Facebook Debacle

[kamchatsky]

There's always WhatsApp ..... oh hang on a minute, who now owns WhatsApp ....

Therein lies another problem.

There is Signal, or Telegram etc ..... But need masses to move across.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

I'm in the same position - really only use it for keeping in touch with the friends and family overseas, and I usually get my news from the source - although I have enjoyed reading comments on the ABC Canberra page, something that is not available on the ABC app for example.

I also agree about the convenience of everything in one place, including overseas news sites like New Yorker, BBC etc that are a bit more effort to find directly.

And I understand that FB is a private business.

But, and this is the real but, I am appalled at a 10,000lb hairy gorilla like FB throwing their weight around so indiscriminately and immediately. They blocked charity sites, emergency services sites, weather warning sites, health sites, including COVID and had the hide to say that we could get our COVID information from their COVID hub, all whilst allowing 5G conspiracy theories, "microchips in the vaccine" posts etc to be included on the site, and saying that these and other hate speech stites can't be taken down. I call BS.

If I can find a way to stay in touch with my overseas cohort, I will be leaving FB as a result.

Where all friends have a mobile number try WhatsApp also owned by Facebook

 

[Seat0B]

Where all friends have a mobile number try WhatsApp also owned by Facebook

Yes thanks, the point really is "owned by Facebook" - same with messenger as well. it's hard to vote with your feet when it is such a monopoly - which is exactly why it should be better regulated because there are no market forces of any strength to send messages to Facebook about its behaviour. At least we have a (minimal) choice of airlines (for the moment).

 

[bernardblack]

This is just rent-seeking. If people post links to news on Facebook, then when a user clicks-through to the "news" site they hit whatever paywall or advertising the "news" site offers. Why should Facebook be compelled to pay them on top of that? That Facebook would block news sites was an entirely predictable outcome, and not unjust at all. They're complying with the mandate to not share news sites for which they're not paying.

Post automatically merged: Feb 19, 2021

Obvs the law doesn't apply yet. They're just illustrating the implications of it.

 

[Seat0B]

There is Signal, or Telegram etc ..... But need masses to move across.

Aren't these the ones favoured by the supporters of the USA president elected in 2016?

 

[Seat0B]

This is just rent-seeking. If people post links to news on Facebook, then when a user clicks-through to the "news" site they hit whatever paywall or advertising the "news" site offers. Why should Facebook be compelled to pay them on top of that? That Facebook would block news sites was an entirely predictable outcome, and not unjust at all. They're complying with the mandate to not share news sites for which they're not paying.

Post automatically merged: Feb 19, 2021

Obvs the law doesn't apply yet. They're just illustrating the implications of it.

But they also blocked the Betoota Advocate (must have thought it was a real newspaper), several charities, the BoM weather warnings and many other non-news sites like Her Canberra etc.

 

[Daver6]

Yes and all these sites are happy to leach users personal information to enrich the pockets of facebook.

Facebook needs to be controlled in stealing personal data by legislation.

While I certainly don't support Facebook's approach and I think they're doing themselves long term reputational damage, people need to remember two things.

Firstly, Facebook isn't "stealing" anyone's personal data. They're providing a free service to people and outline how they will gather and use peoples' information in order to make money for shareholders. Facebook is not a charity.

Secondly, people are freely sharing their information with Facebook (and quite often third parties). People will moan and cough about this but are too lazy to take some responsibility for their own actions.

Finally to explain to some of those who don't understand why people might use Facebook to get their news rather than visit websites, consider this use case. Via Facebook you can subscribe to multiple news sources and they will appear in one place in your feed. That's much more convenient than visiting a dozen different websites. This can also include emergency warning websites, so if there is an emergency in your area it will show up on your feed. That's pretty convenient for some.

As others have pointed out, it's amazing how quickly Facebook can take down legitimate news but fails miserably at removing misinformation, hate speech and the like.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

Yes thanks, the point really is "owned by Facebook" - same with messenger as well. it's hard to vote with your feet when it is such a monopoly - which is exactly why it should be better regulated because there are no market forces of any strength to send messages to Facebook about its behaviour. At least we have a (minimal) choice of airlines (for the moment).

Well it’s technically a duopoly/ Oligopoly with Facebook, Google, Yahoo! , Microsoft

I’m still sending news links to friends via WhatsApp so no crackdown there yet

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

Facebook	2,740 million active users
YouTube	2,291
WhatsApp	2,000
Facebook Messenger*	1,300
Instagram	1,221
Weixin / WeChat	1,213

According to statista Most used social media 2020 | Statista

Facebook owns 1, 3, 4, 5
Google owns 2
Tencent (Chinese) owns 6

Search engines
Google over 90%
Bing (Microsoft) less than 3%
Yahoo! (Using Bing results) less than 2%

 

[odysseus]

This is just rent-seeking. If people post links to news on Facebook, then when a user clicks-through to the "news" site they hit whatever paywall or advertising the "news" site offers. Why should Facebook be compelled to pay them on top of that? That Facebook would block news sites was an entirely predictable outcome, and not unjust at all. They're complying with the mandate to not share news sites for which they're not paying.

Post automatically merged: Feb 19, 2021

Obvs the law doesn't apply yet. They're just illustrating the implications of it.

Firstly a user doesn't click through mostly since they already got the detail of what they're looking at upfront, unless they're especially interested. And meanwhile facebook is getting the content from them and getting the user visits and time spent since they offer the 'convenience,' 'all in one place' and simply content from the supplier. At no cost for the actual effort of producing the content.

And secondly how does a paywall provide any revenue to the news site? It doesn't. And a visitor isn't just going to hang around for ads - which they also got more of when they were on facebook reading all the 3rd party content to begin with.

And if it was such a predictable outcome then why did google come to an arrangement? Wasn't anything predictable, and it's not all over yet.

 

[TheRealTMA]

While I certainly don't support Facebook's approach and I think they're doing themselves long term reputational damage, people need to remember two things.

Firstly, Facebook isn't "stealing" anyone's personal data. They're providing a free service to people and outline how they will gather and use peoples' information in order to make money for shareholders. Facebook is not a charity.

Secondly, people are freely sharing their information with Facebook (and quite often third parties). People will moan and ***** about this but are too lazy to take some responsibility for their own actions.

Finally to explain to some of those who don't understand why people might use Facebook to get their news rather than visit websites, consider this use case. Via Facebook you can subscribe to multiple news sources and they will appear in one place in your feed. That's much more convenient than visiting a dozen different websites. This can also include emergency warning websites, so if there is an emergency in your area it will show up on your feed. That's pretty convenient for some.

As others have pointed out, it's amazing how quickly Facebook can take down legitimate news but fails miserably at removing misinformation, hate speech and the like.

If you access facebook, they are an insidious corporation. I'm not sure you fully appreciate the data gleaned from users by Facebook and for that matter Google. They collect heaps of data that you have not specifically opted-in for and track you between other web sites etc.

What Data Does Facebook Collect?

Ever used Facebook and wondered what information it collects? Read on to find out how much of your data Facebook keeps after you visit.

www.reviews.org

What You Don’t Know About How Facebook Uses Your Data (Published 2018)

Facebook tracks even nonusers as they surf the web, and House members grilled Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, about the practice during his second day of hearings.

www.nytimes.com

Are you ready? This is all the data Facebook and Google have on you | Dylan Curran

The harvesting of our personal details goes far beyond what many of us could imagine. So I braced myself and had a look

www.theguardian.com

9 Terrifying Ways Facebook Uses Your Data - Privacy Australia

The myriad of mis-steps Facebook has made in handling customer data is scary enough but the privacy violation go deeper than what's reported.

privacyaustralia.net

YMMV.

 

[moa999]

On 10News tonight, report that average traffic to Aus news sites was down 16% today.

Personally think this is more a negotiating tactic, that Facebook shouldn't be paying as much as Google - the context is very different.
Eg. A post on a car group about an article on a new car is highly likely to get click through, whereas a search result on Google may not.

 

[jb747]

Let’s just tax them properly. They supposedly sold $600 million of ads last year, but paid single digit tax. A flat tax of 15% on income, with no deductions, or Irish sandwiches, or other smart accounting measures.

I use them, but I don’t care if they up and leave. Any voids will be filled. And other countries are likely to follow, so as long as the government simply holds it’s line, FB will ultimately end up learning to play nicely with others. Version two of this, when they try the Canadians, or EU, will be especially interesting.

 

[dajop]

Interesting (but admittedly not un-biased) alternative viewpoint (from proprietor of Crikey and a few independent news publishers):

New code should enhance diversity of media ownership

Let’s create meaningful financial support for Australia’s 100 or so small-to-medium news publishers.

www.smh.com.au

If you can't access, essentially arguing FB & google should pay a "social license" to support public interest journalism and a diversity of news sources (he would say that I guess) , and the legislation actually risks entrenching the power of News and Nine. I think he has a point though.

Another prominent Australian has been speaking on the topic today to a senate committee, which reflects this concern, although more directed at News than Nine.

Political viewpoints aside, I think we need to be really careful about the influence that all 4 companies have over us - in terms of public debate and shaping our beliefs and attitudes as well as privacy.

 

[eastwest101]

Interesting (but admittedly not un-biased) alternative viewpoint (from proprietor of Crikey and a few independent news publishers):

New code should enhance diversity of media ownership

Let’s create meaningful financial support for Australia’s 100 or so small-to-medium news publishers.

www.smh.com.au

If you can't access, essentially arguing FB & google should pay a "social license" to support public interest journalism and a diversity of news sources (he would say that I guess) , and the legislation actually risks entrenching the power of News and Nine. I think he has a point though.

Another prominent Australian has been speaking on the topic today to a senate committee, which reflects this concern, although more directed at News than Nine.

Political viewpoints aside, I think we need to be really careful about the influence that all 4 companies have over us - in terms of public debate and shaping our beliefs and attitudes as well as privacy.

Interesting how quickly the subject of media reform and the technicalities of which internet companies are publishers and which ones aren't has morphed into rent seeking behavior by businesses who have failed to adapt, and some good ol' anti-news limited conspiracy theories.

Starting to look like a bunch of vested interests gathering around some sort of magic pudding of free unlimited money and jumping on a bandwagon to expedite other ulterior agendas.

The discussion really should be about the regulation of the internet, how it works, who gets jurisdiction of it and more about tax reform because thats where the more useful discussions and reforms should be happening.

 

[dajop]

and some good ol' anti-news limited conspiracy theories.

Yes, always news limited conspiracy theories. But on the other, no need for conspiracy theories, you don't need to apply much critical thinking to come to the conclusion that it is a brave Australian politician who goes against the aligned interests of Nine and News Ltd. No conspiracy, it's more about avoiding "poking the bear" than anything.

The discussion really should be about the regulation of the internet, how it works, who gets jurisdiction of it and more about tax reform because thats where the more useful discussions and reforms should be happening.

Agreed.

 

[Milefest]

News agencies voluntarily share their news on Facebook, why do they think they're entitled to a rev-share that is against the terms of service they agreed to?

 

[Townsend]

Further to Sam's post, with AFF seemingly caught up in the Facebook debacle, I would just like to take this opportunity to encourage anyone who previously subscribed to the Australian Frequent Flyer Facebook page to subscribe to the Australian Frequent Flyer Gazette. It's free and you'll get the latest AFF articles delivered directly to your email inbox every Monday & Thursday morning.

Subscribe to the Australian Frequent Flyer Gazette

Stay up to date with the latest airline news, travel tips, deals and issues affecting all frequent flyers by subscribing to the Frequent Flyer Gazett

www.australianfrequentflyer.com.au

I received a message ‘email address is bounced’. Unsure what that means

 

[samh004]

This is just rent-seeking. If people post links to news on Facebook, then when a user clicks-through to the "news" site they hit whatever paywall or advertising the "news" site offers. Why should Facebook be compelled to pay them on top of that? That Facebook would block news sites was an entirely predictable outcome, and not unjust at all. They're complying with the mandate to not share news sites for which they're not paying.

Post automatically merged: Feb 19, 2021

Obvs the law doesn't apply yet. They're just illustrating the implications of it.

I can sort of see what you're saying, but they've taken the letter of the law to the absolute extreme, which obviously no person or business ever does. To illustrate their point and perhaps help with bargaining power, they have bowled over pages like AFF who aren't looking to be paid for sharing their news, charities posting links to their own content and emergency services providing critical updates to communities. While all of these could deliver news and post links to 'mainstream media' – how hard would it be to only block 'mainstream media' links and not absolutely everything like they have done? I imagine very easy for them to code.

What they have done instead is throw all the toys out of the cot, to make a point that I think has actually backfired substantially on them. It shows them to be the thuggish evil company they are that couldn't negotiate in 3 months and instead seemingly spent that entire 3 months making a list of every Australia group/page to wipe/block all at the same time. Pretty insane thing to do... and while I despite the EU, I'm sure they'll be looking at what's going on down under and making moves based on what they've seen all too soon. Probably opened one mighty can of worms.

Google on the other hand, they threatened, realised what a mistake that would be and came to the table. And they're the "do no evil" company that frequently does

Let’s just tax them properly. They supposedly sold $600 million of ads last year, but paid single digit tax. A flat tax of 15% on income, with no deductions, or Irish sandwiches, or other smart accounting measures.

Exactly, I'm not sure why no one in government wants to close all the loopholes and just hit them with their actual tax bills. I think most of them route through Singapore and not Ireland down here though?

I received a message ‘email address is bounced’. Unsure what that means

This means that at some stage a gazette that was sent to you for one reason or another 'bounced back' to AFF's servers, and the system has flagged it as not being available. When you get time, send @support an email at [email protected] with the email address that 'bounced' and it'll be sorted.

 

[HappyFlyerFamily]

I can sort of see what you're saying, but they've taken the letter of the law to the absolute extreme, which obviously no person or business ever does. To illustrate their point and perhaps help with bargaining power, they have bowled over pages like AFF who aren't looking to be paid for sharing their news, charities posting links to their own content and emergency services providing critical updates to communities. While all of these could deliver news and post links to 'mainstream media' – how hard would it be to only block 'mainstream media' links and not absolutely everything like they have done? I imagine very easy for them to code.

What they have done instead is throw all the toys out of the cot, to make a point that I think has actually backfired substantially on them. It shows them to be the thuggish evil company they are that couldn't negotiate in 3 months and instead seemingly spent that entire 3 months making a list of every Australia group/page to wipe/block all at the same time. Pretty insane thing to do... and while I despite the EU, I'm sure they'll be looking at what's going on down under and making moves based on what they've seen all too soon. Probably opened one mighty can of worms.

Google on the other hand, they threatened, realised what a mistake that would be and came to the table. And they're the "do no evil" company that frequently does

Exactly, I'm not sure why no one in government wants to close all the loopholes and just hit them with their actual tax bills. I think most of them route through Singapore and not Ireland down here though?

This means that at some stage a gazette that was sent to you for one reason or another 'bounced back' to AFF's servers, and the system has flagged it as not being available. When you get time, send @support an email at [email protected] with the email address that 'bounced' and it'll be sorted.

With the tax issue, I gather the different countries can’t agree on their share and the US anecdotally don’t like anyone else taxing US companies apart from themselves.

If your suggestion is correct and they are Singaporean companies and say Singapore rightfully taxes them, they aren’t going to share with say Australia in respect of through traffic that ends in Australia. So perhaps part of it is lack of international cooperation.