Insightful Media Coverage

[hudson2006]

I wonder if websites like Bigfooty will have to now pay and sign individual contracts with 'major' news organisations, or just disable sharing news links altogether?

Can any media content creator, like a Titus O'Reilly for example, get access to some of that sweet Google/Facebook money, or is it only for those with a dedicated legal department who can prove they are a 'central' news organisation?

The whole media code thing is just insane, and yet every major political party is like "that naughty Facebook should pay a fair price for news" despite the fact that they all pay Facebook to push their type of content in competition with shitloads of other types of content, not the other way around.

All this will do is further cement Facebook and Google's monopoly (lol imagine trying to do a social media startup in 2021 Australia) just so Murdoch & friends get a slightly bigger piece of the pie.

 

[Rowan18]

I wonder if websites like Bigfooty will have to now pay and sign individual contracts with 'major' news organisations, or just disable sharing news links altogether?

Can any media content creator, like a Titus O'Reilly for example, get access to some of that sweet Google/Facebook money, or is it only for those with a dedicated legal department who can prove they are a 'central' news organisation?

The whole media code thing is just insane, and yet every major political party is like "that naughty Facebook should pay a fair price for news" despite the fact that they all pay Facebook to push their type of content in competition with shitloads of other types of content, not the other way around.

All this will do is further cement Facebook and Google's monopoly (lol imagine trying to do a social media startup in 2021 Australia) just so Murdoch & friends get a slightly bigger piece of the pie.

It's actually a bit terrifying to see how much influence main stream media has over the politicians. Good on Facebook for calling their bluff. It's very disappointing to see even not for profit sites like ABC and Guardian jump on too, which I assume is because they'd love for social media to die so they can go back to the golden age of news.

Had a good laugh at Mark McGowan criticising Facebook only to see two posts from his official Facebook account today. Shows how hypocritical all these pollies are being.

 

[larrikin]

I wonder if websites like Bigfooty will have to now pay and sign individual contracts with 'major' news organisations, or just disable sharing news links altogether?

Can any media content creator, like a Titus O'Reilly for example, get access to some of that sweet Google/Facebook money, or is it only for those with a dedicated legal department who can prove they are a 'central' news organisation?

The whole media code thing is just insane, and yet every major political party is like "that naughty Facebook should pay a fair price for news" despite the fact that they all pay Facebook to push their type of content in competition with shitloads of other types of content, not the other way around.

All this will do is further cement Facebook and Google's monopoly (lol imagine trying to do a social media startup in 2021 Australia) just so Murdoch & friends get a slightly bigger piece of the pie.

The whole point of BigFooty's policy of only quoting part of a story and then putting in links is to make users click through to the source website, presumably exposing you to all of the advertising that generates all that sweet cash, which I think is fair and reasonable.

Not sure why the same logic can't apply to Facebook to be honest.

 

[flamingEMBERS]

It’s so horrid. Social media sites being forced to pay a company that uses their platform

 

[Carbine Chaos]

I don't get the animosity towards Facebook.

They have absolutely no obligation to pay the news corps and keep the sources on their platform. They are choosing not to, that's their prerogative.

People are more than welcome to delete their accounts with them if they'd like.

I do think the legislation is ridiculous though. Wouldn't the hits those outlets receive from Facebook links generate plenty in ad revenue for them anyway?

 

[WCE_phil]

I don't get the animosity towards Facebook.

They have absolutely no obligation to pay the news corps and keep the sources on their platform. They are choosing not to, that's their prerogative.

People are more than welcome to delete their accounts with them if they'd like.

I do think the legislation is ridiculous though. Wouldn't the hits those outlets receive from Facebook links generate plenty in ad revenue for them anyway?

It's why facebook and Google took completely different paths. To google the amount of money paid to shut up the government and Media to maintain their position of undisputed monopoly as a search engine in Australia is worth a huge amount more to them yet for all the news media and government scare tactics facebook is much more important to them than they are to facebook.

 

[Rowan18]

I don't get the animosity towards Facebook.

They have absolutely no obligation to pay the news corps and keep the sources on their platform. They are choosing not to, that's their prerogative.

People are more than welcome to delete their accounts with them if they'd like.

I do think the legislation is ridiculous though. Wouldn't the hits those outlets receive from Facebook links generate plenty in ad revenue for them anyway?

I suspect there is a lot less animosity than is being made out. It is the media telling us that everyone hates Facebook, yet they are completely conflicted as it is in their best interests to see Facebook cave. I suspect a lot of people are quite happy to have all of that s**t out of their newsfeed.

 

[BlueandGoldforever]

I don't get the animosity towards Facebook.

They have absolutely no obligation to pay the news corps and keep the sources on their platform. They are choosing not to, that's their prerogative.

People are more than welcome to delete their accounts with them if they'd like.

I do think the legislation is ridiculous though. Wouldn't the hits those outlets receive from Facebook links generate plenty in ad revenue for them anyway?

I am not sure how you don't get it. Facebook are taking content for free that they should be paying for. It is that simple.

All media organisations employ staff and own the copyright of any content produced. Facebook, Google etc shouldn't be allowed to take that content for free. Quite simply, it is stealing.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

I am not sure how you don't get it. Facebook are taking content for free that they should be paying for. It is that simple.

All media organisations employ staff and own the copyright of any content produced. Facebook, Google etc shouldn't be allowed to take that content for free. Quite simply, it is stealing.

They’re not stealing as they’ve taken the content down before the new legislation.

Please explain to me how they are stealing.

 

[mick06]

They’re not stealing as they’ve taken the content down before the new legislation.

Please explain to me how they are stealing.

Coding smarts I'm guessing. You click or share a link on Facebook, the link opens still within Facebook, so they get the advertising revenue

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Coding smarts I'm guessing. You click or share a link on Facebook, the link opens still within Facebook, so they get the advertising revenue

If anything they had been doing was illegal I’m sure they’d have been dragged over hot coals in court.

As the laws are being changed they’ve changed their practices to comply. Rather than being labelled thieves surely by that logic it actually warrants praise.

 

[DanWCE]

Anyone I've heard complaining about the Facebook changes is more relating to the curious algorithm that wiped out a bunch of innocent pages in the process of attacking the news outlets.

DFES share news, I suppose (more information), but it is emergency news to assist the community. They don't profit from this news.

A fundraiser and DV awareness page for the mother and her children who were burnt alive in their car by their husband/father just over 12 months ago was also wiped. Again this is a critical information service for the community.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Anyone I've heard complaining about the Facebook changes is more relating to the curious algorithm that wiped out a bunch of innocent pages in the process of attacking the news outlets.

DFES share news, I suppose (more information), but it is emergency news to assist the community. They don't profit from this news.

A fundraiser and DV awareness page for the mother and her children who were burnt alive in their car by their husband/father just over 12 months ago was also wiped. Again this is a critical information service for the community.

I’d imagine the initial ban of pages was based on criteria set out as per the legislation. They seem to be reinstating pages after they appeal/call for closer inspection.

It makes sense even if it pisses some people off. It’s not as though that critical information can’t be accessed elsewhere in 98% of cases. It’s a fair enough process given the sheer number of pages they’d have to wade through first.

 

[Rowan18]

Anyone I've heard complaining about the Facebook changes is more relating to the curious algorithm that wiped out a bunch of innocent pages in the process of attacking the news outlets.

DFES share news, I suppose (more information), but it is emergency news to assist the community. They don't profit from this news.

A fundraiser and DV awareness page for the mother and her children who were burnt alive in their car by their husband/father just over 12 months ago was also wiped. Again this is a critical information service for the community.

These are frustrating things but Facebook seemed pretty proactive in fixing them.

 

[brabs]

I am not sure how you don't get it. Facebook are taking content for free that they should be paying for. It is that simple.

All media organisations employ staff and own the copyright of any content produced. Facebook, Google etc shouldn't be allowed to take that content for free. Quite simply, it is stealing.

My take is that News corps use Facebook to get traffic. If news corps aren’t happy with not getting paid by Facebook. don’t post on Facebook, simple. I see it as Facebook providing a free service.... unless it’s not. Idk

 

[Godfather32]

My facebook feed is filled with a lot less s**t now, it's great.
I wouldn't normally defend them but I don't get the hate for facebook (apart from removing some community and business pages).
Why should they pay for news that's quite often posted by the news provider themselves on their own facebook page? Which from what I've read is what this legislation would have caused to happen. Anyone on the side of a murdoch owned media outlet should probably do a bit more research before they blindly defend them.

 

[mick06]

If anything they had been doing was illegal I’m sure they’d have been dragged over hot coals in court.

As the laws are being changed they’ve changed their practices to comply. Rather than being labelled thieves surely by that logic it actually warrants praise.

Yeh I certainly don't think anything they had been doing was / is illegal.

The stink they are kicking up I would say is totally immoral. They are making money from other people's work. They are getting advertising revenue for free, I don't see why they shouldn't pay for it.
Sure they are a business and they aren't going to make as much money so I can see why they would defend, but it's just greed and entitlement expecting something for nothing (I know Its not as simple as this, but that's how I see it in a nutshell)
Even Google has said yehhh ok fair enough we should be paying a bit for this.

 

[Godfather32]

Yeh I certainly don't think anything they had been doing was / is illegal.

The stink they are kicking up I would say is totally immoral. They are making money from other people's work. They are getting advertising revenue for free, I don't see why they shouldn't pay for it.
Sure they are a business and they aren't going to make as much money so I can see why they would defend, but it's just greed and entitlement expecting something for nothing (I know Its not as simple as this, but that's how I see it in a nutshell)
Even Google has said yehhh ok fair enough we should be paying a bit for this.

Then media outlets should pay to post their stories on facebook. They shouldn't expect to get something for nothing after all.

 

[WestCoast05]

As much as I love a Newscorp pile on (they deserve every sneer) this is a global issue usually supported by both sides of the political aisle - whether you agree with the proposed legislation or not.
I'm pretty sure France is already ahead of us in this area and expect many more countries to follow suit. I think some ppl are truly exaggerating the extent of Murdoch's reach if they think he caused all that.

Also surprised at the benefit of the doubt Facebook/Zuckerberg are getting. They have proven themselves to be absolutely reprehensible and only have their own interests in mind - which is to be expected.

 

[Godfather32]

As much as I love Newscorp pile on (they deserve every sneer) this is a global issue
usually supported by both sides of the political aisle - whether you agree with the proposed legislation or not.
I'm pretty sure France is already ahead of us in this area and expect many more countries to follow suit. I think some ppl are truly exaggerating the extent of Murdoch's reach if they think he caused all that.

Also surprised at the benefit of the doubt Facebook/Zuckerberg are getting. They have proven themselves to be absolutely reprehensible and only have their own interests in mind - which is to be expected.

No one's saying facebook aren't a bunch of campaigners, they clearly are but it's not just a case of media good/facebook bad which is what most people seem to believe because that's all they've heard....from the media

 

[WestCoast05]

No one's saying facebook aren't a bunch of campaigners, they clearly are but it's not just a case of media good/facebook bad which is what most people seem to believe because that's all they've heard....from the media

Let's just call them both bad. They are both companies interested in $$$.

But one of those companies paid for the material - if I post a news story to facebook and then you watch it and an advert pops up then facebook should share the advertising revenue with the content provider - and various other scenarios like that.

Also... Zuckerberg strikes me as an absolute tosspot, especially after the Cambridge Analytica crap and his evasiveness at ANY hearing he goes to ever.
He ain't no likeable Elon Musk that's for sure.

 

[Godfather32]

Let's just call them both bad. They are both companies interested in $$$.

But one of those companies paid for the material - if I post a news story to facebook and then you watch it and an advert pops up then facebook should share the advertising revenue with the content provider - and various other scenarios like that.

Also... Zuckerberg strikes me as an absolute tosspot, especially after the Cambridge Analytica crap and his evasiveness at ANY hearing he goes to ever.
He ain't no likeable Elon Musk that's for sure.

I disagree, no one is forcing these media companies to post anything to facebook. Sure if facebook takes the content themselves then there's an argument to be made but if channel 9 or whatever choose to post something to facebook themselves then that's on them.
But I agree with you on the other points, both companies are s**t

 

[Bender_]

He ain't no likeable Elon Musk that's for sure.

Gross

 

[Selurs]

But one of those companies paid for the material - if I post a news story to facebook and then you watch it and an advert pops up then facebook should share the advertising revenue with the content provider - and various other scenarios like that.

No-one has to post to facebook. You don't want facebook earning any money from your content? Go post it to your own website. Aw, no one came to see it? Well, sucks to be you. The big media companies in Australia want to have their cake and eat it - to get paid for posting to facebook. That's just wrong.

Facebook deserves to be taken down a peg or two, but this is not the right way to do it. If all media in Australia was included then it'd be better - still not great - but better, but by restricting it to Murdoch/9/7/ABC and one or two others, it effectively enshrines those media organisations as protected above and beyond all others, and that's a slippery slope toward a true "state media".

 

[shooshka]

Then media outlets should pay to post their stories on facebook. They shouldn't expect to get something for nothing after all.

I think this is essentially the 'end-game' here.

Facebook will have to pay for any links/shared-information from media outlets.

Media outlets will have to pay Facebook for their promotional/authentic pages.

Net result will be $0 of money changing hands.