The proposed News Media Laws

[happy_tiger]

You could all just buy a newspaper ....shock horror

I know its Qld happy but unless your 70+ no one buys a newspaper - edit 30 + for Qld.

Well you could use about 4 other news sources ....but lets make a huge drama over facebook ......

 

[swag_tiger]

It's the comeback of MySpace.

 

[Gazza88]

So you think it’s fair that Facebook makes billions through their advertising...for providing content paid for by other (real) organisations?

 

[Leck]

I don't know, there's a lot of neg / anti-media commentary in this thread so far.

Putting aside your personal opinion on media ownership in Australia, I can understand where the government is coming from. Tech firms like Google and Facebook are themselves monopolies and at this time it's not realistic for a media outlet to avoid major online portals / distribution mechanisms to distribute their content.

Google and Facebook generate a tonne of revenue by selling ads on content created and distributed by media companies. Google and FB do nothing except provide a platform. It makes sense that both parties should enter into revenue-sharing agreements, where one group is providing the content and another is providing the platform.

It's a similar situation to Youtube, though youtube has a pre-existing arrangement with content providers. Clearly without content youtube is pointless, but without youtube (or similar) it's near impossible for fledgling content providers to distribute material.

So if Sydney Morning Herald posts content on youtube, so long as it meets the youtube guidelines (in itself a separate controversy) then they revenue share with the platform.

But at the moment, if Facebook does the same thing - permit the SMH to post articles on their FB page, FB does not have to provide a cut on the ad revenue they subsequently take.

I don't see it overall as being a bad move, and it appears to be something governments across the world are leaning towards - e.g. recent media deals along these lines in Germany and France. I'm not a legislation or media expert so I won't offer comment on the actual laws that get passed.


Yes Google and Facebook, as do news media, generate revenue by selling advertisements. That’s the business model. I am totally against the idea that platforms should share revenue with any company that decides to post a comment or publish a story on their platform. The media company has a choice not to do so. It is the media companies that have failed here. They have lost revenue to various sources including eBay, Gumtree carsales etc, as I have mentioned earlier and they have never figured out a way to get it back. Their paywall model simply won’t cut it any more. Because the news media have failed to come to grips with the World Wide Web and their loss of revenue to other sites, should the news media be able to siphon off profits from companies that do understand how the World Wide Web works? No.

If the news media posts a comment on a particular platform there is no way they should receive any benefit for doing so, other than the exposure they receive. The reverse, news media writing stories about Facebook or Google, certainly would not be true. News media is a protected species. It is entirely media companies’ choice to post on a platform or not, no one is making them post. Think about this for a moment. If I post something of Facebook, say a poem or short story, should I receive a share of any revenue generated? No, it’s my choice to post.

Let’s look at the overall digital transmission of information. ISP’s receive revenue based on the plan you have, usually based on how much data used. So the analogy would be they should share their revenue with news media simply because articles are transmitted via the ISP to the consumer. Because the consumer needs a plan that generates revenue for the ISPs, ISP’s should share a portion of that revenue with the News Media based on the number of articles transmitted to the consumer. It’s a ridiculous idea, just as the proposed revenue sharing idea is with Facebook and Google.

These laws are bad, very bad and I cannot stress that enough. They pave the way for charging for links and the freedom that we currently have will be gone. The fundamental principle of the World Wide Web is that linking of sites is free, these laws terminate that principle. Having to pay to host a link is the exact opposite of how the World Wide Web has worked since it’s implementation.

If this model is extrapolated to use elsewhere, there will be two versions of the World Wide Web, one for those that can afford to pay and one for those that can’t and the digital divide will be huge, apartheid like.

The internet is still the wild west that needs to evolve very quickly.

However my concern is FB's monopoly. They decided to use algorithms to shut down health and social services and block Australian content unnecessarily .

That's an issue. At least Google came to the table and were willing to discuss a fair price.

 

[cochise]

So you think it’s fair that Facebook makes billions through their advertising...for providing content paid for by other (real) organisations?

It depends, as I said I don't use facebook. If the media organisations are choosing to post on facebook to generate traffic then I don't see why facebook should have to pay. If facebook is allowing 3rd party users to post content from those site to facebook independent of the media organisation then I can't see the argument for facebook revenue sharing.

How does it work, is it the media organisations posting to facebook or other users and facebook posting these articles?

 

[Leck]

So you think it’s fair that Facebook makes billions through their advertising...for providing content paid for by other (real) organisations?

Absolutely not, read my original post again.

 

[hobbo1]

I’m still waiting for the government’s Medicare app to work 😂

 

[hobbo1]

So you think it’s fair that Facebook makes billions through their advertising...for providing content paid for by other (real) organisations?

It depends, as I said I don't use facebook. If the media organisations are choosing to post on facebook to generate traffic then I don't see why facebook should have to pay. If facebook is allowing 3rd party users to post content from those site to facebook independent of the media organisation then I can't see the argument for facebook revenue sharing.

How does it work, is it the media organisations posting to facebook or other users and facebook posting these articles?

Do you use Tik Tok ?

 

[cochise]

So you think it’s fair that Facebook makes billions through their advertising...for providing content paid for by other (real) organisations?

It depends, as I said I don't use facebook. If the media organisations are choosing to post on facebook to generate traffic then I don't see why facebook should have to pay. If facebook is allowing 3rd party users to post content from those site to facebook independent of the media organisation then I can't see the argument for facebook revenue sharing.

How does it work, is it the media organisations posting to facebook or other users and facebook posting these articles?

Do you use Tik Tok ?

Only to show off my dancing skills.

 

[diedpretty]

I hate to bring this up but i will :stuck_out_tongue: - this whole argument is so much like the crypto argument - the revolt against the changing of the guard - i'm 68 so have seen quite a lot of change socially - i have lived through men on the moon, assassinated presidents, black power numerous times, woodstock, indigenous land rights, Gough Whitlam and the golden age of Australia, the demise of rock bands for digital music, vinyl ( records) to cd to streaming and back to vinyl ( records ), Pounds shillings pence to dollars and cents. And you go yea another crazy poster on this forum - maybe but my point is the world as we know it changes and these days it changes exponentially faster than it ever did in my younger days. You can whack a tax on a massive multinational and hope they pay it but in the end you're at their mercy as to what they do. Digital platforms are ruling what happens in the world at the moment. I was amazed that Google did a deal - and i suspect Facebook will do a deal as well. But in the end who is going to win.

 

[mike]

I don't know, there's a lot of neg / anti-media commentary in this thread so far.

Putting aside your personal opinion on media ownership in Australia, I can understand where the government is coming from. Tech firms like Google and Facebook are themselves monopolies and at this time it's not realistic for a media outlet to avoid major online portals / distribution mechanisms to distribute their content.

Google and Facebook generate a tonne of revenue by selling ads on content created and distributed by media companies. Google and FB do nothing except provide a platform. It makes sense that both parties should enter into revenue-sharing agreements, where one group is providing the content and another is providing the platform.

It's a similar situation to Youtube, though youtube has a pre-existing arrangement with content providers. Clearly without content youtube is pointless, but without youtube (or similar) it's near impossible for fledgling content providers to distribute material.

So if Sydney Morning Herald posts content on youtube, so long as it meets the youtube guidelines (in itself a separate controversy) then they revenue share with the platform.

But at the moment, if Facebook does the same thing - permit the SMH to post articles on their FB page, FB does not have to provide a cut on the ad revenue they subsequently take.

I don't see it overall as being a bad move, and it appears to be something governments across the world are leaning towards - e.g. recent media deals along these lines in Germany and France. I'm not a legislation or media expert so I won't offer comment on the actual laws that get passed.


Yes Google and Facebook, as do news media, generate revenue by selling advertisements. That’s the business model. I am totally against the idea that platforms should share revenue with any company that decides to post a comment or publish a story on their platform. The media company has a choice not to do so. It is the media companies that have failed here. They have lost revenue to various sources including eBay, Gumtree carsales etc, as I have mentioned earlier and they have never figured out a way to get it back. Their paywall model simply won’t cut it any more. Because the news media have failed to come to grips with the World Wide Web and their loss of revenue to other sites, should the news media be able to siphon off profits from companies that do understand how the World Wide Web works? No.

If the news media posts a comment on a particular platform there is no way they should receive any benefit for doing so, other than the exposure they receive. The reverse, news media writing stories about Facebook or Google, certainly would not be true. News media is a protected species. It is entirely media companies’ choice to post on a platform or not, no one is making them post. Think about this for a moment. If I post something of Facebook, say a poem or short story, should I receive a share of any revenue generated? No, it’s my choice to post.

Let’s look at the overall digital transmission of information. ISP’s receive revenue based on the plan you have, usually based on how much data used. So the analogy would be they should share their revenue with news media simply because articles are transmitted via the ISP to the consumer. Because the consumer needs a plan that generates revenue for the ISPs, ISP’s should share a portion of that revenue with the News Media based on the number of articles transmitted to the consumer. It’s a ridiculous idea, just as the proposed revenue sharing idea is with Facebook and Google.

These laws are bad, very bad and I cannot stress that enough. They pave the way for charging for links and the freedom that we currently have will be gone. The fundamental principle of the World Wide Web is that linking of sites is free, these laws terminate that principle. Having to pay to host a link is the exact opposite of how the World Wide Web has worked since it’s implementation.

If this model is extrapolated to use elsewhere, there will be two versions of the World Wide Web, one for those that can afford to pay and one for those that can’t and the digital divide will be huge, apartheid like.

The internet is still the wild west that needs to evolve very quickly.

However my concern is FB's monopoly. They decided to use algorithms to shut down health and social services and block Australian content unnecessarily .

That's an issue. At least Google came to the table and were willing to discuss a fair price.

The Internet is about 20-30 years old and continuously evolving. All without an owner or government intervention. It is a remarkable cooperative effort for and by the people and governments need to keep their mits off it.

Facebook were given an ultimatum by the Australian government in the way of a new rule, pay up or you will be breaking the new rule. Facebook took the only course of action they could and shut-down the news sites so they didn't break the new rule. No great surprise.

The benefit of news media publishing on Facebook is all in the news media direction. It gives them exposure and free traffic to their sites.

The Australian Government got it completely wrong in this instance. No great surprise really when it comes to tech, the NLP have form in this area.

 

[swag_tiger]

Why should Facebook pay for companies to post articles on the platform. they are not the ones posting them on there. If anything the people who post them should pay the media companies.

 

[cochise]

Why should Facebook pay for companies to post articles on the platform. they are not the ones posting them on there. If anything the people who post them should pay the media companies.

Genuine question, is it just links being provided to the news articles on the media organisations sites or is it full articles being posted on facebook?

 

[hobbo1]

I don't know, there's a lot of neg / anti-media commentary in this thread so far.

Putting aside your personal opinion on media ownership in Australia, I can understand where the government is coming from. Tech firms like Google and Facebook are themselves monopolies and at this time it's not realistic for a media outlet to avoid major online portals / distribution mechanisms to distribute their content.

Google and Facebook generate a tonne of revenue by selling ads on content created and distributed by media companies. Google and FB do nothing except provide a platform. It makes sense that both parties should enter into revenue-sharing agreements, where one group is providing the content and another is providing the platform.

It's a similar situation to Youtube, though youtube has a pre-existing arrangement with content providers. Clearly without content youtube is pointless, but without youtube (or similar) it's near impossible for fledgling content providers to distribute material.

So if Sydney Morning Herald posts content on youtube, so long as it meets the youtube guidelines (in itself a separate controversy) then they revenue share with the platform.

But at the moment, if Facebook does the same thing - permit the SMH to post articles on their FB page, FB does not have to provide a cut on the ad revenue they subsequently take.

I don't see it overall as being a bad move, and it appears to be something governments across the world are leaning towards - e.g. recent media deals along these lines in Germany and France. I'm not a legislation or media expert so I won't offer comment on the actual laws that get passed.


Yes Google and Facebook, as do news media, generate revenue by selling advertisements. That’s the business model. I am totally against the idea that platforms should share revenue with any company that decides to post a comment or publish a story on their platform. The media company has a choice not to do so. It is the media companies that have failed here. They have lost revenue to various sources including eBay, Gumtree carsales etc, as I have mentioned earlier and they have never figured out a way to get it back. Their paywall model simply won’t cut it any more. Because the news media have failed to come to grips with the World Wide Web and their loss of revenue to other sites, should the news media be able to siphon off profits from companies that do understand how the World Wide Web works? No.

If the news media posts a comment on a particular platform there is no way they should receive any benefit for doing so, other than the exposure they receive. The reverse, news media writing stories about Facebook or Google, certainly would not be true. News media is a protected species. It is entirely media companies’ choice to post on a platform or not, no one is making them post. Think about this for a moment. If I post something of Facebook, say a poem or short story, should I receive a share of any revenue generated? No, it’s my choice to post.

Let’s look at the overall digital transmission of information. ISP’s receive revenue based on the plan you have, usually based on how much data used. So the analogy would be they should share their revenue with news media simply because articles are transmitted via the ISP to the consumer. Because the consumer needs a plan that generates revenue for the ISPs, ISP’s should share a portion of that revenue with the News Media based on the number of articles transmitted to the consumer. It’s a ridiculous idea, just as the proposed revenue sharing idea is with Facebook and Google.

These laws are bad, very bad and I cannot stress that enough. They pave the way for charging for links and the freedom that we currently have will be gone. The fundamental principle of the World Wide Web is that linking of sites is free, these laws terminate that principle. Having to pay to host a link is the exact opposite of how the World Wide Web has worked since it’s implementation.

If this model is extrapolated to use elsewhere, there will be two versions of the World Wide Web, one for those that can afford to pay and one for those that can’t and the digital divide will be huge, apartheid like.

The internet is still the wild west that needs to evolve very quickly.

However my concern is FB's monopoly. They decided to use algorithms to shut down health and social services and block Australian content unnecessarily .

That's an issue. At least Google came to the table and were willing to discuss a fair price.

The Internet is about 20-30 years old and continuously evolving. All without an owner or government intervention. It is a remarkable cooperative effort for and by the people and governments need to keep their mits off it.

Facebook were given an ultimatum by the Australian government in the way of a new rule, pay up or you will be breaking the new rule. Facebook took the only course of action they could and shut-down the news sites so they didn't break the new rule. No great surprise.

The benefit of news media publishing on Facebook is all in the news media direction. It gives them exposure and free traffic to their sites.

The Australian Government got it completely wrong in this instance. No great surprise really when it comes to tech, the NLP have form in this area.

Exactly..
scomo and his cronies need Facebook more than Facebook need scomo .
The Australian government has painted themselves into a corner with this one as I can’t see Facebook backing down tbh .

 

[swag_tiger]

Why should Facebook pay for companies to post articles on the platform. they are not the ones posting them on there. If anything the people who post them should pay the media companies.

Genuine question, is it just links being provided to the news articles on the media organisations sites or is it full articles being posted on facebook?

Mostly links sent by groups or pages. E.g. the page posts a 7news article so 7news expect Facebook to pay for the posted article. Facebook had no say wether the link was posted.

 

[cochise]

Why should Facebook pay for companies to post articles on the platform. they are not the ones posting them on there. If anything the people who post them should pay the media companies.

Genuine question, is it just links being provided to the news articles on the media organisations sites or is it full articles being posted on facebook?

Mostly links sent by groups or pages. E.g. the page posts a 7news article so 7news expect Facebook to pay for the posted article. Facebook had no say wether the link was posted.

Well they do have a say, they have shown that today, but thanks I understand that better now.

 

[mike]

Why should Facebook pay for companies to post articles on the platform. they are not the ones posting them on there. If anything the people who post them should pay the media companies.

Genuine question, is it just links being provided to the news articles on the media organisations sites or is it full articles being posted on facebook?

Both. For Google it is links as a result of a search. For Facebook it is the news media pages that actually publish their own articles on Facebook, then usually linking back to their website.

However in the law there is no definition of what news is. So for Facebook it becomes very murky on what are news pages and what pages are not. Likewise for Google what are links to actual news.

 

[BAGNF05]

They’re losing money because they employ imbo’s like Buzz and too many leftie do gooders who want to take trophies off kids. Haven’t paid for news in years because it’s just wah wah wah. don’t blame big tech.

 

[cochise]

Why should Facebook pay for companies to post articles on the platform. they are not the ones posting them on there. If anything the people who post them should pay the media companies.

Genuine question, is it just links being provided to the news articles on the media organisations sites or is it full articles being posted on facebook?

Both. For Google it is links as a result of a search. For Facebook it is the news media pages that actually publish their own articles on Facebook, then usually linking back to their website.

However in the law there is no definition of what news is. So for Facebook it becomes very murky on what are pages news and what pages are not. Likewise for Google what are links to actual news.

I don't think they should have to pay if the news organisations are posting the articles themselves, that just becomes a way of generating revenue by posting content. If articles are being posted as a way of circumventing the media organisations copyright then that is a different story.

I guess the algorithms that determine what content shows up in people's news feed needs to be considered as well.

 

[Geo]

Umm..I never ever click a news link on facebook...just scroll on by..same as facebook suggesting I play hero wars...scroll.. same as I wait to read Telecrap articles cause sooner or later someone is kind enough to post the article here..

Now Dogs and/or cats doing stupid things...I'm in...