https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-18/bom-health-authorities-betoota-caught-in-facebook-news-ban/13166394

Personally I prefer businesses to have a website rather than just a Facebook page. Usually much easier to navigate and far more useful. I have discussed this with some younger people and some of them even agree with me.

buffy said:

Personally I prefer businesses to have a website rather than just a Facebook page. Usually much easier to navigate and far more useful. I have discussed this with some younger people and some of them even agree with me.

Facebook sites are usually secondary except for very small businesses.

buffy said:

Personally I prefer businesses to have a website rather than just a Facebook page. Usually much easier to navigate and far more useful. I have discussed this with some younger people and some of them even agree with me.

Do some businesses only have a facebook page rather than website?

sibeen said:

buffy said:

Personally I prefer businesses to have a website rather than just a Facebook page. Usually much easier to navigate and far more useful. I have discussed this with some younger people and some of them even agree with me.

Do some businesses only have a facebook page rather than website?

I think so. Although the ones I am thinking of have both. And they don’t always put the same stuff on both. If I want to know about a business I will always read their webpage. Because that is where the serious stuff is.

buffy said:

Personally I prefer businesses to have a website rather than just a Facebook page. Usually much easier to navigate and far more useful. I have discussed this with some younger people and some of them even agree with me.

My sister’s shop has a Facebook page, an Instagram page and a website. But the website doesn’t get many visitors.

Bubblecar said:

buffy said:

Personally I prefer businesses to have a website rather than just a Facebook page. Usually much easier to navigate and far more useful. I have discussed this with some younger people and some of them even agree with me.

My sister’s shop has a Facebook page, an Instagram page and a website. But the website doesn’t get many visitors.

OK, I find that surprising but am well aware that I’m behind the times when it comes to these things. Does she know the stats on how many views she gets on facebook or instagram?

Bubblecar said:

buffy said:

Personally I prefer businesses to have a website rather than just a Facebook page. Usually much easier to navigate and far more useful. I have discussed this with some younger people and some of them even agree with me.

My sister’s shop has a Facebook page, an Instagram page and a website. But the website doesn’t get many visitors.

exactly.

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

buffy said:

Personally I prefer businesses to have a website rather than just a Facebook page. Usually much easier to navigate and far more useful. I have discussed this with some younger people and some of them even agree with me.

My sister’s shop has a Facebook page, an Instagram page and a website. But the website doesn’t get many visitors.

OK, I find that surprising but am well aware that I’m behind the times when it comes to these things. Does she know the stats on how many views she gets on facebook or instagram?

i know how the stats on how many people visit my artist page on Facebook.

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

buffy said:

Personally I prefer businesses to have a website rather than just a Facebook page. Usually much easier to navigate and far more useful. I have discussed this with some younger people and some of them even agree with me.

My sister’s shop has a Facebook page, an Instagram page and a website. But the website doesn’t get many visitors.

OK, I find that surprising but am well aware that I’m behind the times when it comes to these things. Does she know the stats on how many views she gets on facebook or instagram?

I don’t know, presumably.

buffy said:

Personally I prefer businesses to have a website rather than just a Facebook page. Usually much easier to navigate and far more useful. I have discussed this with some younger people and some of them even agree with me.

don’t know if we’re younger but on the face of it we agree

though it’s probably less of an immediate cost to businesses to have only “free” social media pages

sibeen said:

buffy said:

Personally I prefer businesses to have a website rather than just a Facebook page. Usually much easier to navigate and far more useful. I have discussed this with some younger people and some of them even agree with me.

Do some businesses only have a facebook page rather than website?

Yes.

We are a long way from what this is all about though. This isn’t about pages or smal business. This is about not being able to share news. I can no longer read what cousins post in Scotland. I can’t read any shared news. I can’t share news.

I can share crap and recieve crap without references.

sarahs mum said:

We are a long way from what this is all about though. This isn’t about pages or smal business. This is about not being able to share news. I can no longer read what cousins post in Scotland. I can’t read any shared news. I can’t share news.

I can share crap and recieve crap without references.

This is a winner for the QAnon boogaloo crazies.

SCIENCE said:

buffy said:

Personally I prefer businesses to have a website rather than just a Facebook page. Usually much easier to navigate and far more useful. I have discussed this with some younger people and some of them even agree with me.

don’t know if we’re younger but on the face of it we agree

though it’s probably less of an immediate cost to businesses to have only “free” social media pages

It’s not expensive. mr buffy and I have a website, about $500 a year to maintain. We had it for the first aid business and have decided to keep it going. It’s handy for email addresses.

sarahs mum said:

sarahs mum said:

We are a long way from what this is all about though. This isn’t about pages or smal business. This is about not being able to share news. I can no longer read what cousins post in Scotland. I can’t read any shared news. I can’t share news.

I can share crap and recieve crap without references.

This is a winner for the QAnon boogaloo crazies.

Surely if you can’t share news neither can the crazies?

I reckon that Facebook will notice that time spent scrolling will fall and quickly change their mind.

sarahs mum said:

Bubblecar said:

buffy said:

Personally I prefer businesses to have a website rather than just a Facebook page. Usually much easier to navigate and far more useful. I have discussed this with some younger people and some of them even agree with me.

My sister’s shop has a Facebook page, an Instagram page and a website. But the website doesn’t get many visitors.

exactly.

^ this.

Normal people will google someone. And the first hit/s are usually their social media pages. Social media is an excellent tool for networking and selling.

How this news thing will affect traffic to those sites, I don’t know. It’s already affecting some small business eg Higgins Storm Chasing.

sibeen said:

sarahs mum said:

sarahs mum said:

We are a long way from what this is all about though. This isn’t about pages or smal business. This is about not being able to share news. I can no longer read what cousins post in Scotland. I can’t read any shared news. I can’t share news.

I can share crap and recieve crap without references.

This is a winner for the QAnon boogaloo crazies.

Surely if you can’t share news neither can the crazies?

they never had sources.

You can get websites for a lot cheaper than $500/yr.

Looks to me like a great opportunity for Google..

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

buffy said:

Personally I prefer businesses to have a website rather than just a Facebook page. Usually much easier to navigate and far more useful. I have discussed this with some younger people and some of them even agree with me.

My sister’s shop has a Facebook page, an Instagram page and a website. But the website doesn’t get many visitors.

OK, I find that surprising but am well aware that I’m behind the times when it comes to these things. Does she know the stats on how many views she gets on facebook or instagram?

Some of us might recall that I registered a fake business on Google a couple of months ago. It has a listing in the search results, and location & reviews in Google Maps. It’s slowly accumulating fake reviews, and I’m occasionally uploading photos and such, even though it’s always been listed as ‘temporarily closed’. According to Google, it’s getting 1,200 views a week, and had over 5,000 total views of the photos. That’s about ten times more than I would have anticipated.

All of the news I have shared in the past and the discussion has gone from my profile. What is left are some political group posts (re indue card and various environmental concerns) and Kevin Rudd posts.

So should the Australian government roll over and let these rapacious businesses do what they will or should the Australian government have to power to bring monopolies to heel?

sibeen said:

So should the Australian government roll over and let these rapacious businesses do what they will or should the Australian government have to power to bring monopolies to heel?

communists

SCIENCE said:

sibeen said:

So should the Australian government roll over and let these rapacious businesses do what they will or should the Australian government have to power to bring monopolies to heel?

communists

Yes, so I’ll repost from chat:

I’m also finding the argument that google is so big and so pervasive that there’s nothing that can be done and we all need to live with it to be a little on the Orwellian side. I believe that governments have the right to reign in corporations in certain circumstances…god, I’ve turned into a communist.

sibeen said:

So should the Australian government roll over and let these rapacious businesses do what they will or should the Australian government have to power to bring monopolies to heel?

Can’t help wishing a pox upon both their houses. But I lean towards the latter, the Australian government must reserve the right to regulate monopolies and oligopolies, especially when they are foreign.

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

So should the Australian government roll over and let these rapacious businesses do what they will or should the Australian government have to power to bring monopolies to heel?

Can’t help wishing a pox upon both their houses. But I lean towards the latter, the Australian government must reserve the right to regulate monopolies and oligopolies, especially when they are foreign.

I can’t help being glad that Google isn’t paying Murdoch anything.

sibeen said:

Yes, so I’ll repost from chat:

I’m also finding the argument that google is so big and so pervasive that there’s nothing that can be done and we all need to live with it to be a little on the Orwellian side. I believe that governments have the right to reign in corporations in certain circumstances…god, I’ve turned into a communist.

that’s good chat

certainly agree that “google is so big and so pervasive that there’s nothing that can be done and we all need to live with it” thing (similar to COVID-19 is so infectious and keeps our Economy Must Growing that we should just die for executives to get their bonuses) is fucked

haven’t checked all of chat but we have some concern for all those people who have uploaded their lives to The Cloud and don’t have most of it on local storage

but then again, tulips

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

So should the Australian government roll over and let these rapacious businesses do what they will or should the Australian government have to power to bring monopolies to heel?

Can’t help wishing a pox upon both their houses. But I lean towards the latter, the Australian government must reserve the right to regulate monopolies and oligopolies, especially when they are foreign.

Rupert owns nearly all the news and that is not monopolising? This is Rupert’s way of ensuring the news is his. And the money goes his way.

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

buffy said:

Personally I prefer businesses to have a website rather than just a Facebook page. Usually much easier to navigate and far more useful. I have discussed this with some younger people and some of them even agree with me.

My sister’s shop has a Facebook page, an Instagram page and a website. But the website doesn’t get many visitors.

OK, I find that surprising but am well aware that I’m behind the times when it comes to these things. Does she know the stats on how many views she gets on facebook or instagram?

dunno about instagram but being an admin on the sssf page we can see interaction stats for the page and individual posts.

sarahs mum said:

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

So should the Australian government roll over and let these rapacious businesses do what they will or should the Australian government have to power to bring monopolies to heel?

Can’t help wishing a pox upon both their houses. But I lean towards the latter, the Australian government must reserve the right to regulate monopolies and oligopolies, especially when they are foreign.

Rupert owns nearly all the news and that is not monopolising? This is Rupert’s way of ensuring the news is his. And the money goes his way.

then we should boycott it like we were going to boycott it in the first place, too bad for Sergey Murdoch Brin and Larry Pagerank Packer and all their whoevers

JudgeMental said:

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

My sister’s shop has a Facebook page, an Instagram page and a website. But the website doesn’t get many visitors.

OK, I find that surprising but am well aware that I’m behind the times when it comes to these things. Does she know the stats on how many views she gets on facebook or instagram?

dunno about instagram but being an admin on the sssf page we can see interaction stats for the page and individual posts.

You can see impressions (ie how many times the post was viewed) and likes on Insta. Everyone else can only see someone, someone and others liked this post.

sarahs mum said:

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

So should the Australian government roll over and let these rapacious businesses do what they will or should the Australian government have to power to bring monopolies to heel?

Can’t help wishing a pox upon both their houses. But I lean towards the latter, the Australian government must reserve the right to regulate monopolies and oligopolies, especially when they are foreign.

Rupert owns nearly all the news and that is not monopolising? This is Rupert’s way of ensuring the news is his. And the money goes his way.

Rupert is constrained from owning even more. He has no TV stations, for example.

sarahs mum said:

party_pants said:

sibeen said:

So should the Australian government roll over and let these rapacious businesses do what they will or should the Australian government have to power to bring monopolies to heel?

Can’t help wishing a pox upon both their houses. But I lean towards the latter, the Australian government must reserve the right to regulate monopolies and oligopolies, especially when they are foreign.

Rupert owns nearly all the news and that is not monopolising? This is Rupert’s way of ensuring the news is his. And the money goes his way.

I’ve managed to go years without looking at anything owned by Murdoch. I’m not sure how I’ve survived.

sibeen said:

So should the Australian government roll over and let these rapacious businesses do what they will or should the Australian government have to power to bring monopolies to heel?

I think the initial discussion was about their reach rather than should they pay. I think paying to host news sites is counterproductive but paying the appropriate tax for that country is right.

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

party_pants said:

Can’t help wishing a pox upon both their houses. But I lean towards the latter, the Australian government must reserve the right to regulate monopolies and oligopolies, especially when they are foreign.

Rupert owns nearly all the news and that is not monopolising? This is Rupert’s way of ensuring the news is his. And the money goes his way.

Rupert is constrained from owning even more. He has no TV stations, for example.

He does have half of Foxtel.

SCIENCE said:

sarahs mum said:

party_pants said:

Can’t help wishing a pox upon both their houses. But I lean towards the latter, the Australian government must reserve the right to regulate monopolies and oligopolies, especially when they are foreign.

Rupert owns nearly all the news and that is not monopolising? This is Rupert’s way of ensuring the news is his. And the money goes his way.

then we should boycott it like we were going to boycott it in the first place, too bad for Sergey Murdoch Brin and Larry Pagerank Packer and all their whoevers

I do my best to boycott Rupert. Rupert still wins.

sibeen said:

sarahs mum said:

party_pants said:

Can’t help wishing a pox upon both their houses. But I lean towards the latter, the Australian government must reserve the right to regulate monopolies and oligopolies, especially when they are foreign.

Rupert owns nearly all the news and that is not monopolising? This is Rupert’s way of ensuring the news is his. And the money goes his way.

I’ve managed to go years without looking at anything owned by Murdoch. I’m not sure how I’ve survived.

yes, but what a deprived life it has been, ‘been.

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

Rupert owns nearly all the news and that is not monopolising? This is Rupert’s way of ensuring the news is his. And the money goes his way.

Rupert is constrained from owning even more. He has no TV stations, for example.

He does have half of Foxtel.

And our overseas telecasting rights.

I never have and never will support or enable these American capitalist running dog fascists whether it be Facebook or Instantgrahame or the like.

Peak Warming Man said:

I never have and never will support or enable these American capitalist running dog fascists whether it be Facebook or Instantgrahame or the like.

You’ll do as you’re fucking told!

sarahs mum said:

All of the news I have shared in the past and the discussion has gone from my profile. What is left are some political group posts (re indue card and various environmental concerns) and Kevin Rudd posts.

I wonder if Facebook will restore all of the stuff, having demonstrated what a nuisance it can be to so many people?

It might be unwise of them to absent themselves for too long, lest users discover alternatives.

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

Rupert owns nearly all the news and that is not monopolising? This is Rupert’s way of ensuring the news is his. And the money goes his way.

Rupert is constrained from owning even more. He has no TV stations, for example.

He does have half of Foxtel.

Foxtel is not free to air. Plus it is not a news service.

Peak Warming Man said:

I never have and never will support or enable these American capitalist running dog fascists whether it be Facebook or Instantgrahame or the like.

or News?

“ News Corp and Google will develop a subscription platform, share advertising revenue through Google’s ad technology services, build out audio journalism and develop video journalism by YouTube.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-18/facebook-to-restrict-sharing-or-viewing-news-in-australia/13166208

Right, so they’re forcing people into narrow channels to find free news…

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

Rupert is constrained from owning even more. He has no TV stations, for example.

He does have half of Foxtel.

Foxtel is not free to air. Plus it is not a news service.

Well, it does have Sky News, which has as much “news” as news.com.au

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

Rupert is constrained from owning even more. He has no TV stations, for example.

He does have half of Foxtel.

Foxtel is not free to air. Plus it is not a news service.

What about Skynews? Apparently it is even on FTA in some places.

Divine Angel said:

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

He does have half of Foxtel.

Foxtel is not free to air. Plus it is not a news service.

Well, it does have Sky News, which has as much “news” as news.com.au

I’m convinced that the only people who watch Sky News are politicians, their staffers, and journos.

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

Rupert is constrained from owning even more. He has no TV stations, for example.

He does have half of Foxtel.

Foxtel is not free to air. Plus it is not a news service.

Sky News is free to air. But, it’s not a news service, either.

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

He does have half of Foxtel.

Foxtel is not free to air. Plus it is not a news service.

What about Skynews? Apparently it is even on FTA in some places.

117 daily veiwers doesn’t really count.

party_pants said:

I’m convinced that the only people who watch Sky News are politicians, their staffers, and journos.

And, because they only watch Sky News, they’re under the impression that what it says is vastly more important that what it really is.

It’s their narrow field of viewing that gives Rupert his sway over them.

party_pants said:

Divine Angel said:

party_pants said:

Foxtel is not free to air. Plus it is not a news service.

Well, it does have Sky News, which has as much “news” as news.com.au

I’m convinced that the only people who watch Sky News are politicians, their staffers, and journos.

Media Watch is gonna have a field day with this facebook thing. I’m beginning to think Media Watch wouldn’t exist without Sky News…

sarahs mum said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I never have and never will support or enable these American capitalist running dog fascists whether it be Facebook or Instantgrahame or the like.

or News?

I get the raw information from Sky News.
If I want a more nuanced in-depth unpacking of current affairs I turn to The Bolt Report or Tim Blair’s blog.

party_pants said:

Divine Angel said:

party_pants said:

Foxtel is not free to air. Plus it is not a news service.

Well, it does have Sky News, which has as much “news” as news.com.au

I’m convinced that the only people who watch Sky News are politicians, their staffers, and journos.

I’ve heard their ‘rightatnight’ line up has like a million viewers on youtube

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

He does have half of Foxtel.

Foxtel is not free to air. Plus it is not a news service.

What about Skynews? Apparently it is even on FTA in some places.

Free to air here in Tassie. Still won’t watch.

Peak Warming Man said:

sarahs mum said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I never have and never will support or enable these American capitalist running dog fascists whether it be Facebook or Instantgrahame or the like.

or News?

I get the raw information from Sky News.
If I want a more nuanced in-depth unpacking of current affairs I turn to The Bolt Report or Tim Blair’s blog.

Hahahaha

I don’t know the full implications of the news ban. Right now, there are valuable organisations who have been caught up in it who aren’t even news sites. Places like Qld Health, WA fires, and Hobart Women’s Shelter have all gone under the ban.

Interestingly, it seems one can now cross-post news from Instagram (which is also owned by facebook) to facebook itself… There’s a warning, but it can be done.

Divine Angel said:

I don’t know the full implications of the news ban. Right now, there are valuable organisations who have been caught up in it who aren’t even news sites. Places like Qld Health, WA fires, and Hobart Women’s Shelter have all gone under the ban.

I am sure they are doing this deliberately, and that this will be counter-productive for their public image and reputation.

party_pants said:

Divine Angel said:

I don’t know the full implications of the news ban. Right now, there are valuable organisations who have been caught up in it who aren’t even news sites. Places like Qld Health, WA fires, and Hobart Women’s Shelter have all gone under the ban.

I am sure they are doing this deliberately, and that this will be counter-productive for their public image and reputation.

Yeah, but maybe they’re hoping that their users will be more obedient now, having had a demonstration of ‘Facebook giveth, and Facebook can bloody well taketh away, too’.

No more live press conferences on fb.

I wonder if they’ll still publish amber alerts?

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

Divine Angel said:

I don’t know the full implications of the news ban. Right now, there are valuable organisations who have been caught up in it who aren’t even news sites. Places like Qld Health, WA fires, and Hobart Women’s Shelter have all gone under the ban.

I am sure they are doing this deliberately, and that this will be counter-productive for their public image and reputation.

Yeah, but maybe they’re hoping that their users will be more obedient now, having had a demonstration of ‘Facebook giveth, and Facebook can bloody well taketh away, too’.

right but remember how when CHINA banned our exports, we just told them to Rightfully Get Fucked, showing what a Strong And Considerable Force To Be Reckoned With we were

In The Name Of Capitalism, when a Fat Multinational Corporation tries to create trouble

We Must Accede

The Conversation just message me to sign up to their newsletter.

captain_spalding said:

party_pants said:

Divine Angel said:

I don’t know the full implications of the news ban. Right now, there are valuable organisations who have been caught up in it who aren’t even news sites. Places like Qld Health, WA fires, and Hobart Women’s Shelter have all gone under the ban.

I am sure they are doing this deliberately, and that this will be counter-productive for their public image and reputation.

Yeah, but maybe they’re hoping that their users will be more obedient now, having had a demonstration of ‘Facebook giveth, and Facebook can bloody well taketh away, too’.

maybe, maybe not. I had a great disengaging from Facebook a couple of years ago. These days I only look at the notifications to see if it is someone’s birthday. Aside from that I hardly look at it now.

sarahs mum said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

party_pants said:

Foxtel is not free to air. Plus it is not a news service.

What about Skynews? Apparently it is even on FTA in some places.

Free to air here in Tassie. Still won’t watch.

right, it’s like Macro$$$oft 5G COVID-19 Autism Bing is free to load, and yet Australians are still All About Facebook, Google, Sly News, Twitter

The Bureau of Meteorology, state health departments, the Western Australian opposition leader, charities, and Facebook itself are among those to have been blocked on Facebook in Australia as a result of the company’s wide-ranging ban on sharing or viewing news.
On Thursday morning, Facebook began preventing Australian news sites from posting, while also stopping Australian users from sharing or viewing content from any news outlets, both Australian and international.
The social media giant said it made the decision in response to the news media bargaining code currently before the Senate, which would force Facebook and Google to negotiate with news companies for payment for content.
While the ban was only meant to target Australian news publishers, dozens of pages run by key government agencies, community pages, union pages, charity organisations and politicians have also been hit by the news ban.
Australia’s main source of weather information, the Bureau of Meteorology, said it had been hit by the block, and was advising users to go to its direct website, app or Twitter page.
As Australia prepares to begin the rollout of Covid-19 vaccines, state health departments, including SA Health and Queensland Health, were unable to post.
St Vincent’s Health in Melbourne said it was “extremely concerning” its Facebook page had been blocked “during a pandemic and on the eve of crucial Covid vaccine distribution”.
Shadow health minister, Mark Butler said it was “completely irresponsible” behaviour by Facebook, and the pages needed to be restored.
“We’re in the middle of a pandemic,” he tweeted. “Australians need to hear from credible voices in the vaccine rollout. This is completely irresponsible from Facebook. The Morrison government needs to fix this today.”
Queensland premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said the federal government needed to “sort it out.”
“It needs to be fixed up and it needs to be fixed up today.”
The Western Australian department of fire and emergency service’s page was also stripped of content.
A number of Australian Capital Territory government pages were also caught up in Facebook’s action.
Just weeks out from the Western Australian election, the state’s opposition leader, Zak Kirkup also was blocked, while incumbent premier Mark McGowan’s page remained unaffected.
1800 Respect, Mission Australia, Hobart Women’s Shelter, National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, Australian Wildlife Conservancy and a number of other charities were also blocked on Thursday.

Divine Angel said:

No more live press conferences on fb.

I wonder if they’ll still publish amber alerts?

I wonder how far the no more live press conferences will go…

sarahs mum said:

The Bureau of Meteorology, state health departments, the Western Australian opposition leader, charities, and Facebook itself are among those to have been blocked on Facebook in Australia as a result of the company’s wide-ranging ban on sharing or viewing news.
On Thursday morning, Facebook began preventing Australian news sites from posting, while also stopping Australian users from sharing or viewing content from any news outlets, both Australian and international.
The social media giant said it made the decision in response to the news media bargaining code currently before the Senate, which would force Facebook and Google to negotiate with news companies for payment for content.
While the ban was only meant to target Australian news publishers, dozens of pages run by key government agencies, community pages, union pages, charity organisations and politicians have also been hit by the news ban.
Australia’s main source of weather information, the Bureau of Meteorology, said it had been hit by the block, and was advising users to go to its direct website, app or Twitter page.
As Australia prepares to begin the rollout of Covid-19 vaccines, state health departments, including SA Health and Queensland Health, were unable to post.
St Vincent’s Health in Melbourne said it was “extremely concerning” its Facebook page had been blocked “during a pandemic and on the eve of crucial Covid vaccine distribution”.
Shadow health minister, Mark Butler said it was “completely irresponsible” behaviour by Facebook, and the pages needed to be restored.
“We’re in the middle of a pandemic,” he tweeted. “Australians need to hear from credible voices in the vaccine rollout. This is completely irresponsible from Facebook. The Morrison government needs to fix this today.”
Queensland premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said the federal government needed to “sort it out.”
“It needs to be fixed up and it needs to be fixed up today.”
The Western Australian department of fire and emergency service’s page was also stripped of content.
A number of Australian Capital Territory government pages were also caught up in Facebook’s action.
Just weeks out from the Western Australian election, the state’s opposition leader, Zak Kirkup also was blocked, while incumbent premier Mark McGowan’s page remained unaffected.
1800 Respect, Mission Australia, Hobart Women’s Shelter, National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, Australian Wildlife Conservancy and a number of other charities were also blocked on Thursday.

Imagine If…

Instead of getting their curated, shit-smeared, biasing-filtered, “news” and “updates” (content) through an aggregation “social” media service… …

Internet users had learnt some Media Literacy and were able to Get The Facts from a more proximal source, indeed, even The Proximal Source, of that content… … …

sarahs mum said:

Divine Angel said:

No more live press conferences on fb.

I wonder if they’ll still publish amber alerts?

I wonder how far the no more live press conferences will go…

Which press conferences are you referring to?

SCIENCE said:

sarahs mum said:

The Bureau of Meteorology, state health departments, the Western Australian opposition leader, charities, and Facebook itself are among those to have been blocked on Facebook in Australia as a result of the company’s wide-ranging ban on sharing or viewing news.
On Thursday morning, Facebook began preventing Australian news sites from posting, while also stopping Australian users from sharing or viewing content from any news outlets, both Australian and international.
The social media giant said it made the decision in response to the news media bargaining code currently before the Senate, which would force Facebook and Google to negotiate with news companies for payment for content.
While the ban was only meant to target Australian news publishers, dozens of pages run by key government agencies, community pages, union pages, charity organisations and politicians have also been hit by the news ban.
Australia’s main source of weather information, the Bureau of Meteorology, said it had been hit by the block, and was advising users to go to its direct website, app or Twitter page.
As Australia prepares to begin the rollout of Covid-19 vaccines, state health departments, including SA Health and Queensland Health, were unable to post.
St Vincent’s Health in Melbourne said it was “extremely concerning” its Facebook page had been blocked “during a pandemic and on the eve of crucial Covid vaccine distribution”.
Shadow health minister, Mark Butler said it was “completely irresponsible” behaviour by Facebook, and the pages needed to be restored.
“We’re in the middle of a pandemic,” he tweeted. “Australians need to hear from credible voices in the vaccine rollout. This is completely irresponsible from Facebook. The Morrison government needs to fix this today.”
Queensland premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said the federal government needed to “sort it out.”
“It needs to be fixed up and it needs to be fixed up today.”
The Western Australian department of fire and emergency service’s page was also stripped of content.
A number of Australian Capital Territory government pages were also caught up in Facebook’s action.
Just weeks out from the Western Australian election, the state’s opposition leader, Zak Kirkup also was blocked, while incumbent premier Mark McGowan’s page remained unaffected.
1800 Respect, Mission Australia, Hobart Women’s Shelter, National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, Australian Wildlife Conservancy and a number of other charities were also blocked on Thursday.

Imagine If…

Instead of getting their curated, shit-smeared, biasing-filtered, “news” and “updates” (content) through an aggregation “social” media service… …

Internet users had learnt some Media Literacy and were able to Get The Facts from a more proximal source, indeed, even The Proximal Source, of that content… … …

we mean, let’s brake down for the content accelerator service and try to avoid crashing the webpages

Bureau of Meteorology, state health departments, the Western Australian opposition leader, charities, … are among those
… who can just serve content direct from their respective websites, bypassing the bullshit

the Bureau of Meteorology, said it had been hit by the block, and was advising users to go to its direct website, app or Twitter page.
… imagine that

As Australia prepares to begin the rollout of Covid-19 vaccines, state health departments, including SA Health and Queensland Health, were unable to post.
… fortunately, that meant they were able to spend more resources on actually just fucking delivering the vaccines

Mark Butler said it was “completely irresponsible” behaviour by Facebook, and the pages needed to be restored.
… it would have been wiser to leave it at completely irresponsible, and say that alternatives needed to be found

“Australians need to hear from credible voices in the vaccine rollout. This is completely irresponsible from Facebook. The Morrison government needs to fix this today.”
… and he was right — The Morrison government needs to actually find some credible voices

Queensland premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said the federal government needed to “sort it out.” “It needs to be fixed up and it needs to be fixed up today.”
… however, we disagree — she does not need to wait for any useless federal government to sort it out, she needs to find it within the state to deliver alternatives, yesterday

weeks out from the Western Australian election, the state’s opposition leader, Zak Kirkup also was blocked, while incumbent premier Mark McGowan’s page remained unaffected.
… curious

sibeen said:

sarahs mum said:

Divine Angel said:

No more live press conferences on fb.

I wonder if they’ll still publish amber alerts?

I wonder how far the no more live press conferences will go…

Which press conferences are you referring to?

I don’t know yet. I don’t know if DA knows yet.

sibeen said:

sarahs mum said:

Divine Angel said:

No more live press conferences on fb.

I wonder if they’ll still publish amber alerts?

I wonder how far the no more live press conferences will go…

Which press conferences are you referring to?

Covid updates from premiers, weather/fire info, police services etc all hold press conferences live streamed on Facebook.

Divine Angel said:

sibeen said:

sarahs mum said:

I wonder how far the no more live press conferences will go…

Which press conferences are you referring to?

Covid updates from premiers, weather/fire info, police services etc all hold press conferences live streamed on Facebook.

Ahh, gotcha.

sarahs mum said:

sibeen said:

sarahs mum said:

I wonder how far the no more live press conferences will go…

Which press conferences are you referring to?

I don’t know yet. I don’t know if DA knows yet.

I don’t know if anyone knows yet how far the ban will go. I know QPS’ page isn’t banned (yet) but they’re not allowed to share their news links eg updates, which they post quite often.

Divine Angel said:

sibeen said:

sarahs mum said:

I wonder how far the no more live press conferences will go…

Which press conferences are you referring to?

Covid updates from premiers, weather/fire info, police services etc all hold press conferences live streamed on Facebook.

And Morrison. Morrison is always popping up on facebook.

Divine Angel said:

sibeen said:

sarahs mum said:

I wonder how far the no more live press conferences will go…

Which press conferences are you referring to?

Covid updates from premiers, weather/fire info, police services etc all hold press conferences live streamed on Facebook.

That stuff is also on the ABC. There has been a constant live update thing on the ABC for COVID for ages.

Divine Angel said:

sibeen said:

sarahs mum said:

I wonder how far the no more live press conferences will go…

Which press conferences are you referring to?

Covid updates from premiers, weather/fire info, police services etc all hold press conferences live streamed on Facebook.

Do people watch them?

I guess I must be old. I rely on press conferences the old fashioned way, for the press to ask questions of politicians and officials, and then pass on the edited highlights to me. It is very rare that I watch the whole thing, they are usually quite boring.

sibeen said:

Divine Angel said:

sibeen said:

Which press conferences are you referring to?

Covid updates from premiers, weather/fire info, police services etc all hold press conferences live streamed on Facebook.

Ahh, gotcha.

there is a silver lining to every cloud, no more live streaming of mass murders on NZ mosques

kryten said:

sibeen said:

Divine Angel said:

Covid updates from premiers, weather/fire info, police services etc all hold press conferences live streamed on Facebook.

Ahh, gotcha.

there is a silver lining to every cloud, no more live streaming of mass murders on NZ mosques

only took 23 months, fk

buffy said:

Divine Angel said:

sibeen said:

Which press conferences are you referring to?

Covid updates from premiers, weather/fire info, police services etc all hold press conferences live streamed on Facebook.

That stuff is also on the ABC. There has been a constant live update thing on the ABC for COVID for ages.

Facebook streaming is useful for interested parties who get caught under the ABC’s geoblock.

buffy said:

Divine Angel said:

sibeen said:

Which press conferences are you referring to?

Covid updates from premiers, weather/fire info, police services etc all hold press conferences live streamed on Facebook.

That stuff is also on the ABC. There has been a constant live update thing on the ABC for COVID for ages.

Exactly and Facebook takes it for free and overlays it with ads to make money.
It’s all part of their business model.
Our Prime Minister and government are trying to bring some probity and fairness by shining a light into some dark places.

Divine Angel said:

I was thinking that too, and was going to write it after I finished reading the thread.

Michael V said:

Divine Angel said:

I was thinking that too, and was going to write it after I finished reading the thread.

yes see also kryten contribution

some are suggesting this is just pumping money back out of new Facebook Google swamps into old Murdoch Mires and maybe it is, maybe it is

so show us the evidence that Facebook and Google and Murdoch aren’t in some kind of cahoots to suck it all out of the unlucky 99% and then we can talk

sarahs mum said:

The Bureau of Meteorology, state health departments, the Western Australian opposition leader, charities, and Facebook itself are among those to have been blocked on Facebook in Australia as a result of the company’s wide-ranging ban on sharing or viewing news.
On Thursday morning, Facebook began preventing Australian news sites from posting, while also stopping Australian users from sharing or viewing content from any news outlets, both Australian and international.
The social media giant said it made the decision in response to the news media bargaining code currently before the Senate, which would force Facebook and Google to negotiate with news companies for payment for content.
While the ban was only meant to target Australian news publishers, dozens of pages run by key government agencies, community pages, union pages, charity organisations and politicians have also been hit by the news ban.
Australia’s main source of weather information, the Bureau of Meteorology, said it had been hit by the block, and was advising users to go to its direct website, app or Twitter page.
As Australia prepares to begin the rollout of Covid-19 vaccines, state health departments, including SA Health and Queensland Health, were unable to post.
St Vincent’s Health in Melbourne said it was “extremely concerning” its Facebook page had been blocked “during a pandemic and on the eve of crucial Covid vaccine distribution”.
Shadow health minister, Mark Butler said it was “completely irresponsible” behaviour by Facebook, and the pages needed to be restored.
“We’re in the middle of a pandemic,” he tweeted. “Australians need to hear from credible voices in the vaccine rollout. This is completely irresponsible from Facebook. The Morrison government needs to fix this today.”
Queensland premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said the federal government needed to “sort it out.”
“It needs to be fixed up and it needs to be fixed up today.”
The Western Australian department of fire and emergency service’s page was also stripped of content.
A number of Australian Capital Territory government pages were also caught up in Facebook’s action.
Just weeks out from the Western Australian election, the state’s opposition leader, Zak Kirkup also was blocked, while incumbent premier Mark McGowan’s page remained unaffected.
1800 Respect, Mission Australia, Hobart Women’s Shelter, National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, Australian Wildlife Conservancy and a number of other charities were also blocked on Thursday.

Seems Facebork is a Terrorist organisation.

kryten said:

sibeen said:

Divine Angel said:

Covid updates from premiers, weather/fire info, police services etc all hold press conferences live streamed on Facebook.

Ahh, gotcha.

there is a silver lining to every cloud, no more live streaming of mass murders on NZ mosques

Please keep it so.

Michael V said:

sarahs mum said:

The Bureau of Meteorology, state health departments, the Western Australian opposition leader, charities, and Facebook itself are among those to have been blocked on Facebook in Australia as a result of the company’s wide-ranging ban on sharing or viewing news.
On Thursday morning, Facebook began preventing Australian news sites from posting, while also stopping Australian users from sharing or viewing content from any news outlets, both Australian and international.
The social media giant said it made the decision in response to the news media bargaining code currently before the Senate, which would force Facebook and Google to negotiate with news companies for payment for content.
While the ban was only meant to target Australian news publishers, dozens of pages run by key government agencies, community pages, union pages, charity organisations and politicians have also been hit by the news ban.
Australia’s main source of weather information, the Bureau of Meteorology, said it had been hit by the block, and was advising users to go to its direct website, app or Twitter page.
As Australia prepares to begin the rollout of Covid-19 vaccines, state health departments, including SA Health and Queensland Health, were unable to post.
St Vincent’s Health in Melbourne said it was “extremely concerning” its Facebook page had been blocked “during a pandemic and on the eve of crucial Covid vaccine distribution”.
Shadow health minister, Mark Butler said it was “completely irresponsible” behaviour by Facebook, and the pages needed to be restored.
“We’re in the middle of a pandemic,” he tweeted. “Australians need to hear from credible voices in the vaccine rollout. This is completely irresponsible from Facebook. The Morrison government needs to fix this today.”
Queensland premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said the federal government needed to “sort it out.”
“It needs to be fixed up and it needs to be fixed up today.”
The Western Australian department of fire and emergency service’s page was also stripped of content.
A number of Australian Capital Territory government pages were also caught up in Facebook’s action.
Just weeks out from the Western Australian election, the state’s opposition leader, Zak Kirkup also was blocked, while incumbent premier Mark McGowan’s page remained unaffected.
1800 Respect, Mission Australia, Hobart Women’s Shelter, National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, Australian Wildlife Conservancy and a number of other charities were also blocked on Thursday.

Seems Facebork is a Terrorist organisation.

LOL

Peak Warming Man said:

Michael V said:

sarahs mum said:

The Bureau of Meteorology, state health departments, the Western Australian opposition leader, charities, and Facebook itself are among those to have been blocked on Facebook in Australia as a result of the company’s wide-ranging ban on sharing or viewing news.
On Thursday morning, Facebook began preventing Australian news sites from posting, while also stopping Australian users from sharing or viewing content from any news outlets, both Australian and international.
The social media giant said it made the decision in response to the news media bargaining code currently before the Senate, which would force Facebook and Google to negotiate with news companies for payment for content.
While the ban was only meant to target Australian news publishers, dozens of pages run by key government agencies, community pages, union pages, charity organisations and politicians have also been hit by the news ban.
Australia’s main source of weather information, the Bureau of Meteorology, said it had been hit by the block, and was advising users to go to its direct website, app or Twitter page.
As Australia prepares to begin the rollout of Covid-19 vaccines, state health departments, including SA Health and Queensland Health, were unable to post.
St Vincent’s Health in Melbourne said it was “extremely concerning” its Facebook page had been blocked “during a pandemic and on the eve of crucial Covid vaccine distribution”.
Shadow health minister, Mark Butler said it was “completely irresponsible” behaviour by Facebook, and the pages needed to be restored.
“We’re in the middle of a pandemic,” he tweeted. “Australians need to hear from credible voices in the vaccine rollout. This is completely irresponsible from Facebook. The Morrison government needs to fix this today.”
Queensland premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said the federal government needed to “sort it out.”
“It needs to be fixed up and it needs to be fixed up today.”
The Western Australian department of fire and emergency service’s page was also stripped of content.
A number of Australian Capital Territory government pages were also caught up in Facebook’s action.
Just weeks out from the Western Australian election, the state’s opposition leader, Zak Kirkup also was blocked, while incumbent premier Mark McGowan’s page remained unaffected.
1800 Respect, Mission Australia, Hobart Women’s Shelter, National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services, Australian Wildlife Conservancy and a number of other charities were also blocked on Thursday.

Seems Facebork is a Terrorist organisation.

LOL

uh wasn’t that kind of Trump’s argument for Twitter, it’s not like they’re obliged to provide service to all these state departments

SMH appeals to me to block Facebook. And Frydenburg is not happy with Facebook.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/it-s-time-to-unfriend-facebook-when-it-resorts-to-starving-us-of-news-20210218-p573lt.html
——
And one of my friends is telling me I should block facebook..using facebook.

sarahs mum said:

SMH appeals to me to block Facebook. And Frydenburg is not happy with Facebook.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/it-s-time-to-unfriend-facebook-when-it-resorts-to-starving-us-of-news-20210218-p573lt.html
——
And one of my friends is telling me I should block facebook..using facebook.

I imagine that even without blocking Facebook regular users will spend less time scrolling which will affect FB’s advertising revenue.

Witty Rejoinder said:

I imagine that even without blocking Facebook regular users will spend less time scrolling which will affect FB’s advertising revenue.

Aawww…

call us Caring For The People government apologists but we ask

¿ what really is the difference between government censorship, and corporate censorship ?

¿ what really is the difference between Private Enterprise Social Media curating information, and Great Firewall prioritisation of access to information ?

SCIENCE said:

call us Caring For The People government apologists but we ask

¿ what really is the difference between government censorship, and corporate censorship ?

¿ what really is the difference between Private Enterprise Social Media curating information, and Great Firewall prioritisation of access to information ?

and what happened to governments not interfering with a companies rights?

SCIENCE said:

Or go to:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/

JudgeMental said:

SCIENCE said:

call us Caring For The People government apologists but we ask

¿ what really is the difference between government censorship, and corporate censorship ?

¿ what really is the difference between Private Enterprise Social Media curating information, and Great Firewall prioritisation of access to information ?

and what happened to governments not interfering with a companies rights?

My thought on governments: they need to protect their citizens from the robber barons.

I really thought Facebook and Google were different in this way: Facebook provides the platform, upon which news agencies post news if they want to. Google runs algorithms that search the internet and return results that include news.

Aren’t they completely different things?

Rule 303 said:

I really thought Facebook and Google were different in this way: Facebook provides the platform, upon which news agencies post news if they want to. Google runs algorithms that search the internet and return results that include news.

Aren’t they completely different things?

i’d say they both offer free services in exchange for privileges (including special arrangements with third parties) that facilitate variously advertising, targeted advertising, and they are both big, global, ubiquitous maybe is an appropriate word

buffy said:

Personally I prefer businesses to have a website rather than just a Facebook page. Usually much easier to navigate and far more useful. I have discussed this with some younger people and some of them even agree with me.

***nods***

ms spock said:

buffy said:

Personally I prefer businesses to have a website rather than just a Facebook page. Usually much easier to navigate and far more useful. I have discussed this with some younger people and some of them even agree with me.

***nods***

Why not both?

*imagines a meme.

ABC posts something on my Facebook. I click on it. I read it. While I am there I look at other stuff they have on offer and what is justin. I do the same with the Guardian.

Divine Angel said:

Oh dear.

But it made me laugh.

Isn’t our present government all for free enterprise? But they don’t like it when free enterprise does free enterprisey things, like make their own decisions.

buffy said:

Isn’t our present government all for free enterprise? But they don’t like it when free enterprise does free enterprisey things, like make their own decisions.

Maybe they are not quite so free enterprise as that.
Or maybe monopolistic type behaviour is no longer considered as free enterprise.

How did the vote on this law go in the house of reps yesterday?

sibeen said:

How did the vote on this law go in the house of reps yesterday?

I cant find anything in the news about it.

Peak Warming Man said:

sibeen said:

How did the vote on this law go in the house of reps yesterday?

I cant find anything in the news about it.

I’m struggling to find anything on the vote other than it passed.

sibeen said:

Peak Warming Man said:

sibeen said:

How did the vote on this law go in the house of reps yesterday?

I cant find anything in the news about it.

I’m struggling to find anything on the vote other than it passed.

Here, have a search on Hansard.

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Search?q&expand=true&drvH=0&drt=2&pnu=44&pnuH=44&pi=0&pv&chi=2&coi=0

And a calendar where you can look things up, apparently.

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Chamber_documents/HoR/Votes_and_Proceedings

I think this is it.

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fvotes%2F48e387d2-195a-4efd-abe6-d1a40529aa8f%2F0018;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fvotes%2F48e387d2-195a-4efd-abe6-d1a40529aa8f%2F0000%22

Facebook’s real problem with the Aust. govt. is that if the govt. ‘gets away with this’, then other govts of other counries may do the same.

And if they do that, then they might start wondering about getting outfits like Google and Facebook to pay proper taxes on the profits they make in those same countries.

captain_spalding said:

Facebook’s real problem with the Aust. govt. is that if the govt. ‘gets away with this’, then other govts of other counries may do the same.

And if they do that, then they might start wondering about getting outfits like Google and Facebook to pay proper taxes on the profits they make in those same countries.

I think the big tech giants have far more to lose at this than the Australian government.

sibeen said:

Peak Warming Man said:

sibeen said:

How did the vote on this law go in the house of reps yesterday?

I cant find anything in the news about it.

I’m struggling to find anything on the vote other than it passed.

So yesterday I was driving and listening to the Senate debate on the Family court, it was a good debate until Wish Wilson went feral and Rex Patrick tore him a new one.
Anyway there were many divisions required and then it came to the climax after hours of debate, the motion was put and the bells were ringing and the ABC went to some news items of no consequence, when they came back it was all over and PWM had missed another climax.

buffy said:

I think this is it.

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fvotes%2F48e387d2-195a-4efd-abe6-d1a40529aa8f%2F0018;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fvotes%2F48e387d2-195a-4efd-abe6-d1a40529aa8f%2F0000%22

Yeah, that’s the one, I found a link here:

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6652

Neither tell me how the vote went down.

captain_spalding said:

Facebook’s real problem with the Aust. govt. is that if the govt. ‘gets away with this’, then other govts of other counries may do the same.

And if they do that, then they might start wondering about getting outfits like Google and Facebook to pay proper taxes on the profits they make in those same countries.

now I could get behind murdoch, facebook, google and various others paying appropriate taxes.

sibeen said:

buffy said:

I think this is it.

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fvotes%2F48e387d2-195a-4efd-abe6-d1a40529aa8f%2F0018;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fvotes%2F48e387d2-195a-4efd-abe6-d1a40529aa8f%2F0000%22

Yeah, that’s the one, I found a link here:

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6652

Neither tell me how the vote went down.

Does Hansard tell you? You’d need to search on the name of the bill, I suppose.

Now, I’ll watch you lot while I shred some more patient records of people who have died and haven’t been to the practice since 2013 anyway.

captain_spalding said:

Facebook’s real problem with the Aust. govt. is that if the govt. ‘gets away with this’, then other govts of other counries may do the same.

And if they do that, then they might start wondering about getting outfits like Google and Facebook to pay proper taxes on the profits they make in those same countries.

just an opinion below, i’ll state it’s probably wrong upfront, I love wrongness, say I visited the Land of Topsy Turvy

I agree with the popular social media platform to not give in easily, they’d be daft to simply comply and pretend it’s all sweet

the changes effect the formal and informal dimension of agreements of maybe 11 million local users, and the effects can’t be kept entirely local, within Australia, and it’s likely to be creeping

the thing about some liabilities into the future, an imposed change, is that the change can result in liabilities extending back in time, even if just a notion, notional

dv said:

ha

No news on the ‘News Feed’ … awkward!!!

Jimmy Rees
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuBWiMpr2jA

sarahs mum said:

No news on the ‘News Feed’ … awkward!!!

Jimmy Rees
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuBWiMpr2jA

:)

So what did the Jimmy Rees guy do before he became Jason?

The Rev Dodgson said:

sarahs mum said:

No news on the ‘News Feed’ … awkward!!!

Jimmy Rees
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuBWiMpr2jA

:)

So what did the Jimmy Rees guy do before he became Jason?

Luckily Wikipedia has not shut down yet:

James Rees (born 15 July 1987), better known under the stage name Jimmy Giggle, is an Australian children’s entertainer. Rees is known for the role of Jimmy Giggle on ABC Kids’ flagship program Giggle and Hoot – a role he has played since 2009.

Rees competed in Network Ten’s Dancing with the Stars in 2019, but withdrew from the competition several weeks before the grand finale when one of his twin sons suffered complications during a routine medical procedure.

The Rev Dodgson said:

sarahs mum said:

No news on the ‘News Feed’ … awkward!!!

Jimmy Rees
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuBWiMpr2jA

:)

So what did the Jimmy Rees guy do before he became Jason?

Kids show called Giggle and Hoot.

dv said:

Betoota seems like a very funny place to live.

:-)

Just had a look on my Facebook page.

Looks just like it normally does to me :)

JudgeMental said:

from facebook was it

Facebook news ban sees anti-vaccine misinformation pages unaffected and posting in ‘information vacuum’

https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2021-02-18/facebook-news-ban-misinformation-spread-covid-vaccine-rollout/13167318

SCIENCE said:

JudgeMental said:

from facebook was it

yes.

https://ieer.org/resource/factsheets/uranium-its-uses-and-hazards/#:~:text=Uranium-238

facebook didn’t like this site either.

‘ello ‘ello ‘ello.

What all this about then, hey?

Woodie said:

‘ello ‘ello ‘ello.

What all this about then, hey?

Well, some people were quite put out and upset by Facebork’s stuff this morning, and the discussion morphed into discussion about Google. It didn’t seem right to keep this (boring to me) discussion in chat, so I started a thread.

Michael V said:

Woodie said:

‘ello ‘ello ‘ello.

What all this about then, hey?

Well, some people were quite put out and upset by Facebork’s stuff this morning, and the discussion morphed into discussion about Google. It didn’t seem right to keep this (boring to me) discussion in chat, so I started a thread.

FMD. It’s been a world sport to bash Facebook and Google for their dominance, arrogance, dictatorial ways and exorbitant profits, minimal tax and the rest of it. And when someone tries to do something about it, they’re condemned for it. Simply because it’s suits your political narrative to bash Scomo as well. The world ain’t gunna fuckin’ end, it’ll or get sorted and it will be business as usual.

In a way, I’ll be glad to be rid of those on Facebook that “share” every bit of “news” (fake or otherwise) that can be found about Scum Scomo or that Orange Shitgibbon, or some nutter’s obsession about navel gazing et al that happened to make it to a “news” website. As I said earlier, and it’s also true on here. They think of themselves as some sort or Reuters News Service or a international office of AAP of sumfin’. I, for one, will be glad to see the end of it.

While I support the concept of what the gubbermint is trying to do, I doubt the gubbermint’s motives are in the best interest of the general populous. The motives being based on more important interests (to the coalition government). Namely certain media outlets’ strong support. .And the gubbermint at it hammer and tongs about this, but not a whisper or whimper about the taxes the webernet juggernauts pay.

Anyone know actually how this thing works? Well I’ll tell you.

News media outlets pay their staff to write up an article and take the pics, and put it on their website. Along comes the likes of you and me, and clicks the Facebook “share” icon on the webpage that the media outlet paid for to create that content, take the pics, and would get ad revenue for those that actually viewed that page. Facebook then “scrapes” off the text and pic (albeit the first paragraph), because YOU clicked “share”, and then puts it in YOUR Facebook feed, for others to read. 90% of people go no further than that to get their news. Very few actually click through to the original website and news article (and the news media site’s ads). Same with a Google search. Do a search on say “tennis results” Google “scrapes” the text off that website to show as part of the Google search results. Again, very few actually click through to the source website. Hence Google get their content for free, (that somebody else paid to create) and you only see the ads on Google.

Meanwhile, the legislation has not yet been passed by parliament, so why have Facebook “jumped the gun” by who know how long. (I don’t know the “implementation” date of the gubbermints legislation) Why have Facebook done this? They don’t have to, for who know how long yet.

Woodie said:

Michael V said:

Woodie said:

‘ello ‘ello ‘ello.

What all this about then, hey?

Well, some people were quite put out and upset by Facebork’s stuff this morning, and the discussion morphed into discussion about Google. It didn’t seem right to keep this (boring to me) discussion in chat, so I started a thread.

FMD. It’s been a world sport to bash Facebook and Google for their dominance, arrogance, dictatorial ways and exorbitant profits, minimal tax and the rest of it. And when someone tries to do something about it, they’re condemned for it. Simply because it’s suits your political narrative to bash Scomo as well. The world ain’t gunna fuckin’ end, it’ll or get sorted and it will be business as usual.

In a way, I’ll be glad to be rid of those on Facebook that “share” every bit of “news” (fake or otherwise) that can be found about Scum Scomo or that Orange Shitgibbon, or some nutter’s obsession about navel gazing et al that happened to make it to a “news” website. As I said earlier, and it’s also true on here. They think of themselves as some sort or Reuters News Service or a international office of AAP of sumfin’. I, for one, will be glad to see the end of it.

While I support the concept of what the gubbermint is trying to do, I doubt the gubbermint’s motives are in the best interest of the general populous. The motives being based on more important interests (to the coalition government). Namely certain media outlets’ strong support. .And the gubbermint at it hammer and tongs about this, but not a whisper or whimper about the taxes the webernet juggernauts pay.

Anyone know actually how this thing works? Well I’ll tell you.

News media outlets pay their staff to write up an article and take the pics, and put it on their website. Along comes the likes of you and me, and clicks the Facebook “share” icon on the webpage that the media outlet paid for to create that content, take the pics, and would get ad revenue for those that actually viewed that page. Facebook then “scrapes” off the text and pic (albeit the first paragraph), because YOU clicked “share”, and then puts it in YOUR Facebook feed, for others to read. 90% of people go no further than that to get their news. Very few actually click through to the original website and news article (and the news media site’s ads). Same with a Google search. Do a search on say “tennis results” Google “scrapes” the text off that website to show as part of the Google search results. Again, very few actually click through to the source website. Hence Google get their content for free, (that somebody else paid to create) and you only see the ads on Google.

Meanwhile, the legislation has not yet been passed by parliament, so why have Facebook “jumped the gun” by who know how long. (I don’t know the “implementation” date of the gubbermints legislation) Why have Facebook done this? They don’t have to, for who know how long yet.

It did pass the house of reps yesterday and therefore will be passed onto the Senate. I’ve actually been trying to find out who voted which way but cannot find a vote breakdown.

sibeen said:

Woodie said:

Michael V said:

Well, some people were quite put out and upset by Facebork’s stuff this morning, and the discussion morphed into discussion about Google. It didn’t seem right to keep this (boring to me) discussion in chat, so I started a thread.

FMD. It’s been a world sport to bash Facebook and Google for their dominance, arrogance, dictatorial ways and exorbitant profits, minimal tax and the rest of it. And when someone tries to do something about it, they’re condemned for it. Simply because it’s suits your political narrative to bash Scomo as well. The world ain’t gunna fuckin’ end, it’ll or get sorted and it will be business as usual.

In a way, I’ll be glad to be rid of those on Facebook that “share” every bit of “news” (fake or otherwise) that can be found about Scum Scomo or that Orange Shitgibbon, or some nutter’s obsession about navel gazing et al that happened to make it to a “news” website. As I said earlier, and it’s also true on here. They think of themselves as some sort or Reuters News Service or a international office of AAP of sumfin’. I, for one, will be glad to see the end of it.

While I support the concept of what the gubbermint is trying to do, I doubt the gubbermint’s motives are in the best interest of the general populous. The motives being based on more important interests (to the coalition government). Namely certain media outlets’ strong support. .And the gubbermint at it hammer and tongs about this, but not a whisper or whimper about the taxes the webernet juggernauts pay.

Anyone know actually how this thing works? Well I’ll tell you.

News media outlets pay their staff to write up an article and take the pics, and put it on their website. Along comes the likes of you and me, and clicks the Facebook “share” icon on the webpage that the media outlet paid for to create that content, take the pics, and would get ad revenue for those that actually viewed that page. Facebook then “scrapes” off the text and pic (albeit the first paragraph), because YOU clicked “share”, and then puts it in YOUR Facebook feed, for others to read. 90% of people go no further than that to get their news. Very few actually click through to the original website and news article (and the news media site’s ads). Same with a Google search. Do a search on say “tennis results” Google “scrapes” the text off that website to show as part of the Google search results. Again, very few actually click through to the source website. Hence Google get their content for free, (that somebody else paid to create) and you only see the ads on Google.

Meanwhile, the legislation has not yet been passed by parliament, so why have Facebook “jumped the gun” by who know how long. (I don’t know the “implementation” date of the gubbermints legislation) Why have Facebook done this? They don’t have to, for who know how long yet.

It did pass the house of reps yesterday and therefore will be passed onto the Senate. I’ve actually been trying to find out who voted which way but cannot find a vote breakdown.

This is a few days old but says Labor caucus has decided to pass it so it will be a fait accompli through parliament:

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/landmark-media-code-set-to-become-law-with-labor-s-backing-20210216-p572wv.html

Anyway, if news websites don’t want Facebook getting away with all this, then why are Facebook “share” icons still plastered all over these news websites?

Anyone test it? I did.

Anyone test this? I did.

Witty Rejoinder said:

sibeen said:

Woodie said:

FMD. It’s been a world sport to bash Facebook and Google for their dominance, arrogance, dictatorial ways and exorbitant profits, minimal tax and the rest of it. And when someone tries to do something about it, they’re condemned for it. Simply because it’s suits your political narrative to bash Scomo as well. The world ain’t gunna fuckin’ end, it’ll or get sorted and it will be business as usual.

In a way, I’ll be glad to be rid of those on Facebook that “share” every bit of “news” (fake or otherwise) that can be found about Scum Scomo or that Orange Shitgibbon, or some nutter’s obsession about navel gazing et al that happened to make it to a “news” website. As I said earlier, and it’s also true on here. They think of themselves as some sort or Reuters News Service or a international office of AAP of sumfin’. I, for one, will be glad to see the end of it.

While I support the concept of what the gubbermint is trying to do, I doubt the gubbermint’s motives are in the best interest of the general populous. The motives being based on more important interests (to the coalition government). Namely certain media outlets’ strong support. .And the gubbermint at it hammer and tongs about this, but not a whisper or whimper about the taxes the webernet juggernauts pay.

Anyone know actually how this thing works? Well I’ll tell you.

News media outlets pay their staff to write up an article and take the pics, and put it on their website. Along comes the likes of you and me, and clicks the Facebook “share” icon on the webpage that the media outlet paid for to create that content, take the pics, and would get ad revenue for those that actually viewed that page. Facebook then “scrapes” off the text and pic (albeit the first paragraph), because YOU clicked “share”, and then puts it in YOUR Facebook feed, for others to read. 90% of people go no further than that to get their news. Very few actually click through to the original website and news article (and the news media site’s ads). Same with a Google search. Do a search on say “tennis results” Google “scrapes” the text off that website to show as part of the Google search results. Again, very few actually click through to the source website. Hence Google get their content for free, (that somebody else paid to create) and you only see the ads on Google.

Meanwhile, the legislation has not yet been passed by parliament, so why have Facebook “jumped the gun” by who know how long. (I don’t know the “implementation” date of the gubbermints legislation) Why have Facebook done this? They don’t have to, for who know how long yet.

It did pass the house of reps yesterday and therefore will be passed onto the Senate. I’ve actually been trying to find out who voted which way but cannot find a vote breakdown.

This is a few days old but says Labor caucus has decided to pass it so it will be a fait accompli through parliament:

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/landmark-media-code-set-to-become-law-with-labor-s-backing-20210216-p572wv.html

Ta, witty. I assumed that the bill was going to pass with support from both major parties, just cant find a breakdown.

I haven’t looked at Google News today, but the only Australian links I normally click on therein are ABC, SBS and (less frequently) former Fairfax titles.

Murdoch is on permanent boycott in this household but it’s pointless clicking on most of their links anyway, because they are pay sites.

Woodie said:

Anyway, if news websites don’t want Facebook getting away with all this, then why are Facebook “share” icons still plastered all over these news websites?

Anyone test it? I did.

Anyone test this? I did.

I didn’t test.

Even for a company that specialises in PR disasters, Facebook has excelled with its Australian blackout

By turning off news sharing, Facebook has turned attention away from flawed government legislation and on to its own reckless opaque power

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/18/even-for-a-company-that-specialises-in-pr-disasters-facebook-has-excelled-with-its-australian-blackout

Michael V said:

Woodie said:

Anyway, if news websites don’t want Facebook getting away with all this, then why are Facebook “share” icons still plastered all over these news websites?

Anyone test it? I did.

Anyone test this? I did.

I didn’t test.

It still takes you through the process of creating your Facebook post, but when you click “post”, it tells you that link can’t be shared.

I also can’t find a list of news sites that have been blocked from sharing. Only reports of ones that were blocked “accidentally”.

Bubblecar said:

Even for a company that specialises in PR disasters, Facebook has excelled with its Australian blackout

By turning off news sharing, Facebook has turned attention away from flawed government legislation and on to its own reckless opaque power

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/18/even-for-a-company-that-specialises-in-pr-disasters-facebook-has-excelled-with-its-australian-blackout

:)

I hope so.

Woodie said:

Michael V said:

Woodie said:

Anyway, if news websites don’t want Facebook getting away with all this, then why are Facebook “share” icons still plastered all over these news websites?

Anyone test it? I did.

Anyone test this? I did.

I didn’t test.

It still takes you through the process of creating your Facebook post, but when you click “post”, it tells you that link can’t be shared.

I also can’t find a list of news sites that have been blocked from sharing. Only reports of ones that were blocked “accidentally”.

I’m so glad I don’t Facebork.

Michael V said:

Woodie said:

Michael V said:

I didn’t test.

It still takes you through the process of creating your Facebook post, but when you click “post”, it tells you that link can’t be shared.

I also can’t find a list of news sites that have been blocked from sharing. Only reports of ones that were blocked “accidentally”.

I’m so glad I don’t Facebork.

+1.

Bubblecar said:

Michael V said:

Woodie said:

It still takes you through the process of creating your Facebook post, but when you click “post”, it tells you that link can’t be shared.

I also can’t find a list of news sites that have been blocked from sharing. Only reports of ones that were blocked “accidentally”.

I’m so glad I don’t Facebork.

+1.

+ me

A more worrying aspect of this, is Facebook has also cut off (and deleted all posts) from the actual Facebook pages of these news outlets as well. Where, say, the ABC would post to the ABC Facebook page, text, videos etc of ABC’s news, just as I would post pics and text to my Facebook page. These news outlets deliberately putting their stuff directly on Facebook..

This is more worrying.

In other words, Facebook have barred/blocked these new outlets from using Facebook directly.

The ABC’s News’ Facebook page now looks like this.

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

Michael V said:

I’m so glad I don’t Facebork.

+1.

+ me

I’m glad too.

Woodie said:

A more worrying aspect of this, is Facebook has also cut off (and deleted all posts) from the actual Facebook pages of these news outlets as well. Where, say, the ABC would post to the ABC Facebook page, text, videos etc of ABC’s news, just as I would post pics and text to my Facebook page. These news outlets deliberately putting their stuff directly on Facebook..

This is more worrying.

In other words, Facebook have barred/blocked these new outlets from using Facebook directly.

The ABC’s News’ Facebook page now looks like this.

And I presume all the comments have disappeared forever too. I know my profile is missing stories posted and the conversations that went with it.

Bubblecar said:

Even for a company that specialises in PR disasters, Facebook has excelled with its Australian blackout

By turning off news sharing, Facebook has turned attention away from flawed government legislation and on to its own reckless opaque power

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/18/even-for-a-company-that-specialises-in-pr-disasters-facebook-has-excelled-with-its-australian-blackout

It won’t dent the general populous’ use of Facebook one little bit. They’ll all still post endless pics of their cat, or last night’s dinner, or “I’ve checked in at the bus stop” while sittin’ on the dunny.

Woodie said:

Bubblecar said:

Even for a company that specialises in PR disasters, Facebook has excelled with its Australian blackout

By turning off news sharing, Facebook has turned attention away from flawed government legislation and on to its own reckless opaque power

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/18/even-for-a-company-that-specialises-in-pr-disasters-facebook-has-excelled-with-its-australian-blackout

It won’t dent the general populous’ use of Facebook one little bit. They’ll all still post endless pics of their cat, or last night’s dinner, or “I’ve checked in at the bus stop” while sittin’ on the dunny.

My puppy got nearly as many likes as my graduation photo.

Michael V said:

Bubblecar said:

Even for a company that specialises in PR disasters, Facebook has excelled with its Australian blackout

By turning off news sharing, Facebook has turned attention away from flawed government legislation and on to its own reckless opaque power

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/18/even-for-a-company-that-specialises-in-pr-disasters-facebook-has-excelled-with-its-australian-blackout

:)

I hope so.

There are lovers of Facebook, addiction to Facebook, and hater/detractors of Facebook. Neither will be swayed by this.

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

Michael V said:

I’m so glad I don’t Facebork.

+1.

+ me

I’m so glad you buggers don’t Facebork, too.

sarahs mum said:

Woodie said:

A more worrying aspect of this, is Facebook has also cut off (and deleted all posts) from the actual Facebook pages of these news outlets as well. Where, say, the ABC would post to the ABC Facebook page, text, videos etc of ABC’s news, just as I would post pics and text to my Facebook page. These news outlets deliberately putting their stuff directly on Facebook..

This is more worrying.

In other words, Facebook have barred/blocked these new outlets from using Facebook directly.

The ABC’s News’ Facebook page now looks like this.

And I presume all the comments have disappeared forever too. I know my profile is missing stories posted and the conversations that went with it.

I’m sure there’s a switch somewhere there, Ms Mum. When this is all sorted, it’ll all be back in it’s former glory.

I watched..

Facebook blocking news in Australia: What state is the media industry in?
France 24 is a French public broadcast service.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKaW1gM2MDk

They said that 210 newsrooms have shut down in Aus since 2019. I know some of them are ABC. They blame Facebook and google, and Covid. And…the bushfires.

I’m missing something.

Anyway, you can still share news website content on Facebook. Just copy’n‘paste the whole thing and don’t put in the link.

“These actions will only confirm the concerns that an increasing number of countries are expressing about the behaviour of Big Tech companies who think they are bigger than governments and that the rules should not apply to them,” wrote Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison in a post on his own Facebook page, which did not appear to have been affected by the restrictions. “They may be changing the world, but that doesn’t mean they run it.”

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/17/media/facebook-australia-news-ban/index.html

Looks like Labor is jumping in, boots and all.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-18/q-and-a-facebook-news-ban-michelle-rowlands-beginning-of-the-end/13170044

So my question about bi-partisan support appears to have been answered.

Facebook have done their homework too.

Won’t let you share any news website’s Youtube channel stuff (news clips) either.

Even by copy’n‘paste the Youtube URL.

ie. Won’t let you share this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzE2AF6ZA64

sarahs mum said:

I watched..

Facebook blocking news in Australia: What state is the media industry in?
France 24 is a French public broadcast service.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKaW1gM2MDk

They said that 210 newsrooms have shut down in Aus since 2019. I know some of them are ABC. They blame Facebook and google, and Covid. And…the bushfires.

I’m missing something.

I don’t know anything about the traditional news media, but would suggest that the act of observing and recording the world around us has been disseminated into the hands of the owners of smartphones. I reckon if you consider that we’re increasingly consuming our news through very small screens – Smartphones are now producing broadcast quality media.

Its a good idea for Facebook to kick the “media” off its platform, what journalists pump out these days is all a load of cobblers anyway; at least they won’t be able to inject their poison via Facebook anymore.

Woodie said:

Facebook have done their homework too.

Won’t let you share any news website’s Youtube channel stuff (news clips) either.

Even by copy’n‘paste the Youtube URL.

ie. Won’t let you share this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzE2AF6ZA64

Having said that, media outlets do get money when their content is on Youtube. They “monetise” their Youtube content, by have ads play before/during/after their Youtube content.

Rule 303 said:

sarahs mum said:

I watched..

Facebook blocking news in Australia: What state is the media industry in?
France 24 is a French public broadcast service.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKaW1gM2MDk

They said that 210 newsrooms have shut down in Aus since 2019. I know some of them are ABC. They blame Facebook and google, and Covid. And…the bushfires.

I’m missing something.

I don’t know anything about the traditional news media, but would suggest that the act of observing and recording the world around us has been disseminated into the hands of the owners of smartphones. I reckon if you consider that we’re increasingly consuming our news through very small screens – Smartphones are now producing broadcast quality media.

That is true, however that content is being delivered by sources other than the media outlets themselves, and it’s the other sources that monetise it with ads etc of their own.

wookiemeister said:

Its a good idea for Facebook to kick the “media” off its platform, what journalists pump out these days is all a load of cobblers anyway; at least they won’t be able to inject their poison via Facebook anymore.

Does RT still come up on Facebook?

Meh. If Google and Facebook want to cut off their noses to spite their faces, then who are we to stand in their way?

Dark Orange said:

Meh. If Google and Facebook want to cut off their noses to spite their faces, then who are we to stand in their way?

I don’t think it’s really any big deal, it was inevitable really

bigger things on the horizon for those in the business, or associated with data collection and targeted advertising

like VPN, and tracking blocking etc in browsers

Rule 303 said:

sibeen said:

Bubblecar said:

+1.

+ me

I’m so glad you buggers don’t Facebork, too.

This is a long thread peopled by people who don’t use FB.

:)

buffy said:

Rule 303 said:

sibeen said:

+ me

I’m so glad you buggers don’t Facebork, too.

This is a long thread peopled by people who don’t use FB.

:)

It’s almost like they’ve all got their own weird little piece of the internet someone runs for them anyway that is very much ‘social media’, without all the pretty pics, but a similar % of oddities.

poikilotherm said:

buffy said:

Rule 303 said:

I’m so glad you buggers don’t Facebork, too.

This is a long thread peopled by people who don’t use FB.

:)

It’s almost like they’ve all got their own weird little piece of the internet someone runs for them anyway that is very much ‘social media’, without all the pretty pics, but a similar % of oddities.

Not sure about a similar percentage. I’d say 100% here are mad…

Although many here say they get all their news off the ABC or some such, there is quite a lot of stuff that is posted here lifted from social media. I don’t twitter but between the forum and Heidi I pick up on some twitter. And Boris finds different stuff to me on facebook even though we have many liked pages in common and I find it here.

transition said:

Dark Orange said:

Meh. If Google and Facebook want to cut off their noses to spite their faces, then who are we to stand in their way?

I don’t think it’s really any big deal, it was inevitable really

bigger things on the horizon for those in the business, or associated with data collection and targeted advertising

like VPN, and tracking blocking etc in browsers

all that said isn’t this just Facebook running the Sweden Strategy, their Old Farts News are not productive and expensive to maintain, and now they can focus on the “social” media bit instead of having to look after them for the next 40 years

Ad I just saw on Reddit.

buffy said:

This is a long thread peopled by people who don’t use FB.

:)

Perzacterly, Ms Buffy. Peopled by people that have no idea how this proposed funding algorithm would work.

Woodie said:

Peopled by people that have no idea how this proposed funding algorithm would work.

so how does it work

Divine Angel said:

Ad I just saw on Reddit.

I’m sure google are beside themselves with glee over the recent actions by Facebook :)

Woodie said:

buffy said:

This is a long thread peopled by people who don’t use FB.

:)

Perzacterly, Ms Buffy. Peopled by people that have no idea how this proposed funding algorithm would work.

I don’t have FB, but Mr buffy does and I check in there for what my sister might be doing. I don’t recall seeing news as such. Only personal stuff. And I don’t see ads. I’m vaguely aware that they might be there, but I’ve spent many years with not enough time for frippery, and I’m not about to break the habit. This place is my frippery place. If someone here thinks something is interesting, sometimes I’ll follow their link.

SCIENCE said:

Woodie said:

Peopled by people that have no idea how this proposed funding algorithm would work.

so how does it work

As a contributor to this thread, I presume he has no idea.

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

Woodie said:

Peopled by people that have no idea how this proposed funding algorithm would work.

so how does it work

As a contributor to this thread, I presume he has no idea.

Can somebody please produce a Venn diagram.

buffy said:

Woodie said:

buffy said:

This is a long thread peopled by people who don’t use FB.

:)

Perzacterly, Ms Buffy. Peopled by people that have no idea how this proposed funding algorithm would work.

I don’t have FB, but Mr buffy does and I check in there for what my sister might be doing. I don’t recall seeing news as such. Only personal stuff. And I don’t see ads. I’m vaguely aware that they might be there, but I’ve spent many years with not enough time for frippery, and I’m not about to break the habit. This place is my frippery place. If someone here thinks something is interesting, sometimes I’ll follow their link.

More people signed up to social media during 2020 because they couldn’t visit friends and family. Usage (ie daily views) has remained high throughout the year in places like the US, UK, and Europe, but has dropped in Australia except in places that have gone into lockdown.
Ref: www.socialmediatoday.com

It will be interesting to see the long term effects of the fb news ban and people threatening to leave the platform. Of course it’s a moot point if fb reverse their decision… The radio this morning said fb were in talks with “several media companies” to cut a deal a la Google.

SCIENCE said:

Woodie said:

Peopled by people that have no idea how this proposed funding algorithm would work.

so how does it work

I don’t know.

However a business likes to control it’s expenses, and have total control of this.

If Facebook has to pay media outlets when a Facebook user (not Facebook itself) “shares” a media link, that expense is not under the control of Facebook. And will Facebook have to pay just the once, if, say I “share” that link? Or, say I have 4000 “friends” (of which that shared link will appear up to 4000 times, will they have to pay 4000 times? Because that news item will be put in front of up to 4000 others.

A concerted effort by Facebook users, could send the place broke.

But I have no idea what that payment algorithm is.

Woodie said:

SCIENCE said:

Woodie said:

Peopled by people that have no idea how this proposed funding algorithm would work.

so how does it work

I don’t know.

However a business likes to control it’s expenses, and have total control of this.

If Facebook has to pay media outlets when a Facebook user (not Facebook itself) “shares” a media link, that expense is not under the control of Facebook. And will Facebook have to pay just the once, if, say I “share” that link? Or, say I have 4000 “friends” (of which that shared link will appear up to 4000 times, will they have to pay 4000 times? Because that news item will be put in front of up to 4000 others.

A concerted effort by Facebook users, could send the place broke.

But I have no idea what that payment algorithm is.

Their current ad system (user pays) is that you pay for the ad just once per impression.

Example: you have a budget of $100. You show the ad to x people for 10 days at a cost of $10/day.

If fb were to adopt that strategy, it *probably * wouldn’t go bust.

buffy said:

Woodie said:

buffy said:

This is a long thread peopled by people who don’t use FB.

:)

Perzacterly, Ms Buffy. Peopled by people that have no idea how this proposed funding algorithm would work.

I don’t have FB, but Mr buffy does and I check in there for what my sister might be doing. I don’t recall seeing news as such. Only personal stuff. And I don’t see ads. I’m vaguely aware that they might be there, but I’ve spent many years with not enough time for frippery, and I’m not about to break the habit. This place is my frippery place. If someone here thinks something is interesting, sometimes I’ll follow their link.

Some “news” will be there, Ms Buffy. Just as on here, people share news items on Facebook. It’s a lot easier to do on Facebook, though. On here, they copy’n‘paste the first paragraph or so, and then manually put the link in.

On Facebook, when you, say, look at an ABC new item on the ABC website, there are many link icon to “share it”. Click the Facebook share icon, and it opens your Facebook, and creates a Facebook post for you, with the first paragraph of text, maybe a pic, and a link to the article. For many Facebook users, they are fiends at this sort of thing.

Most website have a Facebook (and Twitter et al) “share” icon, be they considered “news” websites or not..

Facebook was a college hookup site. It was never meant to be peoples primary source of information.

Divine Angel said:

Woodie said:

SCIENCE said:

so how does it work

I don’t know.

However a business likes to control it’s expenses, and have total control of this.

If Facebook has to pay media outlets when a Facebook user (not Facebook itself) “shares” a media link, that expense is not under the control of Facebook. And will Facebook have to pay just the once, if, say I “share” that link? Or, say I have 4000 “friends” (of which that shared link will appear up to 4000 times, will they have to pay 4000 times? Because that news item will be put in front of up to 4000 others.

A concerted effort by Facebook users, could send the place broke.

But I have no idea what that payment algorithm is.

Their current ad system (user pays) is that you pay for the ad just once per impression.

Example: you have a budget of $100. You show the ad to x people for 10 days at a cost of $10/day.

If fb were to adopt that strategy, it *probably * wouldn’t go bust.

Facbook ads that I pay for work like that. (And other models as well)

So if you use that model, where the news media outlets are paid “per impression”, so once the news item has been “shown to x people for 10 days for a payment of $10” to the news media outlet, then is the share news item blocked after that? Cause your ad would be stopped, so what about the shared news link?

And what if I go back to my Facebook feed next week, and scroll down, and see the share news link again, and again, and again? Would the media outlet get paid each time I see the same link in my Facebook feed?

Woodie said:

Divine Angel said:

Woodie said:

I don’t know.

However a business likes to control it’s expenses, and have total control of this.

If Facebook has to pay media outlets when a Facebook user (not Facebook itself) “shares” a media link, that expense is not under the control of Facebook. And will Facebook have to pay just the once, if, say I “share” that link? Or, say I have 4000 “friends” (of which that shared link will appear up to 4000 times, will they have to pay 4000 times? Because that news item will be put in front of up to 4000 others.

A concerted effort by Facebook users, could send the place broke.

But I have no idea what that payment algorithm is.

Their current ad system (user pays) is that you pay for the ad just once per impression.

Example: you have a budget of $100. You show the ad to x people for 10 days at a cost of $10/day.

If fb were to adopt that strategy, it *probably * wouldn’t go bust.

Facbook ads that I pay for work like that. (And other models as well)

So if you use that model, where the news media outlets are paid “per impression”, so once the news item has been “shown to x people for 10 days for a payment of $10” to the news media outlet, then is the share news item blocked after that? Cause your ad would be stopped, so what about the shared news link?

And what if I go back to my Facebook feed next week, and scroll down, and see the share news link again, and again, and again? Would the media outlet get paid each time I see the same link in my Facebook feed?

I don’t think even Zuck knows the answer to that right now.

When Standard got so big that it was a monopoly the running dog capitalist American government forced it to break down into competing companies, most of the US oil companies are spawns of Standard oil.

Peak Warming Man said:

When Standard got so big that it was a monopoly the running dog capitalist American government forced it to break down into competing companies, most of the US oil companies are spawns of Standard oil.

Standard practice?

Peak Warming Man said:

When Standard got so big that it was a monopoly the running dog capitalist American government forced it to break down into competing companies, most of the US oil companies are spawns of Standard oil.

And the split made Rockefeller all the richer.

Woodie said:

Peak Warming Man said:

When Standard got so big that it was a monopoly the running dog capitalist American government forced it to break down into competing companies, most of the US oil companies are spawns of Standard oil.

Standard practice?

Groan.

to some extent the changes are probably tightening up of rightful use, which frankly has got, well very relaxed might be the word, what’s the point of copyright i’d ask, for example, licensing, if the global media democracy slides into a share oblivion, a pervasive disregard courtesy largely indeterminate and overdetermining social forces

but I guess media (news) became like the aether you know, or gravity, or the air people breathe, largely invisible, and perhaps taken for granted in distorting ways, everyone doing what they do to dilute who owns what, whose effort and work or whatever

all sorts of things in this world, of or involving social forces, have creeping tendencies, presently there are few large forces with creeping tendencies, somewhat in opposition to each other, but they’ll stabilize into smaller swings around equilibrium

transition said:

to some extent the changes are probably tightening up of rightful use, which frankly has got, well very relaxed might be the word, what’s the point of copyright i’d ask, for example, licensing, if the global media democracy slides into a share oblivion, a pervasive disregard courtesy largely indeterminate and overdetermining social forces

but I guess media (news) became like the aether you know, or gravity, or the air people breathe, largely invisible, and perhaps taken for granted in distorting ways, everyone doing what they do to dilute who owns what, whose effort and work or whatever

all sorts of things in this world, of or involving social forces, have creeping tendencies, presently there are few large forces with creeping tendencies, somewhat in opposition to each other, but they’ll stabilize into smaller swings around equilibrium

I don’t actually know so I am asking.. Does the ABC pay other sources for republishinng their news?

roughbarked said:

transition said:

to some extent the changes are probably tightening up of rightful use, which frankly has got, well very relaxed might be the word, what’s the point of copyright i’d ask, for example, licensing, if the global media democracy slides into a share oblivion, a pervasive disregard courtesy largely indeterminate and overdetermining social forces

but I guess media (news) became like the aether you know, or gravity, or the air people breathe, largely invisible, and perhaps taken for granted in distorting ways, everyone doing what they do to dilute who owns what, whose effort and work or whatever

all sorts of things in this world, of or involving social forces, have creeping tendencies, presently there are few large forces with creeping tendencies, somewhat in opposition to each other, but they’ll stabilize into smaller swings around equilibrium

I don’t actually know so I am asking.. Does the ABC pay other sources for republishinng their news?

Dunno. But Reuters and AAP had the resell market. Murdoch bought AAP and scrapped it.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

to some extent the changes are probably tightening up of rightful use, which frankly has got, well very relaxed might be the word, what’s the point of copyright i’d ask, for example, licensing, if the global media democracy slides into a share oblivion, a pervasive disregard courtesy largely indeterminate and overdetermining social forces

but I guess media (news) became like the aether you know, or gravity, or the air people breathe, largely invisible, and perhaps taken for granted in distorting ways, everyone doing what they do to dilute who owns what, whose effort and work or whatever

all sorts of things in this world, of or involving social forces, have creeping tendencies, presently there are few large forces with creeping tendencies, somewhat in opposition to each other, but they’ll stabilize into smaller swings around equilibrium

I don’t actually know so I am asking.. Does the ABC pay other sources for republishinng their news?

Yes.

I can understand how google news can turn around and make a to pay news web platform. And for it to work.

Facebook however cannot estimate how a thing may be shared.

Also..the press gets an outrageous amount of photos from facebook and doesn’t pay.

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

to some extent the changes are probably tightening up of rightful use, which frankly has got, well very relaxed might be the word, what’s the point of copyright i’d ask, for example, licensing, if the global media democracy slides into a share oblivion, a pervasive disregard courtesy largely indeterminate and overdetermining social forces

but I guess media (news) became like the aether you know, or gravity, or the air people breathe, largely invisible, and perhaps taken for granted in distorting ways, everyone doing what they do to dilute who owns what, whose effort and work or whatever

all sorts of things in this world, of or involving social forces, have creeping tendencies, presently there are few large forces with creeping tendencies, somewhat in opposition to each other, but they’ll stabilize into smaller swings around equilibrium

I don’t actually know so I am asking.. Does the ABC pay other sources for republishinng their news?

Yes.

They do use a lot of stories from the Guardian, The Conversation and the Saturday Paper.
I think the Conversation provide their copy for free, don’t know about the others.

I note that everyone is getting on Facebook and going on and on and on about how they’re not gunna be on Facebook anymore.

And then replying to everyone that’s replied saying they won’t be on Facebook any more as well, and then how shit Facebook is and what a wanker Zuckerberg is. And no doubt they’ll all be back on there tomorrow to see what everyone else has said to their “I’m not gunna be on Facebook anymore”.

Facebook traffic has gone through the roof.

Nice move Mr Zuckerberg. 😁

Woodie said:

I note that everyone is getting on Facebook and going on and on and on about how they’re not gunna be on Facebook anymore.

And then replying to everyone that’s replied saying they won’t be on Facebook any more as well, and then how shit Facebook is and what a wanker Zuckerberg is. And no doubt they’ll all be back on there tomorrow to see what everyone else has said to their “I’m not gunna be on Facebook anymore”.

Facebook traffic has gone through the roof.

Nice move Mr Zuckerberg. 😁

Traffic to traditional media is down 13%. I hope they enjoy having that bit of revenue disappear.

Woodie said:

I note that everyone is getting on Facebook and going on and on and on about how they’re not gunna be on Facebook anymore.

And then replying to everyone that’s replied saying they won’t be on Facebook any more as well, and then how shit Facebook is and what a wanker Zuckerberg is. And no doubt they’ll all be back on there tomorrow to see what everyone else has said to their “I’m not gunna be on Facebook anymore”.

Facebook traffic has gone through the roof.

Nice move Mr Zuckerberg. 😁

Indeed. A mate’s sister posted a big artistic FUCK ZUCKERBERG picture/meme type thing. I thought it was a bit ironic.

I haven’t really missed not having the news. get a bit here and friends have work-arounds to post articles.

Woodie said:

I note that everyone is getting on Facebook and going on and on and on about how they’re not gunna be on Facebook anymore.

And then replying to everyone that’s replied saying they won’t be on Facebook any more as well, and then how shit Facebook is and what a wanker Zuckerberg is. And no doubt they’ll all be back on there tomorrow to see what everyone else has said to their “I’m not gunna be on Facebook anymore”.

Facebook traffic has gone through the roof.

Nice move Mr Zuckerberg. 😁

I personally don’t have a problem with it. If FB doesn’t want to be a site for sharing news, then they don’t have to be.
It’s not the only website around.

party_pants said:

Woodie said:

I note that everyone is getting on Facebook and going on and on and on about how they’re not gunna be on Facebook anymore.

And then replying to everyone that’s replied saying they won’t be on Facebook any more as well, and then how shit Facebook is and what a wanker Zuckerberg is. And no doubt they’ll all be back on there tomorrow to see what everyone else has said to their “I’m not gunna be on Facebook anymore”.

Facebook traffic has gone through the roof.

Nice move Mr Zuckerberg. 😁

Indeed. A mate’s sister posted a big artistic FUCK ZUCKERBERG picture/meme type thing. I thought it was a bit ironic.

I fail to see why it is his fault.

dv said:

Woodie said:

I note that everyone is getting on Facebook and going on and on and on about how they’re not gunna be on Facebook anymore.

And then replying to everyone that’s replied saying they won’t be on Facebook any more as well, and then how shit Facebook is and what a wanker Zuckerberg is. And no doubt they’ll all be back on there tomorrow to see what everyone else has said to their “I’m not gunna be on Facebook anymore”.

Facebook traffic has gone through the roof.

Nice move Mr Zuckerberg. 😁

I personally don’t have a problem with it. If FB doesn’t want to be a site for sharing news, then they don’t have to be.
It’s not the only website around.

And nothing is stopping us from sharing our opinions. I can still say there is a piece in the guardian that says this and I think that about it.

sarahs mum said:

party_pants said:

Woodie said:

I note that everyone is getting on Facebook and going on and on and on about how they’re not gunna be on Facebook anymore.

And then replying to everyone that’s replied saying they won’t be on Facebook any more as well, and then how shit Facebook is and what a wanker Zuckerberg is. And no doubt they’ll all be back on there tomorrow to see what everyone else has said to their “I’m not gunna be on Facebook anymore”.

Facebook traffic has gone through the roof.

Nice move Mr Zuckerberg. 😁

Indeed. A mate’s sister posted a big artistic FUCK ZUCKERBERG picture/meme type thing. I thought it was a bit ironic.

I fail to see why it is his fault.

They could have done a proper assessment of which sites they blocked. A bit of deliberate pain in the arsery in the way they’ve gone about deciding how to do it.

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

party_pants said:

Indeed. A mate’s sister posted a big artistic FUCK ZUCKERBERG picture/meme type thing. I thought it was a bit ironic.

I fail to see why it is his fault.

They could have done a proper assessment of which sites they blocked. A bit of deliberate pain in the arsery in the way they’ve gone about deciding how to do it.

I still can’t find a list of what new outlets have been blocked. Just lists and rants about ones that were caught up in the cross fire, that have now been restored.

Woodie said:

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

I fail to see why it is his fault.

They could have done a proper assessment of which sites they blocked. A bit of deliberate pain in the arsery in the way they’ve gone about deciding how to do it.

I still can’t find a list of what new outlets have been blocked. Just lists and rants about ones that were caught up in the cross fire, that have now been restored.

Weirdly, I have been blocked from posting some non-Australian news

Woodie said:

party_pants said:

sarahs mum said:

I fail to see why it is his fault.

They could have done a proper assessment of which sites they blocked. A bit of deliberate pain in the arsery in the way they’ve gone about deciding how to do it.

I still can’t find a list of what new outlets have been blocked. Just lists and rants about ones that were caught up in the cross fire, that have now been restored.

surely a good proper censorship should also censor communication that references the censorship

dv said:

Woodie said:

party_pants said:

They could have done a proper assessment of which sites they blocked. A bit of deliberate pain in the arsery in the way they’ve gone about deciding how to do it.

I still can’t find a list of what new outlets have been blocked. Just lists and rants about ones that were caught up in the cross fire, that have now been restored.

Weirdly, I have been blocked from posting some non-Australian news

FB ‘s move means Australians cannot share news regardless of where in fact it comes from.

Big long thread, got part way in but skipped to the end so don’t know if this has been discussed. Has anyone checked alternative means of linking? e.g. https://tinyurl.com/1tp3hb1b is ABC news…

Done over down under
Facebook walks as Google caves in Australia
Why two tech giants have different answers to the question of who should pay for news

Business
Feb 18th 2021

SOME READERS will have come to this article through The Economist’s app; others will have heard about it in a newsletter or podcast. The largest number, however, are likely to have arrived here via a link on Facebook. Except, that is, in Australia, where on February 18th the world’s largest social network blocked the sharing of all news articles, Australian or otherwise, as well as banning the sharing worldwide of any articles that originated in Australia.

The news blackout was Facebook’s last resort in a long-running battle over who should pay for news online. Rather than pay media companies in return for linking to their stories, as a forthcoming Australian law would require, the company opted to block all such links on its platform. The decision came hours after Google, the other big tech firm targeted by the new law, made the opposite decision, signing a deal with Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp to carry on linking to stories from that publisher.

The dust-up, which is far from over, pits the new media barons of Silicon Valley against the old ones of television and the press. What so far looks like a one-all draw in Australia is likely to be played out around the world in the months ahead.

Australia’s “news media bargaining code” has been in development for three years, but the argument is older. A decade ago offline media controlled more than 80% of the advertising market in Australia. Yet there, as in the rest of the world, advertisers have found that digital media are better at reaching their audiences. In the past ten years offline media’s share of the market has fallen by half. The lion’s share has gone to Facebook, which dominates display ads, and Google, which has cornered the search market.

Media companies claim that, by showing ads alongside links to their articles—sometimes including short summaries and photos—the tech platforms are in effect monetising content that is not theirs. The platforms retort that, on the contrary, the media firms do better out of the exchange. Facebook says that in Australia last year it sent 5.1bn clicks to Australian publishers, which it claims were worth A$407m ($317m). If publishers feel they are getting a bad deal, it asks, why don’t they simply stop publishing on Facebook?

Under the Australian government’s proposed solution, currently before the Senate, tech platforms would be expected to negotiate payments to publishers. In the event that the two parties could not agree, an official arbiter would decide whose suggested payment was fairer (splitting the difference would not be an option). The new rules would also require tech firms to advise publishers in advance of any changes to their ranking algorithm that would affect them.

Both tech giants are aghast. Paying publishers for news is not without precedent: last month Google agreed to compensate French ones for linking to their stories. Both companies have recently launched “curated” news products—Google News Showcase and Facebook News—in which payments are made to the creators of content (including, in the case of Facebook News, The Economist). But Australia’s winner-takes-all arbitration regime is a more alarming prospect than the system in France, where disputes are expected to be settled by the courts. The French deal, the details of which are private, probably involves payments for displaying snippets of news, not just links. And the requirement to publicise changes to their secret and ever-changing algorithms unsettles them further.

Whereas Facebook walked away, Google blinked. Its three-year deal with News Corp will see it hand over an unspecified amount of money to include content from the publisher’s titles, including in America the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, and in Britain the Times and the Sun, in its News Showcase. Earlier in the week it had announced similar deals with smaller outfits, including Seven West Media and Nine Entertainment. Blocking links to news would have rendered its search engine much less useful, sending customers to rivals such as Bing, run by Microsoft (which has cheered on Australia’s plans). For Facebook, news matters less, representing less than 4% of what users see in their feed. And though Australia is one of Facebook’s biggest foreign markets, it represents only a sliver of its global revenues. So walking away was better than setting a precedent by coughing up, it calculated.

Public reaction in Australia is testing that assumption. Facebook botched the blackout, accidentally banning not just news sites but links to health departments, fire services, a women’s shelter and a project for children with cancer, among others. Although most of these mistakes were quickly corrected, it was a disconcerting demonstration of the power wielded by the company. Australian media—concentrated in the hands of News Corp—has no doubt who is to blame. “No likes as unsocial network blocks millions”, read a headline in the Murdoch-owned the Australian.

Scott Morrison, the prime minister, wrote in a post on Facebook that the company’s actions to “unfriend Australia” would “only confirm the concerns that an increasing number of countries are expressing about the behaviour of BigTech companies who think they are bigger than governments and that the rules should not apply to them”. He may be right. David Chavern, head of the US News Media Alliance, an industry body, tweeted that “we are expecting a big push in the US in the new Congress.” Julian Knight, the chairman of Britain’s House of Commons committee on media, accused Facebook of “bullying”. “These platforms make enormous sums of money from other people’s work, and they aren’t returning any equitable value to them,” he told the BBC.

The European Union, which is debating a bumper package of new tech regulations, is pondering something similar. Earlier this month Robert Thomson, News Corp’s chief executive, declared that “there is not a single serious digital regulator anywhere in the world who is not examining the opacity of algorithms, the integrity of personal data, the social value of professional journalism and the dysfunctional digital ad market.”

If those regulators copy the Australian model, more stand-offs between the new and old media barons are in store. And whoever wins those confrontations, it looks as if the main losers may be small news organisations. Too small to fall within the scope of Australia’s new code, they stand to see their bigger rivals become mightier still if tech firms agree to cough up. Meanwhile, if the tech firms decide to walk away, the tiddlers stand to lose by far their most important means of distribution. The Australian code has succeeded in shaking some money out of Silicon Valley. It is not clear that it will do a lot to help journalism.

https://www.economist.com/business/2021/02/18/facebook-walks-as-google-caves-in-australia?

What about all the other sites where people link to news sites?

How come they don’t get a mention?

I mean twitter’s pretty influential, isn’t it?

The Rev Dodgson said:

What about all the other sites where people link to news sites?

How come they don’t get a mention?

I mean twitter’s pretty influential, isn’t it?

Big Time.

The Rev Dodgson said:

What about all the other sites where people link to news sites?

How come they don’t get a mention?

I mean twitter’s pretty influential, isn’t it?

Twitter doesn’t let you read extended news articles in their app. It merely provides links and Twitter doesn’t make any advertising revenue from doing so AFAIK.

Witty Rejoinder said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What about all the other sites where people link to news sites?

How come they don’t get a mention?

I mean twitter’s pretty influential, isn’t it?

Twitter doesn’t let you read extended news articles in their app. It merely provides links and Twitter doesn’t make any advertising revenue from doing so AFAIK.

A quick perusal shows maybe they do. Obviously corporate twitter pages who have links get a monetary benefit from them so maybe Twitter gets a bit of that caper,

maybe when the rains come and the ashes melt away and the shoots emerge it’ll appear that {countries who exercised some degree of internet sovereignty especially in the face of / limiting the reach of these multinational content filters} did the right thing after all

SCIENCE said:

maybe when the rains come and the ashes melt away and the shoots emerge it’ll appear that {countries who exercised some degree of internet sovereignty especially in the face of / limiting the reach of these multinational content filters} did the right thing after all

Yeah. Let’s go politburo on their arses. not sarcasm

Facebook’s brazen attempt to crush regulations in Australia may backfire
News publishers are caught in the crossfire as the social media giant flexes its power

Elizabeth Dwoskin and Gerrit De Vynck
Feb. 19, 2021 at 10:44 a.m. GMT+11

Facebook’s decision to flip a switch Wednesday night — causing Australia’s news industry to go dark on the social network — was a remarkable flexing of power by one of the world’s mightiest companies.

The social media giant said it was backed into a corner by a new law there, which requires Internet companies to pay news publishers for their content and for those rates to be set by a government arbitrator. Instead of complying, Facebook has blocked all news content on its site in Australia.

But the dramatic showdown between Facebook, the Australian government and the country’s publishing industry also reflects an escalating strategy by the social network to more aggressively go after its antagonists — whether rival tech giants or regulators around the world.

That offensive strategy is led by CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his top policy adviser, former U.K. deputy prime minister Nick Clegg. It has involved, in recent weeks, publicly attacking rival Apple as anticompetitive for actions it took to limit Facebook and other app developers’ use of data and taking out above-the-fold ads in major U.S. newspapers pushing its vision for Internet regulation.

In a company blog post, William Easton, Facebook’s managing director for Australia & New Zealand, said the government left the social network with a “stark choice” — comply with a law that ignores the immense benefits Facebook brings to the news industry, or stop allowing news content.

“With a heavy heart, we are choosing the latter,” he wrote.

Facebook’s brazen move could easily backfire. Facebook is facing new regulation and legal scrutiny globally, and the move is a clear demonstration of the harm that can be caused by a company wielding such enormous power over free expression.

On Thursday, British parliament members were already calling Facebook a bully, and a former Facebook executive in Australia said the company went too far.

Australia is demanding tech giants pay for news. Google relented. Facebook didn’t.

“Their decision to cut off news in Australia is a demonstration of their raw technical power and their willingness to use it for their own ends,” said Drew Margolin, professor of communication at Cornell University. “It reminds me of Mr. Burns’s decision to block out the sun in the Simpsons movie ­— it stokes fear but also encourages resistance.”

Google took an alternate and more conciliatory approach to the new policy, known as the Media Bargaining Law, cutting deals with the country’s biggest publishers to pay them for news but to avoid the most stringent aspects of the law.

Following Facebook’s move, hundreds of publishers lost access to revenue and readers previously gleaned from the site. The social network also erroneously blocked dozens of government and charity websites as well, including public health sites containing critical information about the pandemic during the first week of its coronavirus vaccine rollout.

Facebook fixed the problem about 12 hours later, saying in a statement that the law was written so broadly that it interpreted it to mean all content that would contain any news.

Promoting such authoritative sources is a key tenet of Facebook’s strategy to combat misinformation that has flooded its services, including Instagram and WhatsApp, during the pandemic. Such rash actions undermine that effort, said Claire Wardle, U.S. director for First Draft, a nonprofit organization dedicated to educating journalists about misinformation, whose own Facebook page was blocked.

Facebook’s actions in Australia will only add fuel to arguments being made in many countries considering moves to rein in tech giants, Margolin added.

For “Facebook and Mark, it’s too much about the money, and the power, and not about the good,” Stephen Scheeler, the former Facebook executive who previously held Eastman’s job in the region, said in an interview with the Australian. “Imagine if a Chinese company for example had done this, we would be up in arms. All Australians should be quite alarmed by this.”

He encouraged people to delete Facebook in protest.

Zuckerberg complains Apple is anti-competitive

Tension between the Australian government and technology platforms has been brewing for the better part of three years. In 2017, the government asked the country’s competition regulator to look at the impact big tech companies were having in Australia. The report released in May 2019 laid out a stark assessment of how large foreign tech companies, namely Facebook and Google, had too much power in the country. The competition authorities recommended a raft of changes covering privacy, competition, consumer welfare and the media industry. The bargaining code, published in its final version in late August, is a result of that report.

Facebook’s Easton said in a blog post that if the government proceeded with its plans, Facebook would need to shut down news sites’ Facebook pages, saying it was “the only way to protect against an outcome that defies logic and will hurt, not help, the long-term vibrancy of Australia’s news and media sector.”

In arguing against the law, Easton said it lets “publishers charge us for as much content as they want at a price with no clear limits.”

For years publishers all over the world have complained that they are at Facebook’s whims when it comes to their ability to generate revenue on the site, with frequent algorithm changes dramatically altering exposure and traffic to their sites.

Facebook said that in the first five months of 2020, the company generated 2.3 billion clicks for Australian news websites at no charge — additional traffic worth an estimated $200 million AUD to Australian publishers. In some countries, the company also has recently launched a separate news tabs, Facebook News, where Facebook pays publishers directly.

Behind the scenes, the company’s Australia office went into months of negotiation. Zuckerberg spoke several times with Australia’s treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, as well as Robert Thompson, chief executive of News Corp, the parent company of News Corp Australia, according to a person familiar with the matter. News Corp, which is owned by media magnate Rupert Murdoch, controls about 70 percent of Australia’s print news industry.

Murdoch has lobbied heavily for the new rules in Australia, part of a wider campaign against technology giants. In the United States, News Corp lobbyists have argued to lawmakers in testimony before Congress that Google’s dominance in the advertising technology market means news publishers get only a small portion of the money made from ads shown on their websites.

Critics of the Australian law say Murdoch’s outsize influence in his home country has led to regulations that are unfair to Facebook and Google.

“There’s certainly some merit to the argument that Murdoch and the conservative side of the politics are close here,” Johan Lidberg, a media professor at Monash University in Melbourne, said in an interview.

Still, support for the law goes well beyond the center-right ruling party, Lidberg said. “It’s clearly a bipartisan push,” he said.

Facebook‘s more aggressive stance of late has put it at odds with other tech giants. Apple has made changes to its latest operating system that affect the ability of app developers, including Facebook, to collect valuable data on people’s behavior. Facebook has publicly challenged Apple on that move, including in its most recent earnings call.

Zuckerberg said Apple’s moves on privacy “clearly track their competitive interests.”

Facebook also has made a point recently of pushing its own ideas about Internet regulation with a public campaign, a topic that probably will be taken up by the Biden administration and the recently elected Democratic Congress.

Lawmakers are planning to grill Zuckerberg and other tech leaders for upcoming hearings on free-speech issues next month.

Wardle, of First Draft, said Facebook’s new willingness to be aggressive on several fronts would be the harbinger for similar confrontations all over the world.

“Australia is the canary in the coal mine, and policymakers in Brussels and D.C. are sitting there eating the popcorn,” she said. “They’ve raised the stakes; I worry that it will lead to more of these on-the-edge brinkmanship deals — at a time when the world’s information ecosystem is already at a breaking point.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/18/facebook-australia-news-publishers-regulations/?

Witty Rejoinder said:

Facebook’s brazen attempt to crush regulations in Australia may backfire
News publishers are caught in the crossfire as the social media giant flexes its power

Elizabeth Dwoskin and Gerrit De Vynck
Feb. 19, 2021 at 10:44 a.m. GMT+11

Facebook’s decision to flip a switch Wednesday night — causing Australia’s news industry to go dark on the social network — was a remarkable flexing of power by one of the world’s mightiest companies.

The social media giant said it was backed into a corner by a new law there, which requires Internet companies to pay news publishers for their content and for those rates to be set by a government arbitrator. Instead of complying, Facebook has blocked all news content on its site in Australia.

But the dramatic showdown between Facebook, the Australian government and the country’s publishing industry also reflects an escalating strategy by the social network to more aggressively go after its antagonists — whether rival tech giants or regulators around the world.

That offensive strategy is led by CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his top policy adviser, former U.K. deputy prime minister Nick Clegg. It has involved, in recent weeks, publicly attacking rival Apple as anticompetitive for actions it took to limit Facebook and other app developers’ use of data and taking out above-the-fold ads in major U.S. newspapers pushing its vision for Internet regulation.

In a company blog post, William Easton, Facebook’s managing director for Australia & New Zealand, said the government left the social network with a “stark choice” — comply with a law that ignores the immense benefits Facebook brings to the news industry, or stop allowing news content.

“With a heavy heart, we are choosing the latter,” he wrote.

Facebook’s brazen move could easily backfire. Facebook is facing new regulation and legal scrutiny globally, and the move is a clear demonstration of the harm that can be caused by a company wielding such enormous power over free expression.

On Thursday, British parliament members were already calling Facebook a bully, and a former Facebook executive in Australia said the company went too far.

Australia is demanding tech giants pay for news. Google relented. Facebook didn’t.

“Their decision to cut off news in Australia is a demonstration of their raw technical power and their willingness to use it for their own ends,” said Drew Margolin, professor of communication at Cornell University. “It reminds me of Mr. Burns’s decision to block out the sun in the Simpsons movie ­— it stokes fear but also encourages resistance.”

Google took an alternate and more conciliatory approach to the new policy, known as the Media Bargaining Law, cutting deals with the country’s biggest publishers to pay them for news but to avoid the most stringent aspects of the law.

Following Facebook’s move, hundreds of publishers lost access to revenue and readers previously gleaned from the site. The social network also erroneously blocked dozens of government and charity websites as well, including public health sites containing critical information about the pandemic during the first week of its coronavirus vaccine rollout.

Facebook fixed the problem about 12 hours later, saying in a statement that the law was written so broadly that it interpreted it to mean all content that would contain any news.

Promoting such authoritative sources is a key tenet of Facebook’s strategy to combat misinformation that has flooded its services, including Instagram and WhatsApp, during the pandemic. Such rash actions undermine that effort, said Claire Wardle, U.S. director for First Draft, a nonprofit organization dedicated to educating journalists about misinformation, whose own Facebook page was blocked.

Facebook’s actions in Australia will only add fuel to arguments being made in many countries considering moves to rein in tech giants, Margolin added.

For “Facebook and Mark, it’s too much about the money, and the power, and not about the good,” Stephen Scheeler, the former Facebook executive who previously held Eastman’s job in the region, said in an interview with the Australian. “Imagine if a Chinese company for example had done this, we would be up in arms. All Australians should be quite alarmed by this.”

He encouraged people to delete Facebook in protest.

Zuckerberg complains Apple is anti-competitive

Tension between the Australian government and technology platforms has been brewing for the better part of three years. In 2017, the government asked the country’s competition regulator to look at the impact big tech companies were having in Australia. The report released in May 2019 laid out a stark assessment of how large foreign tech companies, namely Facebook and Google, had too much power in the country. The competition authorities recommended a raft of changes covering privacy, competition, consumer welfare and the media industry. The bargaining code, published in its final version in late August, is a result of that report.

Facebook’s Easton said in a blog post that if the government proceeded with its plans, Facebook would need to shut down news sites’ Facebook pages, saying it was “the only way to protect against an outcome that defies logic and will hurt, not help, the long-term vibrancy of Australia’s news and media sector.”

In arguing against the law, Easton said it lets “publishers charge us for as much content as they want at a price with no clear limits.”

For years publishers all over the world have complained that they are at Facebook’s whims when it comes to their ability to generate revenue on the site, with frequent algorithm changes dramatically altering exposure and traffic to their sites.

Facebook said that in the first five months of 2020, the company generated 2.3 billion clicks for Australian news websites at no charge — additional traffic worth an estimated $200 million AUD to Australian publishers. In some countries, the company also has recently launched a separate news tabs, Facebook News, where Facebook pays publishers directly.

Behind the scenes, the company’s Australia office went into months of negotiation. Zuckerberg spoke several times with Australia’s treasurer, Josh Frydenberg, as well as Robert Thompson, chief executive of News Corp, the parent company of News Corp Australia, according to a person familiar with the matter. News Corp, which is owned by media magnate Rupert Murdoch, controls about 70 percent of Australia’s print news industry.

Murdoch has lobbied heavily for the new rules in Australia, part of a wider campaign against technology giants. In the United States, News Corp lobbyists have argued to lawmakers in testimony before Congress that Google’s dominance in the advertising technology market means news publishers get only a small portion of the money made from ads shown on their websites.

Critics of the Australian law say Murdoch’s outsize influence in his home country has led to regulations that are unfair to Facebook and Google.

“There’s certainly some merit to the argument that Murdoch and the conservative side of the politics are close here,” Johan Lidberg, a media professor at Monash University in Melbourne, said in an interview.

Still, support for the law goes well beyond the center-right ruling party, Lidberg said. “It’s clearly a bipartisan push,” he said.

Facebook‘s more aggressive stance of late has put it at odds with other tech giants. Apple has made changes to its latest operating system that affect the ability of app developers, including Facebook, to collect valuable data on people’s behavior. Facebook has publicly challenged Apple on that move, including in its most recent earnings call.

Zuckerberg said Apple’s moves on privacy “clearly track their competitive interests.”

Facebook also has made a point recently of pushing its own ideas about Internet regulation with a public campaign, a topic that probably will be taken up by the Biden administration and the recently elected Democratic Congress.

Lawmakers are planning to grill Zuckerberg and other tech leaders for upcoming hearings on free-speech issues next month.

Wardle, of First Draft, said Facebook’s new willingness to be aggressive on several fronts would be the harbinger for similar confrontations all over the world.

“Australia is the canary in the coal mine, and policymakers in Brussels and D.C. are sitting there eating the popcorn,” she said. “They’ve raised the stakes; I worry that it will lead to more of these on-the-edge brinkmanship deals — at a time when the world’s information ecosystem is already at a breaking point.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/02/18/facebook-australia-news-publishers-regulations/?

Still, support for the law goes well beyond the center-right ruling party, Lidberg said. “It’s clearly a bipartisan push,” he said.

I still cannot find a breakdown of the vote in the House of Reps. Any ideas, anyone?

On the question of Facebook shutting down links to government information sites:

If the government is relying on a single overseas-run commercial business to distribute vital information, that needs to change, doesn’t it?

Regardless of the outcome of the payment for news discussion.

The Rev Dodgson said:

On the question of Facebook shutting down links to government information sites:

If the government is relying on a single overseas-run commercial business to distribute vital information, that needs to change, doesn’t it?

Regardless of the outcome of the payment for news discussion.

Yes.

The Rev Dodgson said:

On the question of Facebook shutting down links to government information sites:

If the government is relying on a single overseas-run commercial business to distribute vital information, that needs to change, doesn’t it?

Regardless of the outcome of the payment for news discussion.

There’s tonnes of TV ads about COVID in Victoria so they’re not overly dependent on Facebook. I use an adblocker so have no idea what ads they put on ‘The Age’ website.

The Rev Dodgson said:

On the question of Facebook shutting down links to government information sites:

If the government is relying on a single overseas-run commercial business to distribute vital information, that needs to change, doesn’t it?

Regardless of the outcome of the payment for news discussion.

Have they tried funding the ABC?

The Rev Dodgson said:

On the question of Facebook shutting down links to government information sites:

If the government is relying on a single overseas-run commercial business to distribute vital information, that needs to change, doesn’t it?

Regardless of the outcome of the payment for news discussion.

I don’t use Facebook and I get all the vital information direct from the source.

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

On the question of Facebook shutting down links to government information sites:

If the government is relying on a single overseas-run commercial business to distribute vital information, that needs to change, doesn’t it?

Regardless of the outcome of the payment for news discussion.

I don’t use Facebook and I get all the vital information direct from the source.

Same here (well, I do visit FB once or twice a week, but I don’t recall ever getting any important info there), but I hear from the ABC that lots of people do rely on Facebook for this info.

JudgeMental said:

So how come Labor and the Greens also supported the legislation?

sibeen said:

JudgeMental said:

So how come Labor and the Greens also supported the legislation?

because they know how murdoch attacks them if they don’t. I mean, i thought that was common knowledge.

sibeen said:

JudgeMental said:

So how come Labor and the Greens also supported the legislation?

Kevin Rudd says Australian politicians ‘frightened’ of ‘Murdoch media beast’ in Senate inquiry

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/19/kevin-rudd-says-australian-politicians-frightened-of-murdoch-media-beast-in-senate-inquiry

JudgeMental said:

sibeen said:

JudgeMental said:

So how come Labor and the Greens also supported the legislation?

because they know how murdoch attacks them if they don’t. I mean, i thought that was common knowledge.

ROFL

Bubblecar said:

sibeen said:

JudgeMental said:

So how come Labor and the Greens also supported the legislation?

Kevin Rudd says Australian politicians ‘frightened’ of ‘Murdoch media beast’ in Senate inquiry

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/19/kevin-rudd-says-australian-politicians-frightened-of-murdoch-media-beast-in-senate-inquiry

yes, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. and the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

Rudd’s case is that News Corp has a media monopoly in Australia.
it’s simple false.

Peak Warming Man said:

Rudd’s case is that News Corp has a media monopoly in Australia.
it’s simple false.

Australia’s newspaper ownership is among the most concentrated in the world

Australia’s newspaper industry ranked third in 2011, behind state-owned media of China and Egypt

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2020/nov/13/australia-newspaper-ownership-is-among-the-most-concentrated-in-the-world

Bubblecar said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Rudd’s case is that News Corp has a media monopoly in Australia.
it’s simple false.

Australia’s newspaper ownership is among the most concentrated in the world

Australia’s newspaper industry ranked third in 2011, behind state-owned media of China and Egypt

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2020/nov/13/australia-newspaper-ownership-is-among-the-most-concentrated-in-the-world

I guess also you have to consider reach rather than mastheads.

JudgeMental said:

Bubblecar said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Rudd’s case is that News Corp has a media monopoly in Australia.
it’s simple false.

Australia’s newspaper ownership is among the most concentrated in the world

Australia’s newspaper industry ranked third in 2011, behind state-owned media of China and Egypt

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2020/nov/13/australia-newspaper-ownership-is-among-the-most-concentrated-in-the-world

I guess also you have to consider reach rather than mastheads.

no wonder we hate them other places so much, it’s like in the swim-doping stakes, gotta stand against each other and aside from the podiums for 1st 2nd 3rd

sibeen said:

JudgeMental said:

So how come Labor and the Greens also supported the legislation?

populism

SCIENCE said:

JudgeMental said:

Bubblecar said:

Australia’s newspaper ownership is among the most concentrated in the world

Australia’s newspaper industry ranked third in 2011, behind state-owned media of China and Egypt

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2020/nov/13/australia-newspaper-ownership-is-among-the-most-concentrated-in-the-world

I guess also you have to consider reach rather than mastheads.

no wonder we hate them other places so much, it’s like in the swim-doping stakes, gotta stand against each other and aside from the podiums for 1st 2nd 3rd

speaking of censor https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-20/qld-analysis-the-mysterious-case-of-f-and-threat-to-journalism/13172604 and we thought VIC was the authoritarian police state

Dr Bailo said removing political content would “totally change the nature of the platform”.

“Probably what they’re aiming to do is replicating the atmosphere of Instagram, where it’s much more about families, nice things and nice pictures.

“It’s really clear that it’s in the interest of Facebook to do this.

“Does it make sense not to have political discussion online for the rest of us? For democracy? I don’t think so.”

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-20/why-facebook-limiting-political-content-indonesia-brazil-canada/13159016

we(1,0,0)’re aware that we(1,0,0)’re stupid but is this legit’ ¿ like … if it’s in the interest of Facebook to be more about families, nice things and nice pictures, then how dare they as a non-government company do what is in their own interest

…

also, like the antiantifa crowd, how much does it make sense to want a platform to be much less about families, nice things and nice pictures

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

On the question of Facebook shutting down links to government information sites:

If the government is relying on a single overseas-run commercial business to distribute vital information, that needs to change, doesn’t it?

Regardless of the outcome of the payment for news discussion.

I don’t use Facebook and I get all the vital information direct from the source.

Same here (well, I do visit FB once or twice a week, but I don’t recall ever getting any important info there), but I hear from the ABC that lots of people do rely on Facebook for this info.

That is the bit I suppose I hadn’t thought about. But then as an ABC and SBS sort of person, I would say that, wouldn’t I. Because I find their news pages quite adequate for my needs.

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I don’t use Facebook and I get all the vital information direct from the source.

Same here (well, I do visit FB once or twice a week, but I don’t recall ever getting any important info there), but I hear from the ABC that lots of people do rely on Facebook for this info.

That is the bit I suppose I hadn’t thought about. But then as an ABC and SBS sort of person, I would say that, wouldn’t I. Because I find their news pages quite adequate for my needs.

the idea about getting information from the source is kind of important though

as in

for years the jokers have complained about the Threat Of Deepfakes Making It So We Don’t Know What To Believe Any More, anyone could fake anyone else saying anything

sure

but if a source is saying “as source X, we (X) are saying Y, so we say (Y)” then you can probably validly believe that source X are saying Y, really

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Peak Warming Man said:

I don’t use Facebook and I get all the vital information direct from the source.

Same here (well, I do visit FB once or twice a week, but I don’t recall ever getting any important info there), but I hear from the ABC that lots of people do rely on Facebook for this info.

That is the bit I suppose I hadn’t thought about. But then as an ABC and SBS sort of person, I would say that, wouldn’t I. Because I find their news pages quite adequate for my needs.

FB blocking local news will affect the most people, particularly in regional areas. Stuff like flood watch, where to get help etc. the algorithms to reinstate emergency info would have to be very precise.

Divine Angel said:

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Same here (well, I do visit FB once or twice a week, but I don’t recall ever getting any important info there), but I hear from the ABC that lots of people do rely on Facebook for this info.

That is the bit I suppose I hadn’t thought about. But then as an ABC and SBS sort of person, I would say that, wouldn’t I. Because I find their news pages quite adequate for my needs.

FB blocking local news will affect the most people, particularly in regional areas. Stuff like flood watch, where to get help etc. the algorithms to reinstate emergency info would have to be very precise.

imagine if local services had got it into their services to provide their own information … services

Divine Angel said:

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Same here (well, I do visit FB once or twice a week, but I don’t recall ever getting any important info there), but I hear from the ABC that lots of people do rely on Facebook for this info.

That is the bit I suppose I hadn’t thought about. But then as an ABC and SBS sort of person, I would say that, wouldn’t I. Because I find their news pages quite adequate for my needs.

FB blocking local news will affect the most people, particularly in regional areas. Stuff like flood watch, where to get help etc. the algorithms to reinstate emergency info would have to be very precise.

But all that stuff is easy to find outside FB (and I have no idea how you find it inside FB).

SCIENCE said:

speaking of censor https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-20/qld-analysis-the-mysterious-case-of-f-and-threat-to-journalism/13172604 and we thought VIC was the authoritarian police state

Did we?

JudgeMental said:

sibeen said:

JudgeMental said:

So how come Labor and the Greens also supported the legislation?

because they know how murdoch attacks them if they don’t. I mean, i thought that was common knowledge.

Murdoch’s New York Post yesterday:

Rule 303 said:

SCIENCE said:

speaking of censor https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-20/qld-analysis-the-mysterious-case-of-f-and-threat-to-journalism/13172604 and we thought VIC was the authoritarian police state

Did we?

dictator dan…

JudgeMental said:

Rule 303 said:

SCIENCE said:

speaking of censor https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-20/qld-analysis-the-mysterious-case-of-f-and-threat-to-journalism/13172604 and we thought VIC was the authoritarian police state

Did we?

dictator dan…

Yes, yes… His name starts with D, and ‘dictator’ starts with D. Fabulous!

So, about the authoritarian police state thing?

Rule 303 said:

JudgeMental said:

Rule 303 said:

Did we?

dictator dan…

Yes, yes… His name starts with D, and ‘dictator’ starts with D. Fabulous!

So, about the authoritarian police state thing?

you don’t get the connection? even though SCIENCE, i presume, was being tic?

Rule 303 said:

JudgeMental said:

Rule 303 said:

Did we?

dictator dan…

Yes, yes… His name starts with D, and ‘dictator’ starts with D. Fabulous!

So, about the authoritarian police state thing?

⚠ citation is not endorsement

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/sep/21/overreach-and-overzealous-concerns-over-victorias-proposed-new-police-powers
https://www.afr.com/politics/why-i-was-right-about-victoria-s-police-state-20200923-p55yky
https://theconversation.com/beyond-the-police-state-to-covid-safe-life-after-lockdown-will-need-a-novel-approach-144205
https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/coronavirus-victorian-government-insider-calls-out-police-state-tactics-during-covid19-lockdowns/72015d7c-4d84-4e75-a769-6d0f099a72d7

endless commentators over the past year-plus have happily compared Chairman Dan to Chairman Mao’s successors

SCIENCE said:

Rule 303 said:

JudgeMental said:

dictator dan…

Yes, yes… His name starts with D, and ‘dictator’ starts with D. Fabulous!

So, about the authoritarian police state thing?

⚠ citation is not endorsement

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/sep/21/overreach-and-overzealous-concerns-over-victorias-proposed-new-police-powers
https://www.afr.com/politics/why-i-was-right-about-victoria-s-police-state-20200923-p55yky
https://theconversation.com/beyond-the-police-state-to-covid-safe-life-after-lockdown-will-need-a-novel-approach-144205
https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/coronavirus-victorian-government-insider-calls-out-police-state-tactics-during-covid19-lockdowns/72015d7c-4d84-4e75-a769-6d0f099a72d7

endless commentators over the past year-plus have happily compared Chairman Dan to Chairman Mao’s successors

Mao’s successors sure have a nice belt & road though.

Witty Rejoinder said:

SCIENCE said:

Rule 303 said:

Yes, yes… His name starts with D, and ‘dictator’ starts with D. Fabulous!

So, about the authoritarian police state thing?

⚠ citation is not endorsement

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/sep/21/overreach-and-overzealous-concerns-over-victorias-proposed-new-police-powers
https://www.afr.com/politics/why-i-was-right-about-victoria-s-police-state-20200923-p55yky
https://theconversation.com/beyond-the-police-state-to-covid-safe-life-after-lockdown-will-need-a-novel-approach-144205
https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/coronavirus-victorian-government-insider-calls-out-police-state-tactics-during-covid19-lockdowns/72015d7c-4d84-4e75-a769-6d0f099a72d7

endless commentators over the past year-plus have happily compared Chairman Dan to Chairman Mao’s successors

Mao’s successors sure have a nice belt & road though.

gotta keep those trousers up while on the road.

SCIENCE said:

Rule 303 said:

JudgeMental said:

dictator dan…

Yes, yes… His name starts with D, and ‘dictator’ starts with D. Fabulous!

So, about the authoritarian police state thing?

⚠ citation is not endorsement

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/sep/21/overreach-and-overzealous-concerns-over-victorias-proposed-new-police-powers
https://www.afr.com/politics/why-i-was-right-about-victoria-s-police-state-20200923-p55yky
https://theconversation.com/beyond-the-police-state-to-covid-safe-life-after-lockdown-will-need-a-novel-approach-144205
https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/coronavirus-victorian-government-insider-calls-out-police-state-tactics-during-covid19-lockdowns/72015d7c-4d84-4e75-a769-6d0f099a72d7

endless commentators over the past year-plus have happily compared Chairman Dan to Chairman Mao’s successors

Can’t tell if you’re taking the piss or serious….

The Rev Dodgson said:

Divine Angel said:

buffy said:

That is the bit I suppose I hadn’t thought about. But then as an ABC and SBS sort of person, I would say that, wouldn’t I. Because I find their news pages quite adequate for my needs.

FB blocking local news will affect the most people, particularly in regional areas. Stuff like flood watch, where to get help etc. the algorithms to reinstate emergency info would have to be very precise.

But all that stuff is easy to find outside FB (and I have no idea how you find it inside FB).

During fire season the locals have a facebook message group. It’s a great bonus. There will be no difference.
During big fires there might be more than RFS pages in a big crisis.
The mercury follow the pages and get their stories and photos.
There is no investigative. The mercury is shifting off facebook groups not the other way around.

Rule 303 said:

SCIENCE said:

Rule 303 said:

Yes, yes… His name starts with D, and ‘dictator’ starts with D. Fabulous!

So, about the authoritarian police state thing?

⚠ citation is not endorsement

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/sep/21/overreach-and-overzealous-concerns-over-victorias-proposed-new-police-powers
https://www.afr.com/politics/why-i-was-right-about-victoria-s-police-state-20200923-p55yky
https://theconversation.com/beyond-the-police-state-to-covid-safe-life-after-lockdown-will-need-a-novel-approach-144205
https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/coronavirus-victorian-government-insider-calls-out-police-state-tactics-during-covid19-lockdowns/72015d7c-4d84-4e75-a769-6d0f099a72d7

endless commentators over the past year-plus have happily compared Chairman Dan to Chairman Mao’s successors

Can’t tell if you’re taking the piss or serious….

we don’t agree with them but it’s social media we’re talking about — what people say and think has consequences, and there really are people who think that VIC is worse than being Uyghur in Xinjiang

SCIENCE said:

Rule 303 said:

SCIENCE said:

⚠ citation is not endorsement

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/sep/21/overreach-and-overzealous-concerns-over-victorias-proposed-new-police-powers
https://www.afr.com/politics/why-i-was-right-about-victoria-s-police-state-20200923-p55yky
https://theconversation.com/beyond-the-police-state-to-covid-safe-life-after-lockdown-will-need-a-novel-approach-144205
https://9now.nine.com.au/a-current-affair/coronavirus-victorian-government-insider-calls-out-police-state-tactics-during-covid19-lockdowns/72015d7c-4d84-4e75-a769-6d0f099a72d7

endless commentators over the past year-plus have happily compared Chairman Dan to Chairman Mao’s successors

Can’t tell if you’re taking the piss or serious….

we don’t agree with them but it’s social media we’re talking about — what people say and think has consequences, and there really are people who think that VIC is worse than being Uyghur in Xinjiang

They’re wrong about that.

sarahs mum said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Divine Angel said:

FB blocking local news will affect the most people, particularly in regional areas. Stuff like flood watch, where to get help etc. the algorithms to reinstate emergency info would have to be very precise.

But all that stuff is easy to find outside FB (and I have no idea how you find it inside FB).

During fire season the locals have a facebook message group. It’s a great bonus. There will be no difference.
During big fires there might be more than RFS pages in a big crisis.
The mercury follow the pages and get their stories and photos.
There is no investigative. The mercury is shifting off facebook groups not the other way around.

OK, so if there is stuff that is important for safety of local communities on Facebook and nowhere else, that’s a bad thing and it needs to be moved somewhere else.

https://wt.social/

Remember WT.Social?

You probably don’t.

dv said:

https://wt.social/

Remember WT.Social?

You probably don’t.

I do. just got an email from them.

The Rev Dodgson said:

sarahs mum said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But all that stuff is easy to find outside FB (and I have no idea how you find it inside FB).

During fire season the locals have a facebook message group. It’s a great bonus. There will be no difference.
During big fires there might be more than RFS pages in a big crisis.
The mercury follow the pages and get their stories and photos.
There is no investigative. The mercury is shifting off facebook groups not the other way around.

OK, so if there is stuff that is important for safety of local communities on Facebook and nowhere else, that’s a bad thing and it needs to be moved somewhere else.

it is more about community than just getting info.

JudgeMental said:

dv said:

https://wt.social/

Remember WT.Social?

You probably don’t.

I do. just got an email from them.

Never heard of it. What does WT stand for?

Witty Rejoinder said:

JudgeMental said:

dv said:

https://wt.social/

Remember WT.Social?

You probably don’t.

I do. just got an email from them.

Never heard of it. What does WT stand for?

wiki tribune

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

sarahs mum said:

During fire season the locals have a facebook message group. It’s a great bonus. There will be no difference.
During big fires there might be more than RFS pages in a big crisis.
The mercury follow the pages and get their stories and photos.
There is no investigative. The mercury is shifting off facebook groups not the other way around.

OK, so if there is stuff that is important for safety of local communities on Facebook and nowhere else, that’s a bad thing and it needs to be moved somewhere else.

it is more about community than just getting info.

What is?

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, so if there is stuff that is important for safety of local communities on Facebook and nowhere else, that’s a bad thing and it needs to be moved somewhere else.

it is more about community than just getting info.

What is?

getting man back on the Moon.

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

it is more about community than just getting info.

What is?

getting man back on the Moon.

OK, so when people complain about important safety related local information being cut from facebook, it is more about getting man back on the Moon?

Thanks for letting me know.

Witty Rejoinder said:

JudgeMental said:

dv said:

https://wt.social/

Remember WT.Social?

You probably don’t.

I do. just got an email from them.

Never heard of it. What does WT stand for?

WikiTribune

The Rev Dodgson said:

sarahs mum said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But all that stuff is easy to find outside FB (and I have no idea how you find it inside FB).

During fire season the locals have a facebook message group. It’s a great bonus. There will be no difference.
During big fires there might be more than RFS pages in a big crisis.
The mercury follow the pages and get their stories and photos.
There is no investigative. The mercury is shifting off facebook groups not the other way around.

OK, so if there is stuff that is important for safety of local communities on Facebook and nowhere else, that’s a bad thing and it needs to be moved somewhere else.

But it still works on facebook. Nothing has changed.

sarahs mum said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

sarahs mum said:

During fire season the locals have a facebook message group. It’s a great bonus. There will be no difference.
During big fires there might be more than RFS pages in a big crisis.
The mercury follow the pages and get their stories and photos.
There is no investigative. The mercury is shifting off facebook groups not the other way around.

OK, so if there is stuff that is important for safety of local communities on Facebook and nowhere else, that’s a bad thing and it needs to be moved somewhere else.

But it still works on facebook. Nothing has changed.

surely they should still move it somewhere else because
(1) not everyone uses Facebook and
(2) WTF are community services doing pumping revenue towards multinational media giants anyway

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

OK, so if there is stuff that is important for safety of local communities on Facebook and nowhere else, that’s a bad thing and it needs to be moved somewhere else.

it is more about community than just getting info.

What is?

facebook.

sarahs mum said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

JudgeMental said:

it is more about community than just getting info.

What is?

facebook.

OK, but if they decide to mess around with community information, the community can take their information elsewhere.

Anyway, I agree with SCIENCE on this question.

News outlets are pushing their apps in the wake of fb banning news. While looking for something else, I decided to check out the most popular free news apps.

Frydenberg v Zuckerberg. A media policy shambles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww6LmNLajAg

sarahs mum said:

Frydenberg v Zuckerberg. A media policy shambles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ww6LmNLajAg

watched that^
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap_LuSQ5NSc
Kevin Rudd speaking to the Senate Inquiry into Media Diversity in Australia
now this^

Well…we did have an internet before Facebook and access to news well before Facebook…

sarahs mum said:

we may have missed something or even many things but without refuting the idea that users simply post content (in which case we’ve seen crackdowns on perceived intellectual property violations even on old ABCSSSF for example), if that were all there is to it, then
(1) surely the argument would be that making Facebook pay for its rights to content would result in no appreciable flow of credit so WGAF, and
(2) since in such cases NGAF then Facebook would not care if it really was the case, so why do they care ¿

if it’s because they can’t be bothered paying for the work of cracking down on intellectual property violations then hmm well we’re onto a whole different kettle of blue chips aren’t we

SCIENCE said:

sarahs mum said:

we may have missed something or even many things but without refuting the idea that users simply post content (in which case we’ve seen crackdowns on perceived intellectual property violations even on old ABCSSSF for example), if that were all there is to it, then
(1) surely the argument would be that making Facebook pay for its rights to content would result in no appreciable flow of credit so WGAF, and
(2) since in such cases NGAF then Facebook would not care if it really was the case, so why do they care ¿

if it’s because they can’t be bothered paying for the work of cracking down on intellectual property violations then hmm well we’re onto a whole different kettle of blue chips aren’t we

actually FB’s response is quite a respectable one in my opinion, justified and makes sense, these changes take time, and it’s not an insubstantial change

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

sarahs mum said:

we may have missed something or even many things but without refuting the idea that users simply post content

actually FB’s response is quite a respectable one in my opinion, justified and makes sense, these changes take time, and it’s not an insubstantial change

as in suddenly blocking everyone takes time, or clients leaving takes time

SCIENCE said:

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

we may have missed something or even many things but without refuting the idea that users simply post content

actually FB’s response is quite a respectable one in my opinion, justified and makes sense, these changes take time, and it’s not an insubstantial change

as in suddenly blocking everyone takes time, or clients leaving takes time

are there any more possibilities in your imagination, perhaps there is an entire world that moves slower than your persistent genius

I do feel sad about it all. I like to share a link on facebook. I like to read what many of friends and peers offer me. None of us get to read what is behind a pay wall unless we pay for it.

I don’t understand why sharing a link is something that needs a charge at all- Have you read this new book? It’s at the library now! Here is the address of the library…

sarahs mum said:

I do feel sad about it all. I like to share a link on facebook. I like to read what many of friends and peers offer me. None of us get to read what is behind a pay wall unless we pay for it.

I don’t understand why sharing a link is something that needs a charge at all- Have you read this new book? It’s at the library now! Here is the address of the library…

Yeah. The metrics for Google and Facebook are very different. Publishers may well find that without Facebook likes directing people to their content that their clicks go down. I could see Facebook paying miniscule amounts or none at all to publishers if that were the case.

Witty Rejoinder said:

sarahs mum said:

I do feel sad about it all. I like to share a link on facebook. I like to read what many of friends and peers offer me. None of us get to read what is behind a pay wall unless we pay for it.

I don’t understand why sharing a link is something that needs a charge at all- Have you read this new book? It’s at the library now! Here is the address of the library…

Yeah. The metrics for Google and Facebook are very different. Publishers may well find that without Facebook likes directing people to their content that their clicks go down. I could see Facebook paying miniscule amounts or none at all to publishers if that were the case.

early guesses were about 13% down. It might end up being substantially more I reckon. And that will be less ad revenue for them.

Also facebook said they did the wipespread block that included the BOM and Salvo’s et al because of the way the legislation was written. And there is meanwhile right wing bandwagon asking people to leave facebook. But I still haven’t really caught on to the extent of the changes in the law and I am sure others haven’t either.

sarahs mum said:

And there is meanwhile right wing bandwagon asking people to leave facebook.

There is nothing “right wing” about suggesting people leave facebook if they don’t like the way they are behaving.

Quite the opposite.

The Rev Dodgson said:

sarahs mum said:

And there is meanwhile right wing bandwagon asking people to leave facebook.

There is nothing “right wing” about suggesting people leave facebook if they don’t like the way they are behaving.

Quite the opposite.

we mean there are probably
(1) people who think Facebook is too extreme for their liking, and
(2) people who think Facebook is not extreme enough for their liking

Whether people leave FB or not is up to them, but it’s worth reminding them that they can do pretty much everything they do on FB on the wider internet.

Personally I have no use for a Facebook account.

transition said:

SCIENCE said:

transition said:

actually FB’s response is quite a respectable one in my opinion, justified and makes sense, these changes take time, and it’s not an insubstantial change

as in suddenly blocking everyone takes time, or clients leaving takes time

are there any more possibilities in your imagination, perhaps there is an entire world that moves slower than your persistent genius

earning money takes time or losing respect takes time

speaking of, here’s what the Aussie Broadcasting Communists had to say

Fewer than one in four Australians apparently practise good information hygiene. The findings suggest most Australians are sharing content that could well be dubious, yet trust levels in social media are rising. At the same time, traditional media is losing revenue, losing journalists and losing trust.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-21/facebook-news-ban-media-bargaining-code/13173104

Facebook, however, clearly believes it’s in a far more powerful market position than Google. There’s no “Bing” waiting in the wings to readily take its place. If Facebook sticks to its guns on the Australian news ban and refuses to pay a cent, media outlets will lose online traffic.

come on yammer teams let’s go

Bubblecar said:

Whether people leave FB or not is up to them, but it’s worth reminding them that they can do pretty much everything they do on FB on the wider internet.

Personally I have no use for a Facebook account.

What Google and Facebook strive for is to have the user interract with the Internet through their systems, that way they know what they look at, how long they look at it for etc.

Then along comes Murdoch wanting a slice of their advertising pie. In the case of Google, I can see their case. Google will display information from an external website that means the user may not go to there at all, essentially stealing the content.

Facebook, however actually hosts the content put there by the media entities so I think their decision to give Murdoch and his Government cronies the finger was probably justified. But by doing so they will risk having users go outside their platform to get the information they need. That is a large chunk of user data that is now largely invisible to them.

Dark Orange said:

Bubblecar said:

Whether people leave FB or not is up to them, but it’s worth reminding them that they can do pretty much everything they do on FB on the wider internet.

Personally I have no use for a Facebook account.

What Google and Facebook strive for is to have the user interract with the Internet through their systems, that way they know what they look at, how long they look at it for etc.

Then along comes Murdoch wanting a slice of their advertising pie. In the case of Google, I can see their case. Google will display information from an external website that means the user may not go to there at all, essentially stealing the content.

Facebook, however actually hosts the content put there by the media entities so I think their decision to give Murdoch and his Government cronies the finger was probably justified. But by doing so they will risk having users go outside their platform to get the information they need. That is a large chunk of user data that is now largely invisible to them.

Presumably they’ve done the sums and they regard kicking Oz news out as the least worst option.

Bubblecar said:

Dark Orange said:

Bubblecar said:

Whether people leave FB or not is up to them, but it’s worth reminding them that they can do pretty much everything they do on FB on the wider internet.

Personally I have no use for a Facebook account.

What Google and Facebook strive for is to have the user interract with the Internet through their systems, that way they know what they look at, how long they look at it for etc.

Then along comes Murdoch wanting a slice of their advertising pie. In the case of Google, I can see their case. Google will display information from an external website that means the user may not go to there at all, essentially stealing the content.

Facebook, however actually hosts the content put there by the media entities so I think their decision to give Murdoch and his Government cronies the finger was probably justified. But by doing so they will risk having users go outside their platform to get the information they need. That is a large chunk of user data that is now largely invisible to them.

Presumably they’ve done the sums and they regard kicking Oz news out as the least worst option.

The local commercial birdcage liners are all behind paywalls, so have essentially lost the majority of their online presence so I think the media companies will blink first. I’d be interested in seeing the traffic numbers of the ABC news pages since this.

Dark Orange said:

Bubblecar said:

Dark Orange said:

What Google and Facebook strive for is to have the user interract with the Internet through their systems, that way they know what they look at, how long they look at it for etc.

Then along comes Murdoch wanting a slice of their advertising pie. In the case of Google, I can see their case. Google will display information from an external website that means the user may not go to there at all, essentially stealing the content.

Facebook, however actually hosts the content put there by the media entities so I think their decision to give Murdoch and his Government cronies the finger was probably justified. But by doing so they will risk having users go outside their platform to get the information they need. That is a large chunk of user data that is now largely invisible to them.

Presumably they’ve done the sums and they regard kicking Oz news out as the least worst option.

The local commercial birdcage liners are all behind paywalls, so have essentially lost the majority of their online presence so I think the media companies will blink first. I’d be interested in seeing the traffic numbers of the ABC news pages since this.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-19/facebook-referral-traffic-down-news-ban-morrison-frydenberg/13171568

13% according to this.

Dark Orange said:

Bubblecar said:

Dark Orange said:

What Google and Facebook strive for is to have the user interract with the Internet through their systems, that way they know what they look at, how long they look at it for etc.

Then along comes Murdoch wanting a slice of their advertising pie. In the case of Google, I can see their case. Google will display information from an external website that means the user may not go to there at all, essentially stealing the content.

Facebook, however actually hosts the content put there by the media entities so I think their decision to give Murdoch and his Government cronies the finger was probably justified. But by doing so they will risk having users go outside their platform to get the information they need. That is a large chunk of user data that is now largely invisible to them.

Presumably they’ve done the sums and they regard kicking Oz news out as the least worst option.

The local commercial birdcage liners are all behind paywalls, so have essentially lost the majority of their online presence so I think the media companies will blink first. I’d be interested in seeing the traffic numbers of the ABC news pages since this.

Me too. And when I was reading about all the newsrooms shut down in recent years supposedly because of Facebook and Google I did wonder about how the ABC has been screwed with most budgets in that time.

Kingy said:

Dark Orange said:

Bubblecar said:

Presumably they’ve done the sums and they regard kicking Oz news out as the least worst option.

The local commercial birdcage liners are all behind paywalls, so have essentially lost the majority of their online presence so I think the media companies will blink first. I’d be interested in seeing the traffic numbers of the ABC news pages since this.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-19/facebook-referral-traffic-down-news-ban-morrison-frydenberg/13171568

13% according to this.

Interesting article, thanks.

Although Interesting to see that 21% of traffic to the news services was from Facebook.

The federal government is pulling all its advertising campaigns from Facebook, as the social media platform continues to block Australians from accessing news.

roughbarked said:

The federal government is pulling all its advertising campaigns from Facebook, as the social media platform continues to block Australians from accessing news.

all a bit rude really (read that as facetious), third parties trying to force the terms of agreements, when they change from more informal arrangement to more formalized and a platform is reluctant to just say no worries, mate, yeah all good

of course the government was mostly a third party, but centre stage now

the platform limits audience, steers content delivery to audiences all the time, all depends how you use the word blocking

I mean you could say everything or anything that isn’t in an audience list is blocked, but that’s open to how you see it really

transition said:

roughbarked said:

The federal government is pulling all its advertising campaigns from Facebook, as the social media platform continues to block Australians from accessing news.

all a bit rude really (read that as facetious), third parties trying to force the terms of agreements, when they change from more informal arrangement to more formalized and a platform is reluctant to just say no worries, mate, yeah all good

of course the government was mostly a third party, but centre stage now

the platform limits audience, steers content delivery to audiences all the time, all depends how you use the word blocking

I mean you could say everything or anything that isn’t in an audience list is blocked, but that’s open to how you see it really

I still contend that one of the most important functions of any government is to keep the Robber Barons at bay.

Michael V said:

transition said:

roughbarked said:

The federal government is pulling all its advertising campaigns from Facebook, as the social media platform continues to block Australians from accessing news.

all a bit rude really (read that as facetious), third parties trying to force the terms of agreements, when they change from more informal arrangement to more formalized and a platform is reluctant to just say no worries, mate, yeah all good

of course the government was mostly a third party, but centre stage now

the platform limits audience, steers content delivery to audiences all the time, all depends how you use the word blocking

I mean you could say everything or anything that isn’t in an audience list is blocked, but that’s open to how you see it really

I still contend that one of the most important functions of any government is to keep the Robber Barons at bay.

No argument with that.

Michael V said:

transition said:

roughbarked said:

The federal government is pulling all its advertising campaigns from Facebook, as the social media platform continues to block Australians from accessing news.

all a bit rude really (read that as facetious), third parties trying to force the terms of agreements, when they change from more informal arrangement to more formalized and a platform is reluctant to just say no worries, mate, yeah all good

of course the government was mostly a third party, but centre stage now

the platform limits audience, steers content delivery to audiences all the time, all depends how you use the word blocking

I mean you could say everything or anything that isn’t in an audience list is blocked, but that’s open to how you see it really

I still contend that one of the most important functions of any government is to keep the Robber Barons at bay.

that’s a fine idea

Jeff Jarvis on how Australia’s Facebook troubles are being seen around the world | ABC News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUCCMF4InyE

sarahs mum said:

Jeff Jarvis on how Australia’s Facebook troubles are being seen around the world | ABC News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUCCMF4InyE

watched that

dv said:

party_pants said:

captain_spalding said:

As i’ve said before, i believe that Facebook is digging in over who can tell it to do what.

Right now, Facebook operates pretty much as it pleases, anywhere it pleases. It avoids just about all attempts at regulation and it wholeheartedly avoids any attempts to get it to pay appropriate taxes on the earnings it make in any place it operates.

While Google may be willing to negotiate, Facebook is not. They fear that if they cave in on one occasion when a government says ‘you must pay’, then other govts will say ‘hey, we can do that too’.

And then they’ll start thinking about compelling Facebook to pay proper taxes. And that’s Facebook’s biggest fear.

Other nations’ govts are watching keenly to see how this turns out.

It’s a bit like the tobacco plain packing thing. Other countries are waiting for someone else to go first.

In fairness, the intrinsic situations are different as well. Google sometimes uses other people’s content without permission or payment so it “a case can be made” that they should pay for it. On Facebook, people voluntarily share stories, and media companies voluntarily host their own pages promoting their news items, at no cost to the people posting it.

sorry we kicked this off in the wrong thread, bringing it back here but again we apologise

—

what’s the go with that then, if Facebook aren’t actually liable for any of the content, then why are they fighting the idea of paying for content that one is liable for

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

party_pants said:

It’s a bit like the tobacco plain packing thing. Other countries are waiting for someone else to go first.

In fairness, the intrinsic situations are different as well. Google sometimes uses other people’s content without permission or payment so it “a case can be made” that they should pay for it. On Facebook, people voluntarily share stories, and media companies voluntarily host their own pages promoting their news items, at no cost to the people posting it.

sorry we kicked this off in the wrong thread, bringing it back here but again we apologise

—

what’s the go with that then, if Facebook aren’t actually liable for any of the content, then why are they fighting the idea of paying for content that one is liable for

Coz Zuckerberg is a nerd.

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

party_pants said:

It’s a bit like the tobacco plain packing thing. Other countries are waiting for someone else to go first.

In fairness, the intrinsic situations are different as well. Google sometimes uses other people’s content without permission or payment so it “a case can be made” that they should pay for it. On Facebook, people voluntarily share stories, and media companies voluntarily host their own pages promoting their news items, at no cost to the people posting it.

sorry we kicked this off in the wrong thread, bringing it back here but again we apologise

—

what’s the go with that then, if Facebook aren’t actually liable for any of the content, then why are they fighting the idea of paying for content that one is liable for

If the government can force them to pay for material that the media agencies are willingly posting to the platform for free, what is to stop me from making them pay for my posts?

Rule 303 said:

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

In fairness, the intrinsic situations are different as well. Google sometimes uses other people’s content without permission or payment so it “a case can be made” that they should pay for it. On Facebook, people voluntarily share stories, and media companies voluntarily host their own pages promoting their news items, at no cost to the people posting it.

sorry we kicked this off in the wrong thread, bringing it back here but again we apologise

—

what’s the go with that then, if Facebook aren’t actually liable for any of the content, then why are they fighting the idea of paying for content that one is liable for

If the government can force them to pay for material that the media agencies are willingly posting to the platform for free, what is to stop me from making them pay for my posts?

In for one, in for all.

Rule 303 said:

SCIENCE said:

dv said:

In fairness, the intrinsic situations are different as well. Google sometimes uses other people’s content without permission or payment so it “a case can be made” that they should pay for it. On Facebook, people voluntarily share stories, and media companies voluntarily host their own pages promoting their news items, at no cost to the people posting it.

sorry we kicked this off in the wrong thread, bringing it back here but again we apologise

—

what’s the go with that then, if Facebook aren’t actually liable for any of the content, then why are they fighting the idea of paying for content that one is liable for

If the government can force them to pay for material that the media agencies are willingly posting to the platform for free, what is to stop me from making them pay for my posts?

don’t they have clauses in the service agreements saying “your choice to post, and when you do it gives us the right to repost freely”… isn’t that exactly the point of this nebulous “free speech” thing they all bang on about