Facebook Debacle

[albatross710]

Has anyone else noticed that you can still see news on Facebook if you're not logged into a Facebook account?

Another hole in their strategy. can the news organisation post new content?

For me I see it as a distortion where the 'free' market has not attributed the revenue flow in proportion to the value created by the parties ie the journalist, the news publisher, the distributor (FB). Of course FB has to profit from its network effects.

What the debacle does show is

the ability of a sovereign nation to make laws for its people,
a channel risk of having FB as your sole distribution channel.

This channel risk is also evident on Amazon where the platform seeks to outcompete its vendors.

If wanting to think like FB, look to how FB, Google & Amazon have performed in the past.

If FB wants to understand AU government, I guess they could look to the cigarette packaging

Alby

 

[TheRealTMA]

Has anyone else noticed that you can still see news on Facebook if you're not logged into a Facebook account?

Interesting. I never use Facebook as a source of news. Can someone tell me why do people use Facebook as their prime source of news anyway? Why would one give FB credibility in the first place and not go to original sources?

 

[RooFlyer]

Has anyone else noticed that you can still see news on Facebook if you're not logged into a Facebook account?

I don't have a FB account; the only FB page I occasionally look at is ABC Hobart, for the cute animal videos, which I've linked to here occasionally.

Like this one - more interesting than cute - the 5-hour flight of a tracked wedge tailed eagle. I guess as Matt indicates, don't be logged in to see it.

Join an eagle on its flight | Spend five hours flying with an endangered Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle, squished into a two-minute animation. "Ethan" took-off at 9:00am, flew 223.5... | By ABC HobartFacebook

Spend five hours flying with an endangered Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle, squished into a two-minute animation. "Ethan" took-off at 9:00am, flew 223.5...

www.facebook.com

 

[eastwest101]

Interesting. I never use Facebook as a source of news. Can someone tell me why do people use Facebook as their prime source of news anyway? Why would one give FB credibility in the first place and not go to original sources?

I think the answer to that depends on what your definition of "news" is. If you are using Facebook to find out about global politics and national and statewide news and that is your only source then its possibly explained by laziness/disengagement.

But more localized/specialized content is different, if you want to find out who won the Thargamindah Annual Darts competition at the pub last night then Facebook is probably the most likely source of that information. Similarly for other specialized interests or hobbies that people may share on the net but maybe doesn't receive widespread media coverage e.g. frequent airline travelling such as this site or a more localized geographic network of a local suburb/town for instance.

I think the pertinent question to ask the owners of AFF is why isn't this site just a sub-group on Facebook? The answer probably is a complex mixture of historical development of the web, ownership of intellectual property, and ability to attract advertisers/monetise the forum, privacy and people unwilling to share all their interests and hobbies with the corporation of Facebook and the site owners not willing to take the business risk of having your business held hostage to another company/operator.

 

[Daver6]

Interesting. I never use Facebook as a source of news. Can someone tell me why do people use Facebook as their prime source of news anyway? Why would one give FB credibility in the first place and not go to original sources?

I explained why people might use this the other day.

Finally to explain to some of those who don't understand why people might use Facebook to get their news rather than visit websites, consider this use case. Via Facebook you can subscribe to multiple news sources and they will appear in one place in your feed. That's much more convenient than visiting a dozen different websites. This can also include emergency warning websites, so if there is an emergency in your area it will show up on your feed. That's pretty convenient for some.

Basically you're selecting the news sources you're interested in and seeing them all in one place.

 

[Seat0B]

Interesting. I never use Facebook as a source of news. Can someone tell me why do people use Facebook as their prime source of news anyway? Why would one give FB credibility in the first place and not go to original sources?

So to be clear, I don't use FB as my primary source of news. I have ABC News App, Guardian App, and can visit web sites of various other news organisations if I want to. I also still watch the ABC or SBS TV news (old fashioned though that may be) and listen to ABC New Radio. So I certainly don't rely on FB to get my understanding of the day's events.

However, FB is a convenient aggregator of lots of content from lots of sources - from FB I can just click through to various news web sites if I see something that interests me, without having to go to a whole lot of separate pages (yep, I'm lazy when doom scrolling ). FB also makes available items from sources that I might not have thought about before - eg The Economist magazine, or even that I have never heard about before - eg the Atlantic magazine. And finally, a lot of the mainstream media have very little local content. So I used to love going to the ABC Canberra page, which always had lots of posts about local news items like the Light Rail, the various local public art works (anyone from Canberra will know what I mean), photographs contributed by locals about aberrant weather events and plus the opportunity to comment and read the comments from people in the community. That's not available on the standard ABC news web sites or apps that I am aware of.

 

[Pushka]

Interesting. I never use Facebook as a source of news. Can someone tell me why do people use Facebook as their prime source of news anyway? Why would one give FB credibility in the first place and not go to original sources?

But original sources do post to FB. Eg Health, Police, and the Premier. If you get their feed you get everything you are interested in, or want to keep in touch with (ie multiple original sources) simply by opening your FB account. And they are all on that page if they've recently posted.

 

[love_the_life]

My thoughts are that the businesses, clubs and government bodies choose to have a Facebook profile - they don't have to. Not sure why FB should pay for someone's internal business decision. It's not like FB went out and appropriated the profiles unilaterally. The insecurity of personal information though is another issue altogether.
I have a feeling my view is at odds with many.
I do think that the broad 'definition' of news used by FB was over the top.

 

[jb747]

It will make people think twice about using FB for any clubs or businesses. The government should be giving them the flick.

At the end of the day, I doubt that the news organisations will get much out of this, but if it reduces FBs influence and hurts them financially, then good. The most interesting thing will be to watch other countries. FB is unlikely to find that this is the only fight for very long.

 

[RooFlyer]

My thoughts are that the businesses, clubs and government bodies choose to have a Facebook profile - they don't have to. Not sure why FB should pay for someone's internal business decision. It's not like FB went out and appropriated the profiles unilaterally.

Again, I preface this by saying I don't hold a FB account. The FB pages/profiles of businesses, clubs and governments aren't the issue or involved - or weren't, until FB, in its heavy-handed (I think deliberate) retaliation to the government's proposal re their news appropriation and distribution made it an issue.

People's local community or interest group FB groups, emergency services, health messages, business FB pages etc were never in the government's 'mix'. FB can, and will happily continue to host these pages and reap a tidy advertising profit for doing so.

The only thing FB is 'paying' for so far is damage to its reputation by its clumsy and/or heavy handed 'take that'.

 

[TiredOldFlyer]

Being somewhat pragmatic, and at my age tending to be a bit of a Luddite, it occurs to me that the more ways to read, and listen, to the news may have problems.
In an effort to attract viewers and listeners headlines using adjectives such as
shocking, amazing, unbelievable and etc are becoming the norm.
Somebody once said to me "New watch - same old time".

 

[Vic]

As a non user of Social Media (apart from AFF of course )I do not understand what today's fuss re Facebook is all about.
Facebook have made a commercial decision, as is their right.
I cannot figure out why you need to read news and etc via Facebook when there
numerous web sites apps and so on.
Our business deals with the Govt regularly via the Web. It would never occur to me
to log in via Facebook.
Perhaps someone can tell me what I am missing ?

I read the first 20 or so posts:

To answer your confusion about why this is important.

1. they took down numerous small businesses, and charities at the same time. At least one example in the first 20 posts. My friend had their charity taken down.
2. Many people (some people, a few people) in particular demographic groups use facebook as a news consolidator They don't want to login into numerous news sites, they'd rather just go to one place and link outwards from there. That's their choice, it's not mine - I like to check and critically analyse multiple news sources - Uncle Rupert, the peoples collective, SMH etc.

The people's collective at the ABC did a really good discussion on this whole thing on Radio National's Life Matters. Talkback — dealing with Facebook's ban on news

From this I learned about Inkl - an alternative news consolidator www.inkl.com

However, any alternative to facebook need a critical mass of users (Thanks Aunty). So I'd encourage everyone who thinks Facebook are dodgy AF to sign up and support the alternatives.

I also learned (well I knew this) that the risk with facebook is being in an echo chamber. their algorithm is designed to keep you scrolling and viewing ads, which then predetermines the news you will see.
This is also why it's important to keep people in your news feed on facebook, when you absolutely disagree with their views.

As for the government's legislation, it's not going to stop the dodgy privacy cough that Facebook do. Please don't delude yourself into thinking it will. The fact that Facebook are not willing to negotiate a deal with news sites, as required by the legislation tells you this legislation isn't going to stop them
The Legislation is just a protection racket for Uncle Rupert's News Corp. As already mentioned NEWS Corp paywall their stuff - WTF do they need to force facebook to pay them with legislation by a compliant government? Because Rupert isn't making enough money? This government are clueless...

However, as the people's collective told me - at least 3 other countries have similar legislation in draft.

However someone else put it better than me:

This is just rent-seeking. If people post links to news on Facebook, then when a user clicks-through to the "news" site they hit whatever paywall or advertising the "news" site offers. Why should Facebook be compelled to pay them on top of that? That Facebook would block news sites was an entirely predictable outcome, and not unjust at all. They're complying with the mandate to not share news sites for which they're not paying.

Post automatically merged: Feb 19, 2021

Obvs the law doesn't apply yet. They're just illustrating the implications of it.

 

[Vic]

oh yeah, that was the other tip from Aunty.

You can still post news by:
1. postting a screen shot - less effective
2. Posting the news link on twitter and then posting a link to the Tweet on Facebook.

Humans will always beat the Faacebook AI...

 

[OATEK]

My thoughts are that the businesses, clubs and government bodies choose to have a Facebook profile - they don't have to. Not sure why FB should pay for someone's internal business decision. It's not like FB went out and appropriated the profiles unilaterally. The insecurity of personal information though is another issue altogether.
I have a feeling my view is at odds with many.
I do think that the broad 'definition' of news used by FB was over the top.

Its not so much that people may be at odds with you about businesses, clubs and government bodies.

As stated earlier, facebook packages news stories for their own profit. I am a member of my local suburb facebook group. We live by the bush with the periodic threats that brings, and so our group links to the local RFS, Council and similar sites (traditional internet and FB). None of that should be affected by the news legislation, but FB has chosen to embroil them in the issue they are fighting.

However, members of our group also regulalrly post links to newspapers and news videos, which come up in the feed with the headline or video opening page etc - its not just a link in the traditional URL sense display as www.domain.country/page. This might be a crime or trafic accident story in the local paper, or somthing on the SMH site for example (where you get a number of "free" views).

FB wraps that story/video in their own revenue earning stream, they do not necessarily just refer the user to the appropriate publisher site where said publisher would have the opportunity to earn the income instead of FB.

Yes we should tax them for earnings in Australia, but of course at rsk is retaliation by the US over tax arrangements with AU corporations in their country. Not sure who would be the net loser, but could offer a guess.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

Facebook reverses ban on Australian news as government agrees to amend media code​

Facebook will lifts its news ban for Australian users and publishers, less than a week after making the shock decision.

FEBRUARY 23, 20213:46PM

Facebook is set to restore access to Australian news content on its platform after the Morrison government announced it will introduce a number of technical amendments to its media bargaining code.

Facebook will lift its news ban for Australian users and publishers, less than a week after making the shock decision.

The ban – made last week in response to a proposed new Media Bargaining law – meant Australian users could no longer view or share local articles, while international Facebook users were also restricted from seeing Australian news

Lifting the ban means local news publications and sites – including news.com.au – will be back on Facebook, with content once again allowed to be shared in coming days.

“The government has been advised by Facebook that it intends to restore Australian news pages in the coming days,” Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said in a statement.

Facebook also confirmed the news, saying in a statement it was “pleased that we’ve been able to reach an agreement with the Australian government and appreciate the constructive discussions we’ve had with Treasurer (Josh) Frydenberg and (Communications) Minister (Paul) Fletcher over the past week”.

Mr Frydenberg added: “The amendments will strengthen the hand of regional and small publishers in obtaining appropriate remuneration for the use of their content by the digital platforms.

“These amendments will provide further clarity to digital platforms and news media businesses about the way the Code is intended to operate and strengthen the framework for ensuring news media businesses are fairly remunerated.”

The amendments included taking “into account whether a digital platform has made a significant contribution to the sustainability of the Australian news industry through reaching commercial agreements with news media businesses”.

Facebook Australia and New Zealand’s managing director William Easton said: “We have consistently supported a framework that would encourage innovation and collaboration between online platforms and publishers,” the social media giant said.

“After further discussions, we are satisfied that the Australian government has agreed to a number of changes and guarantees that address our core concerns about allowing commercial deals that recognise the value our platform provides to publishers relative to the value we receive from them.

“As a result of these changes, we can now work to further our investment in public interest journalism and restore news on Facebook for Australians in the coming days.”

The social media giant made the stunning decision last Thursday to ban news sites, after the Federal Government pushed forward with a plan to force platforms to pay for news content.

Facebook and Google both initially responded with fury, with Google threatening to pull its search engine from the country during an inquiry in January.

Mr Frydenberg held “constructive” discussions with Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg over the weekend, where he “reiterated the Morrison government’s commitment to implementing the code and seeing journalists rewarded for generating original content”.

The conversations followed Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s scathing attack on the news ban last week, where, in a post on the platform, he slammed it for not only wiping the pages of media outlets, but government organisations too.

“Facebook’s actions to unfriend Australia today, cutting off essential information services on health and emergency services, were as arrogant as they were disappointing,” Mr Morrison said.

Australian news coming back on Facebook

Facebook will lift its news ban for Australian users and publishers, less than a week after making the shock decision.

www.news.com.au

 

[jb747]

Yes we should tax them for earnings in Australia, but of course at rsk is retaliation by the US over tax arrangements with AU corporations in their country. Not sure who would be the net loser, but could offer a guess.

I don't have any sympathy for any companies making use of Irish sandwiches, or whatever other smug name they came up with. If Australian companies are ripping hundreds of millions of tax dollars out of any country, then I have no issue whatsoever with corrective measures being applied.

As best I can tell though, this is something mainly from the country that gave us that other wonderful business invention, the MBA.

From this I learned about Inkl - an alternative news consolidator www.inkl.com

So, ignoring FB for a moment (and I don't get news from them at all) the question becomes whether mainstream news is actually worth $15 per month.

 

[VPS]

So, ignoring FB for a moment (and I don't get news from them at all) the question becomes whether mainstream news is actually worth $15 per month.

For me - definitely not

 

[drron]

I don't have any sympathy for any companies making use of Irish sandwiches, or whatever other smug name they came up with. If Australian companies are ripping hundreds of millions of tax dollars out of any country, then I have no issue whatsoever with corrective measures being applied.

As best I can tell though, this is something mainly from the country that gave us that other wonderful business invention, the MBA.



So, ignoring FB for a moment (and I don't get news from them at all) the question becomes whether mainstream news is actually worth $15 per month.

Hey our son has an US MBA.Nothing wrong with him.

 

[tgh]

Replaying my life ( I wish) ; an MBA would be on my to do list ( along with doctorates in Anthropology and Zoology) ...

 

[Vic]

So, ignoring FB for a moment (and I don't get news from them at all) the question becomes whether mainstream news is actually worth $15 per month.

The value proposition is a personal decision for each individual. Inkl is just a suggestion for anyone who is looking for news...

Inkl for $15 might be worth it given the worldwide access to news media sources. Personally I'm happy enough with the free (well ~$2 a month of my taxes) news, the freebies available via other "newspapers" sites, and reading the headline and the non-paywalled teaser of anything from News Corp. My local coffee shop would let me read the front page of a newspaper, if there is something super pressing.
Generally, it's pretty easy to keep on top what's happening without having to pay.

News corp is almost entirely without worth, although The Oz can be pretty ok.

But please don't start this mainstream media nonsense, it drives me insane. A term made up by Trump supporters and conspiracy nutters, who then post links to Fox news (about as main stream as it gets).
Most people are able to exercise critical analysis skills, hopefully.

Anyway, fb have caved in... for now.

Interesting to hear something this morning about the french competition regulator taking action against google or facebook (i can't remember which one) due to their inability to negotiation with news sites.