Facebook Debacle

[RooFlyer]

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?

I'm not a FB user, so perhaps you can explain to me the mechanism by which the various news sources, such as the ABC, Nine Entertainment, News Corp etc “agree to” the “ terms of service”. I guess it’s done via some written contract? What’s the agreement where the news services “ voluntarily share their news on Facebook”?

 

[Milefest]

I'm not a FB user, so perhaps you can explain to me the mechanism by which the various news sources, such as the ABC, Nine Entertainment, News Corp etc “agree to” the “ terms of service”. I guess it’s done via some written contract? What’s the agreement where the news services “ voluntarily share their news on Facebook”?

All those news sources create pages on Facebook to distribute the news they publish.

If a publisher wants to opt out of Facebook's platform they can retire their page and disable Facebook as a referer similar to how a publisher can also set up a norobots.txt to stop Google indexing their content.

 

[RooFlyer]

All those news sources create pages on Facebook to distribute the news they publish.

If a publisher wants to opt out of Facebook's platform they can retire their page and disable Facebook as a referer similar to how a publisher can also set up a norobots.txt to stop Google indexing their content.

Thanks. But I understand the news content/ links are ‘fed’ to anyone who signs up to them, can be shared etc. I think that’s the content that the federal government is seeking to have paid for.

If A takes content made by B and derives a profit from doing so, then I’ve always thought it reasonable that A pays something for that content.

Call me cynical, but I think Facebook taking down the sites of charities, health, not for profits was no accident. A big community whack to get everyone’s attention. Lovely.

 

[jb747]

The whole news thing is interesting, especially as the vast majority of links, even those from the newspapers themselves, simply take you to a paywall. I certainly see no reason for FB to be paying for that. Perhaps it would be best for all concerned if the government actually banned ANY news on FB.

Perhaps the monopoly aspect could be attacked by a law controlling the maximum percentage of the advertising $ that FB and Google are allowed to have. That would be fun to watch....

Nevertheless, the blocking of government, charities, and many small businesses, is nothing but abhorrent. It really shows that we'd be better off with our old style forums (like this one), with FB being little more than a chat site.

Anyway, now that they've drawn attention to themselves, let's sort out the tax that they pay. It should not be in single digits, but rather hundreds of millions. They aren't the only ones of course, but they put the spotlight on themselves.

 

[Daver6]

The issue isn't just news outlets having their own Facebook page and sharing via that mechanism. Take this example. There is a news article I want to share. If someone were to directly visit that news article there would be advertising that would generate revenue for the publisher.

Now if I share that article on Facebook and a user (on a mobile app, which is what a lot are) see it and clicks on it, Facebook very cleverly opens that article in their own browser by default. This lets them block the original advertising and insert their own. So they're using the work of the publisher but inserting their own revenue generating advertising, this denying the owner of the article their revenue. Does that seem right that they are profiting off the work of others and not sharing revenue?

As tax payers, how do you feel that Facebook is making money off ABC articles that you and I have paid for and not contributing back?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

As tax payers, how do you feel that Facebook is making money off ABC articles that you and I have paid for and not contributing back?

I suppose there's lots of moving parts? Facebook might be making money off the ABC's content... but is facebook then providing free pages for health services, hospitals, etc? If 'my' ABC is paying for a major hospital to get out messages on covid, or Lifeline and similar services to do their work, I'm probably ok with that. If I were a shareholder of a private news corporation I'd probably have a different view about my content being used without payment.

 

[jakeseven7]

Every single country in the world is lining up to slice and dice Facebook and I'm hoping this will be one day made into a movie about their demise... the Social Network 2?? (one can hope) or at least just remove their dominance of spreading cough around the world.

Canada is sharpening the knives and Europe will also crush them as well (like they did with Google) so this will be enjoyable to watch.

 

[Brissy1]

... law controlling the maximum percentage of the advertising $ that FB and Google are allowed to have. That would be fun to watch....

A very reasonable antitrust action to prevent monopolization or oligopolies. And a useful start to base tax on turnover rather than net "profit", as most of their otherwise profit seem to go, deductible, to the parent company (in Ireland?) in license etc fees.

 

[jakeseven7]

I suppose there's lots of moving parts? Facebook might be making money off the ABC's content... but is facebook then providing free pages for health services, hospitals, etc?

The page is free to set up of course but how do you think their messages get out?

Facebook milks everyone 7 ways from Sunday, in some way.

 

[Brissy1]

... but is facebook then providing free pages for health services, hospitals, etc?

not free in my book, their doing it to get referral profit. If FB is profiting then someone is paying.

 

[dk4]

Now if I share that article on Facebook and a user (on a mobile app, which is what a lot are) see it and clicks on it, Facebook very cleverly opens that article in their own browser by default. This lets them block the original advertising and insert their own. So they're using the work of the publisher but inserting their own revenue generating advertising, this denying the owner of the article their revenue. Does that seem right that they are profiting off the work of others and not sharing revenue?

I think scraping content, which I guess this is a variation of, is about the only thing that should be paid for - where the publisher (Facebook) is actively adjusting & displaying another publisher's content.

As for the rest, when content is actively given by an entity to Facebook for publication, then Facebook sets the terms.

Perhaps Australian media companies should actually be paying Facebook to display their content links - in effect they have been using Facebook as a "free" promotional and advertising channel for their own product (news) for ages!

The fact that old media hasn't been able to successfully find ways to monetise distribution of their product in the fricken "information age" is a pox on them and their lack of ingenuity, and they deserve to go the way of the dinosaur in my opinion. Facebook is not a distribution channel for paid journalists, that's not Facebook's business model.

For a government to try and force a private company to fundamentally change its business model to suit its billionaire mates from a failing industry simply beggars belief in my opinion.

 

[jase05]

Every single country in the world is lining up to slice and dice Facebook and I'm hoping this will be one day made into a movie about their demise... the Social Network 2?? (one can hope) or at least just remove their dominance of spreading cough around the world.

Canada is sharpening the knives and Europe will also crush them as well (like they did with Google) so this will be enjoyable to watch.

Agree completely.
Hope our Feds stay the course and hold their nerve. The world is watching us closely

 

[jakeseven7]

I think scraping content, which I guess this is a variation of, is about the only thing that should be paid for - where the publisher (Facebook) is actively adjusting & displaying another publisher's content.

As for the rest, when content is actively given by an entity to Facebook for publication, then Facebook sets the terms.

Perhaps Australian media companies should actually be paying Facebook to display their content links - in effect they have been using Facebook as a "free" promotional and advertising channel for their own product (news) for ages!

You clearly don't use Facebook as a business / organisation..... lucky you.

How do you think the media companies are distributing their news on Facebook? For free?!? Please

 

[dk4]

How do you think the media companies are distributing their news on Facebook? For free?!? Please

If they don't like the results, they don't need to be there. Trying to flip the table in a toddler tantrum should quite rightly lead to them being banned.

 

[jakeseven7]

If they don't like the results, they don't need to be there. Trying to flip the table in a toddler tantrum should quite rightly lead to them being banned.

Unfortunately that is an emotional and very very simplistic view of the situation given the scale of the reach that the platform provides and I'm not sure you understand how the commercial model works.

Basically, they are paying Facebook and then Facebook is on the side photocopying their content and selling it onwards on a mass scale for the pleasure, without contributing a cent backwards, infact they are modifying the content so it actually cannot contribute revenue backwards. They will be forced to pay, it is just a matter of time and how much.

At the same time they need to be hauled over the coals for continually spreading incredibly dangerous and false misinformation that if any other content aggregator spread would be prosecuted and wound up. They can't have it both ways.

 

[Daver6]

As for the rest, when content is actively given by an entity to Facebook for publication, then Facebook sets the terms.

That's not always accurate though. Take the example of a media company that does not have a Facebook page but does have their own website. A user then shares on their Facebook feed an article from this website and Facebook then profits from the advertising from anyone who clicks on it through Facebook.

 

[dk4]

That's not always accurate though. Take the example of a media company that does not have a Facebook page but does have their own website. A user then shares on their Facebook feed an article from this website and Facebook then profits from the advertising from anyone who clicks on it through Facebook.

I agree, the issue there is the copyright holder has not actively engaged Facebook to present what they want Facebook users to see in a different manner than how they published it, so hence why I agree that scraping content needs to be paid in some way, if Facebook want to continue doing that.

But in essence, media companies (aside from membership fees) should be paying Facebook for traffic, but I suggest that traffic needs to be directed to a destination of their choice outside of the Facebook ecosystem. And if the media company does not see value in paying for that traffic, then Facebook isn't the place for them.

Hopefully being banned from Facebook will be the best thing to happen to media companies in Australia, and they can come up with some commercial system for distribution (not simply promotion) of factual journalism that works for them.

Additionally, part of the problem is that some media companies have strayed from the idea of factual journalism into opinion publishing & sensationalism territory - but opinions are a dime a dozen in the information age. (We all have them here on AFF, and we are quite happy to express them and not get paid for them, all the time creating valuable content to drive search rankings for the site owner.)

 

[Franky]

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

Which means what?

 

[Mattg]

Has anyone else noticed that you can still see news on Facebook if you're not logged into a Facebook account?

 

[Seat0B]

Which means what?

Nothing particular, just trying to do my due diligence about the products to be an informed customer.