on Facebook so they are not forced into negotiations by the Australian Government. Whichever way you look at it a major backdown by the Australian Government and the ACCC. The law, not yet enacted, was one of the worst ever written and there have been a few glangers in my lifetime. No doubt the spin doctors will be out in force after the announcement.

Any deal struck will likely be with advertisers rather than content, which is the way it should have been in the first place.

 

[Papacito]

PM proclaims **"WE WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED OR BULLIED"**

*backs down less than 5 days later*

 

[jirskyr]

Facebook wins. News will be back shortly.


I don't think there was a winner? Aust Govt got the legislation past the big two techs with some tweaks. I don't expect FB would be doing deals with the publishers without some pressure.

A huge win for Facebook and the Internet. Whatever they pay won’t be based on the content that the news media corporations voluntarily post or that people link to. In addition Facebook get to decide which media companies they support, which will include the small independents. Additionally Facebook can decide if news appears on Facebook so they are not forced into negotiations by the Australian Government. Whichever way you look at it a major backdown by the Australian Government and the ACCC. The law, not yet enacted, was one of the worst ever written and there have been a few glangers in my lifetime. No doubt the spin doctors will be out in force after the announcement.

Any deal struck will likely be with advertisers rather than content, which is the way it should have been in the first place.

Oh I see, you have reviewed the revised legislation then? Quoting the Facebook Vice President as the single gospel. You reckon a government totally backs down because Mark Zuckerberg pulls a stunt?

This topic is far more grey than you belligerently state.

 

[jirskyr]

Facebook wins. News will be back shortly.


I don't think there was a winner? Aust Govt got the legislation past the big two techs with some tweaks. I don't expect FB would be doing deals with the publishers without some pressure.

A huge win for Facebook and the Internet. Whatever they pay won’t be based on the content that the news media corporations voluntarily post or that people link to. In addition Facebook get to decide which media companies they support, which will include the small independents. Additionally Facebook can decide if news appears on Facebook so they are not forced into negotiations by the Australian Government. Whichever way you look at it a major backdown by the Australian Government and the ACCC. The law, not yet enacted, was one of the worst ever written and there have been a few glangers in my lifetime. No doubt the spin doctors will be out in force after the announcement.

Any deal struck will likely be with advertisers rather than content, which is the way it should have been in the first place.

Oh I see, you have reviewed the revised legislation then? Quoting the Facebook Vice President as the single gospel. You reckon a government totally backs down because Mark Zuckerberg pulls a stunt?

This topic is far more grey than you belligerently state.

In fact Facebook have just today done a deal with Seven West to pay for content, and re-entered negotiations with Nine. Funny, I thought you said it Facebook had won? Won what exactly?

 

[mike]

Facebook wins. News will be back shortly.


I don't think there was a winner? Aust Govt got the legislation past the big two techs with some tweaks. I don't expect FB would be doing deals with the publishers without some pressure.

A huge win for Facebook and the Internet. Whatever they pay won’t be based on the content that the news media corporations voluntarily post or that people link to. In addition Facebook get to decide which media companies they support, which will include the small independents. Additionally Facebook can decide if news appears on Facebook so they are not forced into negotiations by the Australian Government. Whichever way you look at it a major backdown by the Australian Government and the ACCC. The law, not yet enacted, was one of the worst ever written and there have been a few glangers in my lifetime. No doubt the spin doctors will be out in force after the announcement.

Any deal struck will likely be with advertisers rather than content, which is the way it should have been in the first place.

Oh I see, you have reviewed the revised legislation then? Quoting the Facebook Vice President as the single gospel. You reckon a government totally backs down because Mark Zuckerberg pulls a stunt?

This topic is far more grey than you belligerently state.

In fact Facebook have just today done a deal with Seven West to pay for content, and re-entered negotiations with Nine. Funny, I thought you said it Facebook had won? Won what exactly?

I never said there wouldn’t be deals made, read my post. The huge win for Facebook is the deals won’t be based on posted content and hyperlinks that the news media corporations voluntarily make and control, instead it will be around advertising shown, which Facebook controls.

Just to be clear I don’t give a rats about Facebook, Google or the Murdoch Empire for that matter. You can regulate, break them up or tax them into oblivion, I don’t care.

What I care about is Internet freedom, and in this case not charging for the base components, hyperlinks, of the World Wide Web.

 

[steve-o]

I’m with Mike, Facebook is the “winner” here. The law was revised so that FB can choose who they do deals with and they retain the right to choose whether or not news appears on their site. That puts them in a good bargaining position for these deals. So rather than the government mandating FB pay Murdoch on top of the benefits that News Ltd already gets from FB, they’re going to have to negotiate reasonable terms. Considering News Ltd benefit from being on FB, the terms are going to be a lot more favourable for FB than the original government mandate.

People have plenty of reasons to complain about Facebook - tax evasion, fake news, stifling competition etc. FB should be held to account for all of these issues. But this legislation was never the answer to resolve these issues, and thus should be adjudicated on its own merit. The political influence that News Ltd has over Australian politics is staggering, and IMO Australians should celebrate the fact that Rupert Murdoch didn’t get his way on this issue, despite all the trash published in his papers in an effort to sway public opinion against big bad Facebook.

 

[Tim Sheens]

PM proclaims **"WE WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED OR BULLIED"**

*backs down less than 5 days later*

Of course they won't :flushed: They normally perform the intimidating and bullying, especially so towards women in their own party.

The past few days showed just how much the 'news' benefited from using the platform without payment.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

A question that is equal parts serious and facetious: Is there any other industry in the world where a business provides access to a market and is required to pay those who utilise the provision of access?

The media wish to use Facebook as the vehicle to access their audience and want to be paid for that because they are missing out on advertising revenue due to their choice to use FB as an audience engagement vehicle? Jack it fellas.

Facebook and Google are by no means angels but that is just ludicrous and a bold faced grift.

The ideal outcome would be that the government ensures big tech are not engaging in tax evasion. No handouts for Murdoch, and more money in the coffers.

 

[Nelson]

A question that is equal parts serious and facetious: Is there any other industry in the world where a business provides access to a market and is required to pay those who utilise the provision of access?

The media wish to use Facebook as the vehicle to access their audience and want to be paid for that because they are missing out on advertising revenue due to their choice to use FB as an audience engagement vehicle? Jack it fellas.

Facebook and Google are by no means angels but that is just ludicrous and a bold faced grift.

Yes those kinds of arrangements exist where facilitators who provide access to a market will pay for supply into that market in order to meet demand (and get a larger % commission). All kinds of strange arrangements spring up where it is commercially viable for both parties.

One of the issues that they are trying to address with this legislation is (I think) that the arrangements between the digital platforms and the news providers are plainly in the commercial interests of both parties, however the digital platforms are perceived as having disproportionate bargaining power (i.e. they are anti-competitive).

 

[the_third]

@steve-o said in [The proposed News Media Laws](/post/1306983):
The political influence that News Ltd has over Australian politics is staggering, and IMO Australians should celebrate the fact that Rupert Murdoch didn’t get his way on this issue, despite all the trash published in his papers in an effort to sway public opinion against big bad Facebook.

Micheal Miller has been petitioning the govt to get these laws in place for quite some time. To say Murdoch didn’t get his way is not true (in a political sense)

That he is yet to strike a deal is hilarious though.

 

[cktiger]

A question that is equal parts serious and facetious: Is there any other industry in the world where a business provides access to a market and is required to pay those who utilise the provision of access?

The media wish to use Facebook as the vehicle to access their audience and want to be paid for that because they are missing out on advertising revenue due to their choice to use FB as an audience engagement vehicle? Jack it fellas.

Facebook and Google are by no means angels but that is just ludicrous and a bold faced grift.

The ideal outcome would be that the government ensures big tech are not engaging in tax evasion. No handouts for Murdoch, and more money in the coffers.

The problem is if Facebook (and others) never pay towards the news media they access then it will dry up until it dies.
Traditional media has lost its advertising revenue and will eventually be unable to keep journalists on their payrolls.
People complaining about the standards of journalism now will be more horrified if we end up with The Daily Facebook News.

 

[jirskyr]

A question that is equal parts serious and facetious: Is there any other industry in the world where a business provides access to a market and is required to pay those who utilise the provision of access?

The media wish to use Facebook as the vehicle to access their audience and want to be paid for that because they are missing out on advertising revenue due to their choice to use FB as an audience engagement vehicle? Jack it fellas.

Facebook and Google are by no means angels but that is just ludicrous and a bold faced grift.

Yes those kinds of arrangements exist where facilitators who provide access to a market will pay for supply into that market in order to meet demand (and get a larger % commission). All kinds of strange arrangements spring up where it is commercially viable for both parties.

One of the issues that they are trying to address with this legislation is (I think) that the arrangements between the digital platforms and the news providers are plainly in the commercial interests of both parties, however the digital platforms are perceived as having disproportionate bargaining power (i.e. they are anti-competitive).

I raised Television as an example, was told by some posters it was totally unrelated. I still fail to see how it's unrelated.

Television, radio, streaming services, cinemas, bookstores stores etc. etc. They are all platforms that exist to provide a conduit for content to consumers, and they have a financial arrangement with the content providers whilst picking up revenues via their platform.

The difference between these services and Facebook is that Facebook has a much broader array of content types. Facebook also has a monopoly on Western social media by virtue of also owning Instagram and whatsapp.

Television may seem a silly example in modern context, but cast back to the 1970s where if you wanted your show to reach consumers you had no alternative but to reach an arrangement with a broadcaster. The upside for copyright holders was that broadcasters needed content and didn't have to be cajoled into reaching financial arrangements.

Facebook is a different beast, because it started out only being a social sharing platform, and your average social user doesn't care about Facebook taking advertising revenues. But every year Facebook slips more and more content into its service - news, programming, gaming, classifieds etc. Just because Facebook has heavily diversified its content does not mean it gets to wipe away any financial obligation to that content.

This legislation is only about news, but imagine if 100% of news content was removed from Facebook. Then imagine removing the entertainment programming, classifieds, games etc. Facebook ends up back to being a game of "hot or not" on a college campus. I don't even think many users use Facebook for strictly social purposes any longer, it's mixed media.

Goes back to @mike's comment, about the internet being free and unshackled. Actually the internet is generally not free, it is managed by a web of gatekeepers who charge for the privilege of providing access to the network. At the fundamental level this means telecoms and ISPs who have to maintain the equipment that services the internet, then tech platforms who control access to content. It didn't used to matter when social media was fledgling and there were 10 different popular search engines.

 

[jirskyr]

The political influence that News Ltd has over Australian politics is staggering, and IMO Australians should celebrate the fact that Rupert Murdoch didn’t get his way on this issue, despite all the trash published in his papers in an effort to sway public opinion against big bad Facebook.

I'm no News Ltd fan, but you are slagging off Rupert Murdoch when Zuckerberg just flicked the switch on all Australian news on Facebook in a show of force.

Sure Murdoch uses his media to wage self-interest campaigns, and that's why I don't read News Ltd news, but he'd never dare - or even have the capacity to - simply shut off all news access in protest to government activity.

More staggering is the influence that Facebook has in Australian politics, and at the very least Rupert Murdoch used to be an Australian, so you can at least understand his vested interest in Australian media law. But when's the last time Murdoch had a series of personal phone calls with the Prime Minister and Treasurer of Australia, to reach an agreement on legislation? When is the last time Rupert Murdoch issued direct and uncouched missives to users of his platform to lobby against government legislation (which Google and Facebook have both done).

You fear the wrong reaper!!! Rupert Murdoch will be dead within 10-20 years and his empire will likely splinter as it has already been doing for the last decade. Mark Zuckerberg is 36 years old and his companies have had nothing but continuous up-trajectory of financial clout and political influence.

 

[steve-o]

We fundamentally disagree on who is the bigger evil here. It is Murdoch by a country mile for mine. His tentacles have been all over Australian politics and public opinion for decades, and he has a particular interest in controlling affairs in Australia and the UK where he has a disgustingly large market share of media. Facebook doesn’t give a stuff about Australia, other than the fact it doesn’t want precedents to be set here that other governments could follow. Just like every other multinational company that operates worldwide, Australia is such a small piece of the pie, that if doing business hear becomes too difficult, they would simply pull the pin. That’s what FBs move was... “oh you want us to pay for news on our site that already benefits the news company? Ok, we’ll stop providing that news on our platform”. The same thing with pharmaceuticals... the US is starting to use pricing in countries such as Australia as a reference for US pricing, so if the TGA pushes for prices that would bring down the US price, Pharmaceutical companies will say “OK, Aus market is tiny, we won’t sell there so we can keep the lucrative prices in our largest market”.
My point is, Facebook is influencing politics in this instance because politicians (influenced by Murdoch) are coming after them. They are sticking up for themselves. Otherwise, FB couldn’t care less about Australian politics! Murdoch on the other hand, is a greedy cancer who’s using his cronies to put more money in his pocket.

Agree to disagree.

 

[jirskyr]

Facebook doesn’t give a stuff about Australia, other than the fact it doesn’t want precedents to be set here that other governments could follow.

If Facebook doesn't give a stuff, why didn't they and Google just withdraw completely instead of just shutting things down for a few days? The fact that FB came back to the table means they do care.

Where there is a buck to be made, multinationals will make the effort. Amazon Australia is a drop in the ocean for Amazon Global, and they took their sweet time opening operations here, but they opened nonetheless.

Secondary to this, where global market dominance is the aim of these BigTechs, they don't want to be withdrawing from markets. In fact I'd hazard a guess that they'd cop financial losses in order to maintain a dominant global footprint.

For example the company I work for, they are a multinational based in Europe, and there are very profitable offices and unprofitable offices. But we maintain a global presence even in the jurisdictions where we run at a loss, so we can compete in global market share. It also means we can advertise our global presence to customers. Eventually we may even turn a profit in all locales despite initial hurdles or relatively small margins. Facebook doesn't want to start having to tell their customers that they are "Number one social media platform in 47 countries and Top 5 in the rest!"

 

[steve-o]

Facebook put the news sites back up because the government relented and adjusted the legislation to meet Facebooks demands. As I said in my initial post, Facebook is the “winner” here. Of course multinationals will make a profit where a profit is to be made. The Pharm example is to show that multinationals are not going to sacrifice profits in larger markets for a market the size of Australia. Point was, for FB the initial legislation wouldn’t make financial sense, so they called the government’s bluff, said “we’re fine with no news on FB in Aus”, and brought the government back to the negotiating table to adjust the legislation.

 

[steve-o]

Also Jirskyr, if you want to only quote part of a long post, that’s fine. But include the entire context of what you’re quoting. For example, you quoted my line about FB not giving a stuff about Australia. Outside of context, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. The sentence before that, I was talking about the influence that Murdoch has over Australian politics and public opinion. Thus my sentence about FB was in comparison to that. Context.

It should not be difficult to have a respectable debate about differing opinions.