https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/22/google-threatens-to-shut-down-search-in-australia-if-digital-news-code-goes-ahead
QuoteGoogle and Facebook are fighting legislation that would force them to enter into negotiations with news media companies for payment for content
Google has threatened to remove its search engine from Australia and Facebook has threatened to remove news from its feed for all Australian users if a code forcing the companies to negotiate payments to news media companies goes ahead.
The move would mean the 19 million Australians who use Google every month would no longer be able to use Google Search, and 17 million Australians who log into Facebook every month would not be able to see or post any news articles on the social media site.
The two companies are fighting against legislation currently before the parliament that would force the digital platforms to enter into negotiations with news media companies for payment for content, with an arbiter to ultimately decide the payment amount if no agreement can be reached.
On Friday, Google delivered an ultimatum to the government, saying it would not be viable to continue offering search in Australia if the code goes ahead.
The company's Australian managing director, Mel Silva, told a Senate committee the proposed news code was untenable and would set a "dangerous precedent" for paying for links.
"The principle of unrestricted linking between websites is fundamental to search and coupled with the unmanageable financial and operational risk if this version of the code were to become law, it would give us no real choice but to stop making Google Search available in Australia," she said.
"Withdrawing our services from Australia is the last thing that Google want to have happen, especially when there is another way forward."
Silva said the company wanted to make changes to the code to make it "workable", and the company was keen to enter into agreements with media companies to pay for content, pointing out around 450 deals have been made with media companies around the world.
The prime minister, Scott Morrison, said at a press conference in Brisbane the government would not respond to threats.
"Let me be clear. Australia makes our rules for things you can do in Australia. That's done in our parliament. It's done by our government. And that's how things work here in Australia and people who want to work with that, in Australia, you're very welcome.
"But we don't respond to threats."
Reset Australia, an organisation that is lobbying for the regulation of big tech companies, said Google was bullying Australia.
"Today's egregious threats show Google has the body of behemoth, but the brain of brat," the executive director, Chris Cooper, said. "When a private corporation tries to use its monopoly power to threaten and bully a sovereign nation, it's a surefire sign that regulation is long overdue."
Representatives from Facebook repeated the company's previous threat to pull news content from user feeds. Josh Machin, Facebook's head of public policy in Australia, said if the code goes ahead, Facebook would potentially prevent not just news companies from posting links to news articles on Facebook, but all users based in Australia.
Machin said news articles make up under 5% of what the average user sees in their feed, and Facebook did not get much commercial benefit from news articles posted on Facebook.
When asked whether Facebook profited from fake news posted on the platform, Machin said no commercial benefit was gained by Facebook on its users posting fake news.
The Guardian Australia managing director, Dan Stinton, told the committee the claims were misleading because news content keeps users engaged on Facebook.
"The way you advertise on Facebook is within the Facebook newsfeed and news content does provide at least some of the engagement that the Facebook newsfeed delivers," he said.
"So I'm surprised that they say they see no value in journalism within the Facebook newsfeed."
Australia's competition watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, developed the code. Its chair, Rod Sims, told the committee what was being lost in the debate was the code was not simply a requirement for Google and Facebook to pay per click for news articles.
"Discussions we are aware of have focused on paying upfront lump-sum amounts, not per click," he said.
"What this code does is it gives the possibility of arbitration, which I suspect won't be used that often, but that possibility evens up the bargaining process. This is really the only way we can get commercial deals."
...
Guardian's stance on this is clear. :D
What would the crazies do without big tech to whine about?
Quote from: The Brain on January 22, 2021, 08:00:51 AM
What would the crazies do without big tech to whine about?
Post 35 times a day on an obscure forum, like a desperate time-waster, trying to connect through inane jokes day after day?
Quote from: Zoupa on January 22, 2021, 08:21:47 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 22, 2021, 08:00:51 AM
What would the crazies do without big tech to whine about?
Post 35 times a day on an obscure forum, like a desperate time-waster, trying to connect through inane jokes day after day?
Nah. Sounds unlikely.
While threatening to leave Australia, google signs deal with France. Call their bluff, Australia.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/google-agrees-to-pay-french-news-sites-to-send-them-traffic/
QuoteIn the past, Google's hardball tactics deterred most European countries from trying to force Google to pay up. But with the passage of the EU copyright directive, European countries formed a united front against Google, making it much harder for Google to resist. Google's capitulation in France will weaken its bargaining position as other European countries pass their own versions of the French law and news organizations in other countries line up for their share of Google cash.
Quote from: The Brain on January 22, 2021, 08:26:00 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on January 22, 2021, 08:21:47 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 22, 2021, 08:00:51 AM
What would the crazies do without big tech to whine about?
Post 35 times a day on an obscure forum, like a desperate time-waster, trying to connect through inane jokes day after day?
Nah. Sounds unlikely.
That is reserved for us sane folks. The crazies need to find something else to do.
Facebook's blackout didn't launch so well.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/18/facebook-blocks-health-departments-charities-and-its-own-pages-in-botched-australia-news-ban
QuoteFacebook's botched Australia news ban hits health departments, charities and its own pages
The Bureau of Meteorology, state health departments, the Western Australian opposition leader, charities and Facebook itself are among those to have been hit by Facebook's ban on news in Australia.
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 were also blocked for several hours.
Australia's main source of weather information, the Bureau of Meteorology, said on Thursday morning that it had been blocked, 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".
Health minister Greg Hunt said he was "profoundly shocked" that health organisations, including Bowel Cancer Australia and the Kids Cancer Project had been affected.
...
Well, I mean, isn't that in line with the law? Facebook is supposed to pay if they want to publish news and articles from other sources. They don't want to pay so they don't publish news and articles.
Quote from: Tamas on February 18, 2021, 04:11:26 AM
Well, I mean, isn't that in line with the law? Facebook is supposed to pay if they want to publish news and articles from other sources. They don't want to pay so they don't publish news and articles.
Well actually there is no law in place yet. This was their preemptive move ahead of the law.
I'm not sure why updates from cancer charities or state health depts would fall under news publishers that facebook thought they would need to pay. And in fact, I don't think they did as later in the article they note that some of the state health dept pages have gone back up.
Spanish Google News has been deactivated for years due to this. There is a law in Germany that would force Google News to pay content creators, but they have to make the claim for that individually, meaning Google will then just remove that particular site. So it is not used much due to Google's market power.
If there is political will to redistribute profits between content creators like news organisations and aggregators like Google and Facebook, I do not see why not. Especially considering their quasi monopoly status. Might of course result in them just not offering their service anymore.
I think there is a slight difference between Facebook and Google though in that Facebook - to the best of my knowledge - doesn't have a news aggregator. People and media companies post stories to Facebook, which is different than Google News.
I have more sympathy for Facebook on this (which is rare) than Google because I think they are more another distribution channel for news media, rather than a platform that is hoovering up and aggregating stories in the way Google does.
I agree there's no need to cut off the police or charities, but I do think it's actually a legitimate possible strategy for Facebook globally to get out of news. It's causing them a lot of PR and reputational issues and it may be putting people off the platform if they are seeing lots of political stories and news etc. I think they might try to pivot back to people planning parties, sharing cute videos of pets and kids etc.
Quote from: Zanza on February 18, 2021, 06:34:42 AMSpanish Google News has been deactivated for years due to this. There is a law in Germany that would force Google News to pay content creators, but they have to make the claim for that individually, meaning Google will then just remove that particular site. So it is not used much due to Google's market power.
If there is political will to redistribute profits between content creators like news organisations and aggregators like Google and Facebook, I do not see why not. Especially considering their quasi monopoly status. Might of course result in them just not offering their service anymore.
Yeah - there's a few laws doing the rounds in different bits of the world that are taking aim at this. I think that may be why Google is starting to negotiate is it knows this is coming everywhere and they want to almost control what the outcome looks like.
I think there is a big wider issue of when these platforms provide what could be considered an essential communication network or a platform that is in some way essential to the delivery of a state service. So I think there's a strong argument that the state should be able to mandate certain communications are carried - for example a police alert, or a weather system alert in a crisis moment. The other side is what we've seen in Europe with contact tracing apps where the design of how the state and public health authorities use apps to support contact tracing has been decided by Google and Apple. I think that's something, after the crisis, that states may circle back to - I know there's appetite in France and also some comments from Germany.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 18, 2021, 06:44:55 AM
I think there is a slight difference between Facebook and Google though in that Facebook - to the best of my knowledge - doesn't have a news aggregator. People and media companies post stories to Facebook, which is different than Google News.
I have more sympathy for Facebook on this (which is rare) than Google because I think they are more another distribution channel for news media, rather than a platform that is hoovering up and aggregating stories in the way Google does.
I agree there's no need to cut off the police or charities, but I do think it's actually a legitimate possible strategy for Facebook globally to get out of news. It's causing them a lot of PR and reputational issues and it may be putting people off the platform if they are seeing lots of political stories and news etc. I think they might try to pivot back to people planning parties, sharing cute videos of pets and kids etc.
I'd be fine if they decided to exit news game but they certainly are in the mix. They even have products/services specifically for news publishers:
https://en-gb.facebook.com/business/help/377680816096171?id=644465919618833
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2021, 07:00:37 AM
I'd be fine if they decided to exit news game but they certainly are in the mix. They even have products/services specifically for news publishers:
https://en-gb.facebook.com/business/help/377680816096171?id=644465919618833
It's weird defending Facebook :lol:
That's not really aggregation like Google do. It's an option for publishers to use Facebook and Facebook say if you're primarily creating news content this is the type of page you should use.
There is a choice for publishers to put their content on Facebook or not. There's no choice with Google. So I think it's fair for Facebook to make that point and say, well, if we're going to be treated like Google and have to pay publishers who are choosing to use our site as a distribution channel, then we'd rather shut it down because it's not really a core part of our business.
Well it is two parts, there are aspects that publishers can choose (as supported by facebook) but there is also all the content that users post like we do here.
I think it is fair for facebook to wipe their hands of news media but then it should be something consistent not just pick and choose here when local laws note we should be paying for the distribution that we are doing (even if only by our users).
I don't think it is an accident that the main panel for FB is the 'News Feed' ;)
Some interesting points in this piece.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/19/facebook-is-gambling-australia-cant-live-without-it-imagine-if-we-prove-them-wrong
QuoteSome commentators reckon Facebook has called Australia's bluff. They may be about to discover that Australia isn't bluffing.
The platform's own irresponsible and chaotic implementation of its Australian news "ban" appears to have rallied the country – citizens and politicians from across the aisles – and governments from around the world, to support the Australian government's resolve.
As a former chief executive of Facebook in Australia and New Zealand, Stephen Scheeler, wrote in the Nine newspapers, the company has taken an enormous gamble, betting that "by taking an aggressive hard line with a middle power, such as Australia, a tough message will be sent to the rest of the world to back off on regulation."
But, as he says, there is an alternative scenario. "When you pull a government's pants down in front of the world, you leave it little option but to dig in. When you vandalise 13 million citizens' news feeds as a bargaining chip, you raise the stakes ... So witnessing a standoff between Australia and Facebook could be the catalyst for genuine global reform. It could be that future historians of the internet come to see this decision as the moment the world sat up and started to take serious action on making Big Tech accountable to society."
So far, that second scenario is playing out.
It's hard to think of a better way for a platform to anger a nation and destroy what's left of its own reputation than to block health and hospital sites in a pandemic, emergency service sites in a state that recently battled bushfires and the sites of innumerable welfare groups, charities and community organisations, all in a bid to avoid making payments under a new media bargaining code that aims to address the power imbalance between media companies and the big tech platforms.
It didn't take long for comparisons to be made about how easy it had been for Facebook to shut down real, factual news and how difficult it had claimed the task of shutting down "fake" news and misinformation, or even shutting off the livestream of a massacre,or for questions to be asked about how a company that is supposed to be all about "connecting the world" could so blithely disconnect factual news from an entire nation, leaving the top-performing links to news-adjacent comedy sites and satire.
Facebook's response, that the breadth of its ban was due to the definition of news in the proposed code, makes no sense since the code is not yet law, and the company immediately began reversing some of the blocks as they were publicised by outraged users.
So far it has succeeded in strengthening the government's resolve. The prime minister says, pointedly, that threats are not a good way to deal with his government.
Google, the other media giant that faced being forced into negotiation and arbitration with news companies under the code, found a workaround.
In order to avoid setting the legal precedent of paying for news appearing in search, it has done deals of similar magnitude with Australian media companies large and small for stories to appear in its Showcase service. The government has achieved its aim of getting the platform to pay the news companies, and Google has avoided the precedent. The government retains the ability to activate the letter of the law and force payment for news appearing in search at any time in the future, as a means of ensuring the voluntary deals are not eroded over time, or denied to smaller and mid-sized publishers once the needs of the big end of town are met.
...
I think there's a lot to that and it's not just middle powers or Facebook.
I read a really interesting piece - somewhere - about how the US tech companies were learning that they needed to change their approach and lobbying strategy outside of the US. I think it was in the context of European privacy and now other data rules.
Facebook and Google especially went in very hard and were aggressive on why lots of these changes weren't necessary, were technically impossible and should just be opposed. It was noted that basically that approach might work in the US but it just doesn't translate in Europe or - I think parliamentary systems - because once the government or the EU has decided to regulate something, then it will be regulated and the question is how. Just outright opposing something doesn't get you anything.
The better strategy, I think, is to basically say you agree with the idea of regulation and some of the principles but have practical suggestions on how to change it - you might be able to help write it. I think Apple learned this earlier than the other tech companies because of its competition issues, I think Google has now learned it and Facebook is the last remaining hold out of a very belligerent approach.
So there's some controversial digital regulations going through in Europe and the UK at the minute and generally social media companies are "engaging" rather than just outright opposing/trying to block.
The lesson Google appears to have learned based on Grab On's article is that if they give the Australian government a face saving gesture they can continue to perform business as usual, at least for a while.