The only update is the (predictable) response from Australian lawmakers and lobbyists.
While this law is idiotic at all levels, I'm secretly hoping that Facebook & Google do implement a complete news blackout for a significant amount of time just so we can see how it affects Australian society.
Another angle people don't seem to be mentioning enough is just how scarily easily a major government effectively banned its citizens from discussing any news online. How hard would it be for them to include Reddit (or HN), for example, in the list of entities that are subject to this law? If they did, this post likely wouldn't be allowed in Australia.
One thing we can get out of it, out of curiosity is how it may affect people's perception of the news and whether the absence of algorithmic trending may result in less click-bait and inflammatory headlines in the news. I won't hold my breath, but I am curious to see if there is any perceptible change.
I'm not sure what law you're talking about here, because requiring Google and Facebook to pay news sites for reposting their content is very different from "banning its citizens from discussing any news online".
There's nothing stopping them from just turning it into a hyperlink like it would've been in the old days. Sites grab excerpts and thumbnails of the target URL in order to keep you on their site longer and minimize the number of clicks away.
The law makes no distinction between URLs, thumbnails, titles etc., just mentions news content as a whole. In fact, if a news site posted an article on Facebook themselves, Facebook would still need to pay them for it.
What if I (a user) post the URL, title and first few lines of an article to my Facebook feed? That qualifies as covered news content under any interpretation.
Or what if the URL itself contains the full title (like it does in a lot of cases)?
You as the user manually pasting the content in is tangibly different from an automated system doing it, which is what we have now. Whether the courts would hold them liable to pay for your personal actions is a separate question. It is currently the case that individuals can violate copyright by reposting someone else's content unattributed, and when that happens there are existing processes for dealing with it.
If the URL has the title in it, that means the news site put that information in the URL to share it. Should I be able to charge money for my phone number because it happens to spell out a word? Again, maybe a court would hold that both are true, but it's absolutely a different thing from scripts automatically scraping and reposting content.
>requiring Google and Facebook to pay news sites for reposting their content is very different from "banning its citizens from discussing any news online".
Part of the law says that Facebook has to grant access to News Corp. so they (and they alone) can moderate any and all comments posted on Facebook about any of their articles.
I believe this question has been addressed and clarified as limiting the moderation of content to the news organisations' own Facebook pages only, not a general ability to moderate discussion of their articles posted elsewhere by private citizens.
(1) Subsection (2) applies if the registered news business corporation for the registered news business makes a request, in writing, to the responsible digital platform corporation for the digital platform service to do any of the following:
(a) ensure that the registered news business corporation is provided with flexible content moderation tools that allow the registered news business corporation to remove or filter comments on the registered news business’ covered news content that:
(i) are made using the digital platform service; and
(ii) are made on a part of the digital platform service that is set up and able to be edited by the registered news business;
(b) ensure that the registered news business corporation can disable the making of such comments;
(c) ensure that the registered news business corporation can block the making of such comments:
(i) by particular persons; or
(ii) in particular circumstances.
(2) The responsible digital platform corporation for the digital platform service must comply with the request.
Exactly, “on a part of the digital platform service that is set up and able to be edited by the registered news business“, i.e. on the news site’s own personal page, which is already possible.
https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill.... From a quick read, FB/Google are largely correct. There are lots of places where the draft is extremely vague (e.g. it doesn't really define what kinds of content sharing it covers), and Facebook is going by the broadest possible interpretation.
If the news orgs feel they have something of value, shouldn't they welcome this move, as it will hurt Facebook?
They are asking for payment for their service. Presumably Facebook will lose more value from this than what they are being asked to pay, otherwise why pay?
They're tipping their hand here. They know that what they have is not as valuable as what they're asking for it, otherwise Facebook wouldn't be willing to give up that value.
Yes, that's been a big hole in their argument from day one. They tried to avoid this by putting in provision to not let Facebook/Google just block Australian news material or just the ones that qualify for payment, but didn't think they would go this far of not letting anybody in Australia post any news.
The other point is that the news sources could easily use robots.txt and other methods to completely cut off Facebook and Google from scraping their content. If their content was as valuable to Facebook and Google as they say it is, a few players organising a boycott and cutting them off for a bit would be a very powerful bargaining tool. Or if they just felt the content was being misused, they could just block them on principal. But they don't do either. Why not, if it's so valuable to Google and Facebook?
Publishers put up their website because they want people to go to it. They get ad impressions, subscriptions, sales for affiliate links or wine club memberships or whatever their business model is.
That said, I don't agree with the grandparent. In my view it's clearly win-win, and neither direction obviously benefits more than the other to me. "Free" seems like a fair compromise unless the news sites start blocking Facebook traffic, because the friction of agreeing on and setting up payment is costly.
Crikey's Bernard Keane has a great take on the issue & sovereign risk[0]:
Now the government is pursuing a policy that, in its rejection of the rule of law and its arbitrary market intervention at the expense of investors and corporations, is the perfect embodiment of the idea of sovereign risk. And exactly no one is pointing it out — because Australia’s media companies are the beneficiaries of it, and the targets of it are two of the most hated companies in the world.
The government’s proposed News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code would be a draconian regulation to force two explicitly identified companies, Google and Facebook, to hand an unlimited amount of revenue over to Australian media companies, justified by a fiction that those companies steal news content.[...]
The code is justified by a News Corp lie, that Google steals news content and makes billions of dollars from it. The ACCC forensically compiled evidence that this was false. Knowing that the News Corp claim was wrong didn’t prevent Treasurer Josh Frydenberg from spreading it himself. But the only theft here is what is proposed for Google and Facebook.
Apologies to HN/YC for introducing risk by quoting from and linking to an Australian news article :)
Facebook is undoubtably the scummiest company of our generation, but this is the correct and only response here.
I continue to be surprised when politicians fail to think through the logical response to their actions. Either they failed to anticipate this, and they're naive, or they did and they went through with it anyway?
This law was pushed by News Corp and is exactly the response they were hoping for. Their goal is to be the only game in town, because they know they can survive without FB and Google, and no one else can.
Conversely - if you're going to Facebook or NewsCorp to seek factual (or at least sensibly balanced) information, you've effectively given up in either case.
It was only about 3 years ago that I found out lots of people rely on Facebook for their 'news', which puts me in a bubble of some sort, but it's still a bewildering state of affairs.
Lol this is just not true. Fairfax, for example, will be completely fine. You’re honestly pushing a lobbyist’s narrative. Small papers don’t rely on Facebook click throughs.
I'm not sure they're faking it. My guess is that News Corp's lobbyists are so persuasive they convinced the politicians that Australian news would die without this law.
That's really over the top. Facebook scummiest of our generation? I envy you if Facebook is the worst company you've encountered. Many companies stiff their customers in all kinds of terrible ways, especially when there are no alternatives. I can honestly say I've never been stiffed by Facebook, nor has anyone else I know. Even the cases that are the most frustrating or angering are about censorship i.e. denial of service by them of something nobody strictly needs, they aren't e.g. charging for a service and then not delivering it.
Good point of discussion. Here are a couple of possible paths:
1. Rupert gets paid from Facebook and Google. Rupert wins.
2. News results get blocked on Google and Facebook. People in Australia go to Rupert's sites directly. Rupert wins.
Rupert is currently 89. I would give his reign 5 - 10 more years at most. Really curious what will happen then.
Once the people at these news orgs ask their analytics team to show them how much of their traffic comes from Facebook, I'm sure they'll scrap the push for this law real fast. If not, their traffic (and therefore revenue) will drop immensely. Very few people go directly to news sites now. Liking a news page and then seeing what pops up in the feed is how most people consume their news (which I hate, because it fuels the headline click bait, but it's just a fact).
The problem here is that the news orgs know that most of their traffic comes from FB and Google. They don't like this law either.
This law is being pushed just by News Corp, who knows they can survive without FB and Google. This is exactly the outcome they were hoping for.
The way the law is written, they don't have to pay the news orgs until those orgs request it. Perhaps one option is for FB and Google to keep linking to any news site that doesn't ask for money, and when one asks, just drop them.
> The way the law is written, they don't have to pay the news orgs until those orgs request it. Perhaps one option is for FB and Google to keep linking to any news site that doesn't ask for money, and when one asks, just drop them.
They thought of that. The law explicitly says that FB etc. shall not "discriminate between registered news businesses and news businesses that are not registered news businesses".
A couple of years ago, I was talking to an experienced journalist at one of Australia's capital city papers and they said that they are extremely reliant on Facebook for traffic.
As long as they ban ALL news this will make Australia a much better place.
Facebook is a hive of fake news, rumors and fearmongering. If users had to go to alternative websites to obtain news they'd be far more likely to land upon reputable outlets like our ABC.
Right now they're telling everyone in Oz their internet is at risk and responding with an ultimatum just for show. (And public support?) I'd hope they have someone discussing the actual issues with the relevant government people.
I mean, the law is stupid enough that both Google and FB can respond with specific issues they have.
It's incredible how the ACCC has the nerve to say Facebook response amounts to Facebook holding Australian's to ransom!
Never mind the draft law as it sits is literally designed to take money from Facebook and Google and put it directly into News Corp. pockets. This is not about the government collecting tax dollars for the good of Australia, this is the government collecting tax dollars for the good of Rupert Murdoch.
Incredibly because of the tight control he has over the media he can ensure his version of the truth gets repeated over and over until a very large number of Australians will simply believe it as truth.
Fake news is alive and well in Australia thanks to one company owning an enormous chunk of all media.
Exactly.
It's a perfect example of crony capitalism.
A political party in a symbiotic relationship with Murdoch (whose press outlets operate as the communications wing of the Coalition) eagerly pushes a rent-seeking law and claims it's about supporting journalism.
This is the same political party that does everything it can to defund public interest journalism (via the ABC and SBS), regularly gives indefensible grants to Murdoch, and has created a climate where police raids on journalists is the new normal.
The code deliberately excludes smaller publishers and the public broadcasters from any of this rent-seeking, and the ACCC in recent years has allowed significant media consolidation: allowing Murdoch to buy up most regional papers, and allowing Nine to buy Fairfax (Nine held a political fundraiser for that political party immediately after the election).
The state of journalism in Australia is dire, even compared to US and UK standards, and that's largely to do with intentional political acts.
I'm curious what percent of advertising revenue has moved from journalistic corporations over to Google and Facebook.
I think the places that used to employ journalists to gather news served a role in our society that Facebook and Google have not stepped into. It COULD make sense for a government that saw value in that industry to prop it up. The same way it makes sense for the USA to keep at least one or two foundries operational.
Framing the conversation as Google and Facebook directly taking revenue from newspapers isn't at all accurate, and just fuels public anger and laws like the one we are discussing.
The core problem is that people aren't buying newspapers and magazines anymore, instead getting their news online. Since there is no barrier to entry for online journalism, the space is dominated by low-effort clickbait and fake/sensationalist news. People prefer to consume all this for free instead of paying a reputable source.
Now, completely independent of all this, Facebook and Google have set up massive communities of users online and have perfected the art of monetizing them via ads. Regulating both these companies or removing them from the equation entirely (as they are planning to do themselves) does nothing to solve the news problem above.
Couldn't agree more. I like capitalism as much as the next guy, but I recognize that incentives for individuals and corporations can easily get misaligned from the public good. I think the wealth transfer from journalists to ad providers is a perfect example. Nobody can argue that the journalistic reliance on ad revenue as a result of having to compete with cheap, free, garbage-information-factories hasn't completely ruined the news industry, which is a vital component of a functioning democracy.
Well this is a bit funny/sad. After reading your post I browsed through yesterday's thread on the same topic, from the top and down. Finally found something I agreed with after going through acres of text.
Am I reading this right that a user or the news org itself can make a post linking to a AUS news site on Facebook and Facebook would have to pay the news org for the post under this law?
It's also just the start of the insanity. Google and FB also have to provide details of their ranking algorithms (and give 28 days notice of any upcoming changes). The law also only applies to Google and FB (not Twitter, not email, etc.) AND money only has to be given to News Corp. Not the ABC, SBS, etc.
There are plenty more 'WTF?' items in there, but it all boils down to Rupert Murdoch owning the government, and making them write laws to do his bidding.
No they don’t, they only have to provide details of why they downranked the website if they do so. This is to avoid them intentionally downranking the papers to hurt them. Stop spreading lies.
Haha, the Australian politicians are trying something from the United Fruit Company and Dwight Eisenhower playbook except they look like three kids in a trenchcoat trying to play a man.
What Google and Facebook are mostly doing is telling you to go and listen to a particular song somewhere else. Linking to content. Driving valuable traffic to the content provider's sites. Their sites, where the news content providers can show their own ads...
I think most Australians wouldn't be aware about the playing music in small businesses thing too, so I wouldn't use that as a benchmark.
That never made any sense to me either. It's not like there's a huge pool of people saying 'Oh I really like that new Taylor Swift song, should I buy the album, or just go to the hairdressing salon and listen to it there?'. It's not a substitute good.
In the case of Facebook, I imagine there are people who read the headline + snippet on Facebook, look at the photo and then don't click the linked article, which seems more like actual infringement of the copyright. It's not the same as taking the entire newspaper and replacing all the ads with your own, but it's a bit like that, enough that I can see what the intention of the law was.
It's all complicated by the fact that the news organisations currently facilitate the process, and obviously at some point they thought it was worth it
That's the same in America. You need to purchase a license for the music to use in a business or buy it from a service that licenses it for use in a business.
This is the only rational move for Facebook. I highly doubt AUS news doesn’t move the needle enough for anyone to care. Even for way smaller firms than FB.
Unfortunately, lots of people don't cite news articles at all. They just post memes.
But for people who do want to post a news article, it seems like there are lots of workarounds, like quoting and citing, or an indirect link through Twitter.
It will be a question of how smart Facebook is about blocking stuff. I'd guess they wouldn't be any smarter than they have to be to maintain plausible deniability.
As an Australian, this is fantastic. Why should Facebook and Google get to show news content for free? The only people unhappy about this, from what I have seen, are Facebook and Google. Big tech bullies, having a sook with their lobbyists and website warnings. Good riddance.
This law won't live past a year, it's already failed. If it does it's only going to create fewer independent news sources in Australia.
So your hopes of this somehow punishing Google/FB and benefiting the people of AUS long term is probably very misguided.
Google/FB don't care about a subset of a percentage of it's traffic from a small western country.
Twitter and Reddit don't provide any less biased discourse either. And I'm not sure people are simply going to go back to visiting the homepages directly - at least enough to replace the traffic.
I'd be curious to see how FB implements this; I assume something pretty basic like a blocklist of domains. That would be an interesting list to read. It's obviously still yet to be implemented as I was just now able to share a link to an ABC website news story.
The only update is the (predictable) response from Australian lawmakers and lobbyists.
While this law is idiotic at all levels, I'm secretly hoping that Facebook & Google do implement a complete news blackout for a significant amount of time just so we can see how it affects Australian society.
Another angle people don't seem to be mentioning enough is just how scarily easily a major government effectively banned its citizens from discussing any news online. How hard would it be for them to include Reddit (or HN), for example, in the list of entities that are subject to this law? If they did, this post likely wouldn't be allowed in Australia.