William Gallagher
As Australian authorities pursue a plan to have Big Tech companies pay news sites, Facebook shut down all pages that could be even vaguely be described as news ones.
As it has previously threatened to do, Facebook has removed news pages in Australia. It follows continued progress by authorities toward a proposed system of charging social media firms.
Alongside pages from news organizations, however, Facebook also shut down some charities, plus emergency services and health pages. According to Reuters, Facebook has since restored the government-owned pages, but very many others remain inaccessible to users in Australia.
"Facebook's actions to unfriend Australia today, cutting off essential information services on health and emergency services, were as arrogant as they were disappointing," said Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison — in a post on Facebook.
"These actions will 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 continued. "They may be changing the world, but that doesn't mean they run it."
"We will not be intimidated by BigTech seeking to pressure our Parliament as it votes on our important News Media Bargaining Code," said Prime Minister Morrison. "Just as we weren't intimidated when Amazon threatened to leave the country and when Australia drew other nations together to combat the publishing of terrorist content on social media platforms."
"I encourage Facebook to constructively work with the Australian Government, as Google recently demonstrated in good faith," he concluded.
According to BBC News, Western Australia Premier Mark MCGowan described Facebook as "behaving like a North Korean dictator."
In a statement seen by Reuters, Facebook explained that the blocking of government pages should not have happened, but that it is unable to restore other affected pages.
"[As] the law does not provide clear guidance on the definition of news content," the statement continued, "we have taken a broad definition."
These other affected pages include a mothers' group called North Shore Mums which has 35,000 followers. Organizer Rachel Chappel says Facebook's move has "completely shaken" her.
"We're a mum's website," she said. "We are small and niche. This is not fair. I think they are just bullies. They are shooting themselves in the foot.
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison protested Facebook's move — on FacebookPeter Lewis, director of the Australia Institute's Centre for Responsible Technology told Reuters that the move "is destroying its social licence to operate."
"Without fact-based news to anchor it, Facebook will become little more than a cute cats and conspiracy theories [page]," he said. "If Facebook determines to treat Australians with such contempt, Australians should respond by ending its use of Facebook and using alternate ways to connect online."
If fully implemented, Australia's ongoing proposal would "allow news media businesses to bargain individually or collectively with Google and Facebook over payment for the inclusion of news on their services." As well as negotiating payment, the proposal would require Facebook or Google to provide news organizations with advance warning of changes to algorithms.
Facebook has previously claimed that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)'s draft proposal "ignored important facts." These included what Facebook described as its investments in Australian news companies that amount to millions of dollars.
-m.jpg)
Charles Martin
Christine McKee
Wesley Hilliard
Malcolm Owen
Andrew Orr
Sponsored Content
26 Comments
So Facebook doesn’t like having to pay for news, but they also don’t like Apple telling their users they’re being sold as commodities under Apple’s new privacy rules. Seems hypocritical to me...
I’m Australian and we have a right wing government here, many of whose members are big Trump fans with the usual science-deriding, climate change denying, anti-minority etc.. positions.
The primary news organisation in Australia that backs them is News Corp (of your American Fox News infamy). Here in Australia, they’re losing money hand over fist and Murdoch has long complained about Google & FB eating up "his" ad revenue. The government is concerned that their major backer’s future is clouded so decided to implement this law as a wealth transfer from FB & Google to News (and other major outlets that also happen to be friendly to the government such as Nine/Fairfax and Seven West Media.).
Its basically extortion, FB & Google have no choice but to link to the News sites and pay the news sites for the privilege. The amount to be determined by a government appointed arbitrator. The news companies were claiming billions for their "costs", not the value they actually provide. They're demanding the right to post the articles on FB and that FB MUST PAY THEM for the privilege! As much as I hate FB, no business can operate under these conditions. In fact, they'd be insane to.
The news organisations here are so arrogant and entitled that they’re outraged at FB and demanding it reinstate them!
Also, no one knows more about internet traffic than FB and Google. Their ad tracking networks are all pervasive and they track even when you’re not logged into them or even a member! Can’t wait for iOS 14.5 to stop that, but this means that they know exactly the kind of traffic flows that occur and are able to predict what will happen from this action.
To cut a long story short, FB knows that this will not materially affect them here in Australia, but it will affect the news organisations.
Do I miss something?
Facebook let share some news content. When the government wanted the Facebook to pay for it, Facebook switch this content from its service.
So that it won't pay for it.
Now people complain the Facebook did something wrong.
I don't get it. Why are people against Facebook in this case? That's the government who pushed Facebook to that move.Disclaimer: I am usually against Facebook and think they are discussing in their behaviour in many cases, including there attacks on Apple regarding privacy features.
But in this case I am frustrated with the politicians and people who want something from the Facebook and then blame it for their own actions.
Yet Facebook continues to claim to be an impartial platform and not a publisher....
From the article, “We're a mum's website," she said. "We are small and niche. This is not fair. I think they are just bullies. They are shooting themselves in the foot.”
Her opinion, that they are just bullies, seems quite on target regarding Facebook and Zuckerberg.
Also, this collectivist nonsense of lumping media companies like Facebook into the same category as Apple, under the term “Big Tech” strikes me as increasingly perverse. I certainly recognize the classic divide and conquer approach to politics that is common in any Democracy or Democratic Republic; but the lumping together of antagonistic entities still strikes me as perverse.