I think it does, for two reasons.

Firstly — it shows value that Facebook was providing.

Secondly — that’s what the law says. Those sites include “content that reports, investigates or explains current issues or events of interest to Australians”, and so, as per the law, are news.

If the discussion were ‘Facebook stopped people from sharing Guardian articles on Facebook because they don’t want to pay for them’, there’s no obvious ‘villain’ in the discussion.

If it’s ‘Facebook isn’t allowed to let me link to the NSW government’s public health orders without agreeing to give News Corp money’ it’s a bit more obvious where the issue lies.

There’s no reason why Facebook would pretend the law is more reasonable than it is.