https://theconversation.com/webs-inventor-says-news-media-ba...
We have a joke:
A: How much is a drop of gas?
B: A drop of gas? Well, zero!
A: One million drops of gas, please.
Straight up copying of course would be different.
Plain linking does not keep people on FB. Automated previewing does. Can't this be interpreted as raising the bar for fair use?
But you have to play that silly game, because otherwise your competitor might get featured instead and we learn about them and not you.
I've also heard that, unlike Facebook, Google doesn't have the option to say no.
It'll be interesting to see if the newspapers start arguing that Facebook should be exempt, once all of their traffic from Facebook dries up.
What does that mean? Surely Google could remove their entire presence from Australia if they felt like it.
How? Nobody in Australia can access Google without a proxy if Google blocks Australia. Google is entirely capable of doing this.
The government literally stated that with a heavy heart they were putting in a crude approach towards forcing both giants to finally step up and start to discuss this. That oblique reference to the new “Facebook news tool and their announcement of it in the last month or so” is part of this, and will be rolled out depending how their hand is forced from here.
The essence of the case against the social media giants is that journalism is dying. Not just newsprint but paid journalism itself. The profession is under massive attack and papers worldwide are being affected and it’s clear there is a value extraction occurring with the social media giants, who are in one framing benefiting from the content produced by news outlets and show it in their “listings” (feeds/search results) and further compete directly with the news organisations for advertising dollars all without having to include any remuneration to the content creator, in this case professional news outlets who still have an important social function to provide and are providing less and less due to the market dominance of these two ‘aggregation advertising companies’.
The Australian government is firstly fighting around this principle of ensuring fair competition in the advertising space, two large companies are exploiting newspapers due to their market dominance, ok excuse me, you folks need to adjust your market practices so that everyone can play. Their dominance is like a duopoply and is being criticised as such even though this economoic language has become foreign in recent times where dominance of American mega corporations is assumed as somewhow right and therefore fair. Google & Fb know they are very powerful with limited obligations to Australians and so they are acting arrogantly and oppressively in their approach.
The other side of this humerously is that while in principle it’s important to have an open and fair press and to ensure healthy competition and a healthy media space in the digital era, Australian media is largely owned by two major media moguls. I’m sorry to say that Rupert Murdock began his life right here in Australia. These moguls having done very poorly with their own digital strategies over the years are also pressuring the government to take action in this space, and while no-one loves these companies either, the prospect of the total breakdown of the local newspaper and media landscape and the related loss of local journalism jobs drives the government to get involved.
There’s more nuisance and moves and details on this but that’s the gist as best I can capture it.
I’m in support of the social media giants being forced to the negotiation table and working out platform options that do provide a content producers fee to media companies both big and small that might be a great model to help us move back away from crap spam content back towards a modern from journalism. Facebooks new newstool is headed this direction if they feel pressured in the right way to have to roll it out and create a Spotify of news redirecting some of the insane advertising revenue the receive.
I don't see what's arrogant about Facebook's approach here. They say they do not derive much value from this content, and the government is proposing to charge them much more than the value they do derive. So they are left with the only rational choice: to not have the content. That's not a threat, a punishment, an attack, or anything else. It's just a decision that needs to be made in light of the tradeoffs facing their business.
The proof will be in the pudding, but I suspect Facebook will suffer minimal economic harm from blocking the news. That will be clear evidence as to who was the economic beneficiary of their relationship with the news media.
If FB allows any news content (e.g. from news orgs that want their content to be listd for free), they must allow all news content (e.g. from news orgs that will want to be paid unrealistic amounts for it).
I think it's very likely Facebook would still find profit in this arrangement, just less profit than before, but since they do business with other countries as well they don't want to give in. "OK we'll start playing fair and reduce profit in your market" = "OK we'll start playing fair and reduce profit in all markets"
There are good and bad sides to this law and this situation, I personally commend Australia for /at the very least/ running this experiment for the rest of the world that probably doesn't have much downside and might very well lead to some real collaboration, changes and/or innovations going forward. At least they are giving something a try.
The Australian law is the first one with teeth, after many years of Google and Facebook smothering any reasonable measures any country anywhere has proposed. So yeah, it "feels unfair" at this point, because that's the only thing that'll work at this point, to use sovereign national power to order Google and Facebook to comply.
A powerful company resisting a process from which they have nothing to gain. Shocking!
If you want people to come together, you need to give both sides something to gain (or put a (metaphorical) gun to one sides head). Of course fb is going to resist a process where they only stand to lose something and the best outcome possible for them is the status quo. Wouldn't you also resist such a meeting?
However if you're the guy who writes the laws in australia, you have less (but still some) power over american corporations.
This is the most unacceptable aspect of this policy. If you want to say "you must pay to link", that's bad policy that's been bought and paid for, but it at least can be worked around and doesn't compel linking or other association. But "you must pay to link and you must link" is incredibly dangerous policy for which a scorched-earth response is entirely appropriate.
That said, I strongly disagree with the premise.
I guess Google decided market share was worth more than the cost. I have to admit, I think it would be satisfying to see Australia face consequences for what seems like a pattern of hostility to the open digital world.
"Here are the rules for doing business here" with a set of unreasonable rules can be an annoyance, but there's always the choice of not doing business there. "Here are the rules for doing business here, and you must do business here" is absolutely unacceptable, no matter who it targets.