free market, media etc

[Patrick Byrom]

One might ask what has changed then because that op ed was pretty much an evidence free zone. Not that that is unusual since most op eds published by Australian media are such and many are not even lightly fact-checked prior to publication.

You can read the original article here, avoiding the paywall. I'm afraid Kevin is correct - there is not a single statistic to support his claims. And this claim is clearly wrong, as the ABC response (linked by Kevin) shows:

ABC apologists often point to survey results showing how many Australians “trust” the ABC as an organisation. Yet media rating data suggests few of those very same Australians actually consume their product. Australians “trust” and value the ABC because they are in the habit of doing so, not because they are overly familiar with ABC offerings.

[Ian Murray]

[b.nancarrow]

The Ying versus Yang

[Desmond]

Facebook go the nuclear option in dispute with Aus federal government.

https://australia.fb.com/news-law/

Why you can no longer share or see news on Facebook in Australia.

14 million Australians connect on Facebook everyday and we are proud of the role we have in building Australian communities and growing their businesses.

Unfortunately, in response to Australia's proposed News Media Bargaining Code legislation, Facebook will have to restrict publishers and people in Australia from sharing or viewing Australian and international news content on Facebook.

People outside of Australia also cannot view or share Australian news content or content from Australian news Pages on Facebook. ...

[b.nancarrow]

Governments around the world need to co-operate in warning Facebook and others that if they won't pay their way they themselves will be banned.

[Kevin Bonham]

Governments around the world need to co-operate in warning Facebook and others that if they won't pay their way they themselves will be banned.

I don't see any reason why Facebook should pay big media for a service the media benefit from, especially since it is only certain media sources. Just seems like a gouge by old media sources that are deservedly struggling because their product is bad. I do think Facebook should be forced to provide proper user services or be banned, but that's a different matter, as is whether Facebook should pay more taxes. Also Facebook's behaviour today looks like a colossal overreaction and won't help them.

[b.nancarrow]

I don't see any reason why Facebook should pay big media for a service the media benefit from, especially since it is only certain media sources.

Who benefits more though, big media or Facebook?

Just seems like a gouge by old media sources that are deservedly struggling because their product is bad.

If the old media product is bad, where is the good media product?

I do think Facebook should be forced to provide proper user services or be banned, but that's a different matter, as is whether Facebook should pay more taxes. Also Facebook's behaviour today looks like a colossal overreaction and won't help them.

They need to provide proper services, should be taxed more and yes today was an overreaction.

[Capablanca-Fan]

Light for Riley

In concerning news, health department websites like Queensland Health and SA Health have also been removed/restricted from facebook as part of facebook's Australian media ban.
Yep... health department pages. During a pandemic.
Just as the COVID vaccine rollout is about to commence.
Edit 1: Our own Immunisation Foundation of Australia page has had all of it's content removed too. Far from being a media company, our charity page is all about raising awareness about vaccine preventable diseases and educating about immunisation.
Edit 2: the health department pages are back up, but many charities (like ours) still affected.
Wow... this needs to be sorted, and fast!!!

[Kevin Bonham]

Who benefits more though, big media or Facebook?

It doesn't matter. Media choose to put stuff on there. They don't have to make that choice. If they think that Facebook is getting something for nothing they can choose not to do it and if Facebook is making a commercial benefit then Facebook will respond by changing its terms.

If the old media product is bad, where is the good media product?

There doesn't even have to be any - even if all media products are equally bad then there is no reason for certain big outlets to be propped up. However, good quality coverage of issues in the news is often scattered around smaller and more specialised sites that deal with the issues in question in detail and where the writers know what they are talking about. Big media employs some excellent journalists but also far too many hacks who are overpaid to spout nonsense about issues they are clueless about, especially in the op ed sections.

If people want to advertise in a newspaper they pay the newspaper. If a newspaper wants to advertise on Facebook however, seems the law wants Facebook to pay the newspaper too. Much as I dislike Facebook and the culture it perpetuates, seems to me that if anything it should be for Facebook to decide whether it asks newspapers to pay it.

[b.nancarrow]

It doesn't matter. Media choose to put stuff on there. They don't have to make that choice. If they think that Facebook is getting something for nothing they can choose not to do it and if Facebook is making a commercial benefit then Facebook will respond by changing its terms.

I'm not sure it's just a matter of the media choosing to put stuff on there, more that their product is widely circulated through FB anyway, adding value to FB, for free.

[Kevin Bonham]

I'm not sure it's just a matter of the media choosing to put stuff on there, more that their product is widely circulated through FB anyway, adding value to FB, for free.

And adding value to the news sites because people can and often do click on the links to the source and go to the website. If the news source is concerned about people freeloading on news material and reading it on Facebook rather than on their site, they can put a paywall or a loginwall around the content.

[MichaelBaron]

interesting how everyone was blaming the Chinese government for trying to monitor facebook activities....and here we are in Australia...

[b.nancarrow]

And adding value to the news sites because people can and often do click on the links to the source and go to the website. If the news source is concerned about people freeloading on news material and reading it on Facebook rather than on their site, they can put a paywall or a loginwall around the content.

Ok thank you for clarifying the argument.
Makes me very curious about the argument in legal/political circles for the case to charge FB for news content.

[b.nancarrow]

interesting how everyone was blaming the Chinese government for trying to monitor facebook activities....and here we are in Australia...

This is not monitoring but charging for content use.

[Kevin Bonham]

Ok thank you for clarifying the argument.
Makes me very curious about the argument in legal/political circles for the case to charge FB for news content.

I've found it hard to make out what the argument actually is. It may be that an argument is that often people browsing news on social media are doing the digital equivalent of the old practice of picking up the newspaper, skimming it quickly to see if any of the headlines are interesting, and only buying it if they are - which in the old days might get you stared at by the newsagent. Especially as a lot of people react to news on social media without even attempting to read beyond the headline and summary at the top of the argument.