The proposed News Media Laws

[balmain boy]

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.

People don't read news on Facebook, they read it on the media outlet's homepage. From which they make revenue.

Traditional media should be trying to compete with Gumtree and ebay but they got lazy in the 90s and are suffering the consequences now.

 

[jirskyr]

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.

Sorry I didn't mean to insinuate anything, I was just quoting a particular line or argument you made. I wasn't interested in your Pharma example as I haven't done the research to validate your comment. I also wasn't responding to the Murdoch commentary which you weaved throughout the post. If I misunderstood the link between multiple arguments, sorry that's just how it reads to me.

Honestly I don't see that it matters, there are only a handful of people - at most - reading what you or I are saying. I'm responding to you and you know the context of what you said. Anyone who cares enough can go back and read the preceding comments?

Your last two posts didn't quote me at all, I had to assume you were responding to me and extrapolate which of my comments you were referencing?

 

[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.

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.

Adapt or die. Neoliberalism 101.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

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.

Murdoch cannot shut off news. It's his conduit to advertising dollars. Facebook is also not a news service.

And not only would Murdoch not switch off news, he'd would go further and run an epic hatchet job on the government until they were voted out or caved in.

 

[Saturnalia]

I can't wait to receive my share of the ad revenue that this forum generates because of my content.

 

[jirskyr]

Facebook is also not a news service.

Well, yes it is now. It has a dedicated News service - Facebook News - and now revenue shares with some traditional news media to deliver content.

Honestly, I look at my Facebook feed and it's substantially news, even though I don't subscribe to any traditional news media like Fairfax or News Ltd, I get science news, I get rugby league news from NRL; I get music and entertainment news. Gaming news and reviews. Facebook doesn't generate much of its own content but surely, it's a service that delivers news to me?

Or is a platform no longer a service? Is Facebook an advertiser, or does it just permit ads to use its platform, for a fee?

 

[steve-o]

Facebook is not predominantly a news service. FB the company is in tech, and FB the platform is a social network that allows users to share pictures, videos, music, articles (including news), thoughts and opinions. News is a part of it, but not its core business like News Corp. So FB can shutoff news knowing that it’s only a small part of its business, and there are other News organisations that can provide that service. Murdoch wouldn’t ever shutoff news because that is his core business. As Cultured Bogan said, Murdoch would just run a hatchet job until the government was voted out or they caved to his demands.

 

[mike]

Anyone who thinks that the revenue from these media deals is going to go to journalists or that it will improve journalist quality is extremely naive. The click bait era is here. IMO, in terms of journalism, it is likely to get worse as now news media corporations have a source of income that is not tied to keeping or attracting readers, it’s a ready made captive audience. Most of the revenue will go to boost profits and ultimately to shareholders. Very little will actually trickle down to journalist or editors.

 

[Geo]

Click bait only becomes click bait if you click on it..

 

[Papacito]

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.

What's the bet they were bullied by the Aussie media mafia for securing them two-thirds of bugger all?

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Anyone who thinks that the revenue from these media deals is going to go to journalists or that it will improve journalist quality is extremely naive. The click bait era is here. IMO, in terms of journalism, it is likely to get worse as now news media corporations have a source of income that is not tied to keeping or attracting readers, it’s a ready made captive audience. Most of the revenue will go to boost profits and ultimately to shareholders. Very little will actually trickle down to journalist or editors.

Yeah it's just targeted corporate welfare to keep a LNP benefactor happy.

 

[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.

Adapt or die. Neoliberalism 101.

In a way they have with their own online sites.
Doesn't help when a company like Facebook steals your content without cost.

 

[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.

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.

Adapt or die. Neoliberalism 101.

In a way they have with their own online sites.
Doesn't help when a company like Facebook steals your content without cost.

They don't steal it. The news outlets actively distribute their news through Facebook in order to reach a bigger audience. They want to have to be able to have a bigger reach and be paid for it. Maybe Facebook should charge media outlets for access to their platform?

 

[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.

Adapt or die. Neoliberalism 101.

In a way they have with their own online sites.
Doesn't help when a company like Facebook steals your content without cost.

They don't steal it. The news outlets actively distribute their news through Facebook in order to reach a bigger audience. They want to have to be able to have a bigger reach and be paid for it. Maybe Facebook should charge media outlets for access to their platform?

Well, Facebook will soon have to pay for it.
Not sure of all the negativity towards traditional media, maybe it's the hatred towards Murdoch.
Anyone who thinks he has more influence than Zuckerberg has their head buried.

 

[TillLindemann]

Anyone who thinks that the revenue from these media deals is going to go to journalists or that it will improve journalist quality is extremely naive. The click bait era is here. IMO, in terms of journalism, it is likely to get worse as now news media corporations have a source of income that is not tied to keeping or attracting readers, it’s a ready made captive audience. Most of the revenue will go to boost profits and ultimately to shareholders. Very little will actually trickle down to journalist or editors.

Yeah it's just targeted corporate welfare to keep a LNP benefactor happy.

I hate Murdoch as much as anyone (and of course the LNP is cosy with him) but the idea that this has been done for Murdoch is naïve. Google and facebook have pumped big sums of money into campaigning against this, and given Murdoch's unpopularity, it is not surprising this is the narrative their marketers have been pushing.

This was instigated by the ACCC, not the government, and it has the backing of Labor. And governments across the world are looking to emulate it, including a left-leaning Canadian government and left-leaning governments in Europe.

 

[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.

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.

Adapt or die. Neoliberalism 101.

In a way they have with their own online sites.
Doesn't help when a company like Facebook steals your content without cost.

They don't steal it. The news outlets actively distribute their news through Facebook in order to reach a bigger audience. They want to have to be able to have a bigger reach and be paid for it. Maybe Facebook should charge media outlets for access to their platform?

Well, Facebook will soon have to pay for it.
Not sure of all the negativity towards traditional media, maybe it's the hatred towards Murdoch.
Anyone who thinks he has more influence than Zuckerberg has their head buried.

Clearly they don't, and they don't like that.

 

[voice_of_reason]

They don't steal it. The news outlets actively distribute their news through Facebook in order to reach a bigger audience. They want to have to be able to have a bigger reach and be paid for it.

This is it in a nutshell.

Media companies use Facebook for traffic back to their websites because Facebook and Google have 'stolen' most of the advertising dollars which keep traditional media afloat. If Facebook provided a way for companies to monetise their content it would never have gotten to this point.

It's important to remember that Facebook, Google, Youtube and Instagram aren't content creators - they're just aggregators. FB only exists because people willingly give their content for free. That's fine for cute cats but if people want to see real news they need media companies to survive.

Both sides need to be slapped around the heads until they come up with a workable solution - preferably without Government interference. They both want to 'win' but it should be about collaboration.

What they should be aiming for is a symbiotic relationship similar to what Apple have with their developers. Apple provides a platform (the App store) and any registered developer can sell through it. The developer gets 30% and Apple gets 70% for providing a staggeringly expansive platform for selling - a far greater market than any small (or even large) software company could hope to garner.

Developers (of which I'm one) whinged about this until the dollars started rolling in. There's a lot of highly successful small developers out there who've made a motza while Apple kept 70%

Apple have done the same thing with Music and films. Don't forget they also have Apple News - a platform where publishers can publish their stories and Apple provide the advertising (the publisher gets 30% of the revenue). If the publisher provides their own ads they get 100% of the revenue.

I think the entire fracas is because Facebook wants to start Facebook News but don't want to relinquish any of the profits. Facebook needs media companies for legitimate news and the media companies need FB for the platform. If both sides were fair dinkum they'd come to an acceptable figure and get on with it. A side benefit is we'd have better quality news.

 

[twentyforty]

IMHO Facebooks core business is collecting consumers and profiling them with the view of selling access to a qualified group of consumers depending on what it is you’re selling. It acts as intermediary , while guarding its valuable consumers from open access by its customers, the sellers. Facebook has amassed its 2.2b consumers through providing news in its various forms. It needs news for consumer recruitment and retention but it is not its core business.

 

[hobbo1]

They don't steal it. The news outlets actively distribute their news through Facebook in order to reach a bigger audience. They want to have to be able to have a bigger reach and be paid for it.

This is it in a nutshell.

Media companies use Facebook for traffic back to their websites because Facebook and Google have 'stolen' most of the advertising dollars which keep traditional media afloat. If Facebook provided a way for companies to monetise their content it would never have gotten to this point.

It's important to remember that Facebook, Google, Youtube and Instagram aren't content creators - they're just aggregators. FB only exists because people willingly give their content for free. That's fine for cute cats but if people want to see real news they need media companies to survive.

Both sides need to be slapped around the heads until they come up with a workable solution - preferably without Government interference. They both want to 'win' but it should be about collaboration.

What they should be aiming for is a symbiotic relationship similar to what Apple have with their developers. Apple provides a platform (the App store) and any registered developer can sell through it. The developer gets 30% and Apple gets 70% for providing a staggeringly expansive platform for selling - a far greater market than any small (or even large) software company could hope to garner.

Developers (of which I'm one) whinged about this until the dollars started rolling in. There's a lot of highly successful small developers out there who've made a motza while Apple kept 70%

Apple have done the same thing with Music and films. Don't forget they also have Apple News - a platform where publishers can publish their stories and Apple provide the advertising (the publisher gets 30% of the revenue). If the publisher provides their own ads they get 100% of the revenue.

I think the entire fracas is because Facebook wants to start Facebook News but don't want to relinquish any of the profits. Facebook needs media companies for legitimate news and the media companies need FB for the platform. If both sides were fair dinkum they'd come to an acceptable figure and get on with it. A side benefit is we'd have better quality news.

If you want to read “real news” just download the news apps ..simple

 

[mike]

IMHO Facebooks core business is collecting consumers and profiling them with the view of selling access to a qualified group of consumers depending on what it is you’re selling. It acts as intermediary , while guarding its valuable consumers from open access by its customers, the sellers. Facebook has amassed its 2.2b consumers through providing news in its various forms. It needs news for consumer recruitment and retention but it is not its core business.

Umm, Facebook hasn’t amassed 2.2b people by providing news. That’s a fallacy. Facebook doesn’t need news at all. Facebook has amassed 2.2b people by providing a platform were the people (users) are the content. It enables people to interact with each other. Users are able to share their lives, interests, stories and views with each other, that’s why there are 2.2b users. News is something the news media corporations put on Facebook voluntarily to reach a greater audience.