Addressing Misinformation and Harmful Content Online

[RaymondR]

THE GREAT FACEBOOK DUMMY SPIT

In response to the Australian governments payment for content use legislation Facebook has perpetrated a dummy spit and is removing or blocking many public service announcements and other information from their site. Great public indignation results.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

THE GREAT FACEBOOK DUMMY SPIT

In response to the Australian governments payment for content use legislation Facebook has perpetrated a dummy spit and is removing or blocking many public service announcements and other information from their site. Great public indignation results.

Australian publishers can continue to publish news content on Facebook, but links and posts can't be viewed or shared by Australian audiences. Australian users cannot share content from domestic or international news sources, while international users, outside Australia, cannot share news from Australian sources.

“Changes to Sharing and Viewing News on Facebook in Australia” ~ by William Easton, Managing Director, Facebook Australia & New Zealand
➥ https://about.fb.com/news/2021/02/ch...k-in-australia


I wish our members would remember that the official language of CF is English.
FWIW: 'dummy spit' (idiomatic) The act of overreacting (as an adult) to a situation childishly, in an angry or frustrated manner.

[Mike OReilly]

Of what I understand of the Australian development, I applaud the government for taking these actions. Blood is worth bottling!

FB and Google have been parasites on actual news sources since their inception. If you or I wanted to use the Globe & Mail news to further our own commercial offering, we would have to pay for it. But Google & FB et al. simply steals it.

... Dummy Spit; love it. A lot of that happens here (and sometimes by me ).

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Of what I understand of the Australian development, I applaud the government for taking these actions. Blood is worth bottling!

FB and Google have been parasites on actual news sources since their inception. If you or I wanted to use the Globe & Mail news to further our own commercial offering, we would have to pay for it. But Google & FB et al. simply steals it.

I'm still wondering how I feel about all this. On the one hand, I can't argue with the logic on the side of the Australian government or publishers.

But somehow, the internet is different. More specifically the www model is that anyone can publish a document (remember when that's all it was?) and others can link to it. Hence, a "world wide web" of links. Google stepped in and made it useful by developing their search engine. They weren't the first, but they found the right formula. I can find any information I want, from any source. I can compare and contrast different sources. This can't be a bad thing.

Then look at the history of news publishing. It's always been advertiser-supported, except when the publisher was motivated by some political agenda of their own. The rule of thumb in newspapers was that the trivial purchase price covered just the printing. The advertisements covered the rest. In fact, local free papers are still very successful around here. I read ours cover to cover every week, including all the ads, many of which are very helpful for learning about local business offerings.

Why mess with these models? They've worked well for a very long time.

Personally, I can't afford to pay for a subscription to every news outlet in the world. But I do want the option to read their takes on issues. I have occasionally supported individual publishers who I felt were under attack from forces trying to silence them, but beyond that I don't want to isolate myself in an echo chamber of just a few preferred sources. I want to hear all sides of the story. Is that selfish?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

I'm still wondering how I feel about all this. On the one hand, I can't argue with the logic on the side of the Australian government or publishers.

But somehow, the internet is different. More specifically the www model is that anyone can publish a document (remember when that's all it was?) and others can link to it. Hence, a "world wide web" of links. Google stepped in and made it useful by developing their search engine. They weren't the first, but they found the right formula. I can find any information I want, from any source. I can compare and contrast different sources. This can't be a bad thing.

Search tools are definitely a good thing. But my understanding (which could be wrong) is that this new Australian law isn't about limiting searches, it's about demanding that Google & FB pay for the material they take and put into their own specific news services.

Facebook has its new feeds and Google has Google News, which basically takes news items from everywhere, repackages it, and then delivers it to their users.

Sure, it's great for the reader; who doesn't like free. Google & FB loves it because they can sell their own ads all around the news items. But the original news sources get bupkus.

News costs money to create. And quality journalism costs even more. Everyone wants it, but no one wants to pay for it.

Originally Posted by CaptTom

Personally, I can't afford to pay for a subscription to every news outlet in the world. But I do want the option to read their takes on issues. I have occasionally supported individual publishers who I felt were under attack from forces trying to silence them, but beyond that I don't want to isolate myself in an echo chamber of just a few preferred sources. I want to hear all sides of the story. Is that selfish?

I'm in the same boat. But you're not restricted from accessing multiple sources. Just go to the actual news outlet's site and read it directly. You can even Google (or better still, DuckDuck) the web address if you don't know it.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Australian publishers can continue to publish news content on Facebook, but links and posts can't be viewed or shared by Australian audiences. Australian users cannot share content from domestic or international news sources, while international users, outside Australia, cannot share news from Australian sources.

I agree that the pendulum needs to swing back towards content producers, but the proposed Australian model seems crude and ill-considered. The secret sauce of the WWW has always been links, forcing payment for simply linking is crippling it. There is a difference between taking content without permission, linking to content, and allowing content producers to post content (FB's situation). Teething pains, I guess as we struggle towards a more equitable arrangement.

I do love the term 'spitting the dummy'. Side view of a pram, and a dummy (aka 'soother' for us in the colonies) flies out, and angry squalling ensues.

[CaptTom]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Search tools are definitely a good thing. But my understanding (which could be wrong) is that this new Australian law isn't about limiting searches, it's about demanding that Google & FB pay for the material they take and put into their own specific news services.

OK, my misunderstanding. That strengthens their argument.

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Facebook has its new feeds and Google has Google News, which basically takes news items from everywhere, repackages it, and then delivers it to their users.

I'm in the same boat. But you're not restricted from accessing multiple sources. Just go to the actual news outlet's site and read it directly. You can even Google (or better still, DuckDuck) the web address if you don't know it.

I guess it's because I don't use FB, and I don't use Google News that way.

I scan Google News for headlines that interest me, then click out to the sources' actual sites to read the details. This way I can see the spin each different site puts on it, and I get whatever advertising each site publishes.

If the Australian law allows that, I'm 100% for it.

(Full disclosure: I do run an ad blocker to knock down some of the more annoying, loud and distracting ads, but that's a totally different discussion.)

[Mike OReilly]

I'm going from news reports on the whole kerfuffle, but my understanding is that it is Facebook, not the Australian government, who has now banned all posting of any news links.

The proposed law (and it's not even a law yet) only demands that when news articles are used on these sites, that they negotiate a deal with the news source.

I've not seen any info that says the "deal" can't be for $0 if the publisher so chooses. The point is, it is the publisher's content, so they should have the say over how it is used.

Google seems to be taking a different tack (as is Bing). They are negotiating deals. But Facebook seems to be trying the bullying tactic by banning all news links, including links to government websites with public information.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

... But Facebook seems to be trying the bullying tactic by banning all news links, including links to government websites with public information.

According to the Facebook statement:
"... publishers willingly choose to post news on Facebook, as it allows them to sell more subscriptions, grow their audiences and increase advertising revenue. In fact, and as we have made clear to the Australian government for many months, the value exchange between Facebook and publishers runs in favor of the publishers...
... Last year Facebook generated approximately 5.1 billion free referrals to Australian publishers worth an estimated AU$407 million.
For Facebook, the business gain from news is minimal. News makes up less than 4% of the content people see in their News Feed. Journalism is important to a democratic society, which is why we build dedicated, free tools to support news organisations around the world in innovating their content for online audiences..."
FB Statement ➥ https://about.fb.com/news/2021/02/ch...-in-australia/

Of course, Facebook may not be telling the absolute, unvarnished, truth.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by GordMay

According to the Facebook statement:
"... publishers willingly choose to post news on Facebook, as it allows them to sell more subscriptions, grow their audiences and increase advertising revenue. In fact, and as we have made clear to the Australian government for many months, the value exchange between Facebook and publishers runs in favor of the publishers...

Yes, as a freelancer I've heard a version of this statement virtually my entire career: "No, we can't pay you for your work, but THINK OF THE EXPOSURE ." ...Yeah right .

But even if the above statement from FB is true, then it should be childishly easy for this massively profitable company to comply with the proposed Australian law (remember, it's not even passed yet). All they have to do is negotiate a $0 contract with all these "willing publishers."

The reality is, publishers post stuff on FB because they have no other choice. It's the 10,000 pound gorilla when it comes to the attention economy, so publishers have no real choice in this. The proposed law, at least as I understand it, gives them some choice and evens the power balance just a little bit.

BTW, as I've said, I'd sure love to see the same law applied TO publishers. They've been using the work of freelancers for decades now without paying for the digital rights. Or rather, first they stole from us. Then they forced everyone to sign over their digital rights for nothing in most cases. So I'd love to see the same principle allied to THEM.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by GordMay

According to the Facebook statement:

...News makes up less than 4% of the content people see in their News Feed.

Sorry, what ??

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

The reality is, publishers post stuff on FB because they have no other choice. It's the 10,000 pound gorilla when it comes to the attention economy, so publishers have no real choice in this. The proposed law, at least as I understand it, gives them some choice and evens the power balance just a little bit.

... stating this in another way: for many people, Facebook IS the Internet. This isn't evil; FB hasn't put drugs in the water, forced people onto their platform, or put up any impediment to normal Internet use. The truth is that FB is providing a valuable add-on to the Internet that many people appreciate and prefer to use. Including advertisers and many publishers. And currently they provide this add-on to users for 'free'*.

It will be interesting to watch this situation develop, as it must. If every country is going to go its own way like Australia, then maybe the Facebooks and Googles should split into one subsidiary or franchise for each country, and each such entity becomes a locally-controlled company with localized policies. Possible, but doesn't seem efficient. Sort of like a digital Brexit.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... stating this in another way: for many people, Facebook IS the Internet. This isn't evil; FB hasn't put drugs in the water, forced people onto their platform, or put up any impediment to normal Internet use.

In this light, Facebook is functionally a monopoly. Most countries have laws to deal with monopoly situations. It may not be evil, but it's not as simple a saying people have the freedom to go somewhere else. If Facebook is the Internet, what choice to people have?

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The truth is that FB is providing a valuable add-on to the Internet that many people appreciate and prefer to use. Including advertisers and many publishers. And currently they provide this add-on to users for 'free'*.

No one is questioning that. This is exactly what makes them successful. But news organizations are also providing a valuable service. And as you imply, nothing is given for free on Facebook, so why should FB get news for free?

Actually, you might have hit on the real issue here. FB says "news makes up less than 4% of the content people see in their News Feed." If so, then it's really no big deal for them either way. Use it and pay a small amount, or cut it entirely. Either way, it's only 4%, so no big deal. But maybe what they're really afraid of is the notion I've mentioned before where FB should actually be paying their users.

The real business model of FB is to mine personal data so as to deliver very focused attention to advertisers (or indeed any actors who want to reach a specific groups of people). Users are not FB's customers. Users are its raw material. So just as other businesses pay for their material, so should FB.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

In this light, Facebook is functionally a monopoly. Most countries have laws to deal with monopoly situations. It may not be evil, but it's not as simple a saying people have the freedom to go somewhere else. If Facebook is the Internet, what choice to people have?

Facebook isn't the Internet; it's an interface to the Internet that many many people prefer to use.

Companies like FB and Google are profiting (immensely) from innovations they brought to the party. Maybe it's time to see if they are actually engaging in monopolistic behaviours. If yes, that's a problem. But I don't think there should be penalties for innovating, for being the best at what you do. If countries decide to bust up Facebook or otherwise penalize their current activities... should every user of FB instead have to sign up and pay say $4.95 a month? No more free Google Earth? An extra $75 on your cellphone price to pay for the Android OS?

The Internet is still a very young field. The right choice was made near the start - to use a light hand, to keep it open as possible, to let inventors and entrepreneurs try things. This is why it's grown as fast as it has. It's still growing, and there is still the possibility that a newer and better thing will kick FB to the curb. Anyone remember MySpace? Blogspot?

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Facebook isn't the Internet; it's an interface to the Internet that many many people prefer to use.

Hmmmm, I was quoting from someone else here ... who was it that said "stating this in another way: for many people, Facebook IS the Internet."

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Companies like FB and Google are profiting (immensely) from innovations they brought to the party. Maybe it's time to see if they are actually engaging in monopolistic behaviours. If yes, that's a problem. But I don't think there should be penalties for innovating, for being the best at what you do.

This is why I've stated, over and over on this thread, that I think a market solution is the way to go. But sometimes government intervention is the only solution. It's one of the reasons we have governments, after all (as I know you know).

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If countries decide to bust up Facebook or otherwise penalize their current activities... should every user of FB instead have to sign up and pay say $4.95 a month? No more free Google Earth? An extra $75 on your cellphone price to pay for the Android OS?

As I said, I think FB and Google should be paying its users, not the other way around. Users are not their customers. Users are their raw material. Advertisers and influence seekers are their customers. They offer these "free" services as a way to mine your personal data, plain and simple. If it was not immensely profitable to do so, do you think they'd continue to offer "free" services? (rhetorical question of course).

[Wotname]

I'm gob smacked that dummy spit ain't considered english up over.