Meta to scrap deals with Australian publishers under 2021 media code. Possible breach of the legislation.

[Dirtyshado]

Summary

Facebook (Meta) is removing its "News Tab" in Australia, and cutting out of its deals to pay local news media for the rights to their content for the site. A few months short of the agreements renewal.

 

The original agreement was settled in 2021 after Facebook attempted to force the government to drop a regulatory bill aimed at them called the News Media Bargaining Code. The code, introduced to address the power imbalance between digital platforms and news publishers, could force Meta into arbitration and potential fines if it fails to compensate news publishers.

 

Australian government politicians and regulators have taken notice, as it will cost the local media outlets an estimated 200 million dollars or more.

 

Quotes

Quote

In a statement released on Friday, Meta defended its decision by stating that users do not primarily use Facebook to access news and political content, suggesting a strategic realignment of its investments towards services and products valued most by its users.

 

Quote

In 2021, Facebook temporarily banned all news content on its platform in response to the proposed media bargaining code, a ban that was swiftly lifted after negotiations with the government.

 

Quote

Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland has already come in hot calling Meta’s decision to no longer pay for news content a “dereliction” of its commitment to the sustainability of the Australian news media. 

Rowland said they will now work through all available options under the News Media Bargaining Code, with the ACCC and the Treasury department.

 

 

My thoughts

Australian government is upset, giving the public fiasco Facebook put them through in 2020-2021 over the media code, so they will pounce on Meta quickly maybe a few weeks.

Especially if Murdoch finds his global news paper business is receiving less money in his home country cause of this.

 

Facebook as an American corporation, has a weird idea of what Australian law is, they once argue that Facebook doesn't exist in Australia and shouldn't have to comply with our laws...

despite a over half the country using it, selling adverts, and them having in office and staff in Sydney. So everytime they speak or do anything in Australia its hilarious.

 

Facebook responded to the proposed bill in 2021, by temporarily banning all news content on its platform which was a public mess for them. Cause they just banned anything that had the word "news" as they cut off emergency services, hospitals, schools and government Facebook feeds during the pandemic (and a possible natural disaster - it Australia we were ever flooding or on fire then I think). So there whole "we are doing it for you" sales pitch was ruined that is when they caved in.

 

Sources

Forbes Australia: https://www.forbes.com.au/news/investing/meta-to-stop-paying-australian-publishers/

News.com.au https://www.news.com.au/technology/meta-to-scrap-deals-with-australian-publishers-under-2021-media-code/news-story/50f5e741521d396506e49bf97a06b40c

Gizmodo Australia: https://gizmodo.com.au/2024/03/facebook-will-remove-its-news-tab-in-australia/

News Media Bargaining Code: https://www.accc.gov.au/by-industry/digital-platforms-and-services/news-media-bargaining-code/news-media-bargaining-code

[Spotty]

Good. That stupid media bargaining code was never going to work. If the media outlets don't like it they can stop posting their content to Facebook.

[Holmes108]

6 hours ago, Spotty said:

Good. That stupid media bargaining code was never going to work. If the media outlets don't like it they can stop posting their content to Facebook.

 

Coming from an admitted place of somewhat ignorance, I never even understood the issue, to be honest. Any of these aggregators I see, be it google news, or whatever, simply show headlines, and links to the articles, no? It's not like they copy and paste the text into their own site. So it wouldn't seem to me they're stealing content. 

 

If anything, it seems like free advertising. I find it hard to believe that traffic to, say, CBC News (Canada) is hurt by Facebook, Google, et al. Are they really claiming a site like CBC would be flourishing more without them?

 

I also don't see how FB would be in breach of anything here now (unless they mean 'morally' rather than legally), as it said they removed the news tab. So if they aren't providing anything, why would they have an obligation to pay anything? Is it their duy to provide news forever? (edit: or perhaps the thinking is they provide news regardless of whether it's directly or indirectly)

 

I haven't had a chance to click the links and read more yet. I'm just basing my thoughts on the blurb here, and what I remember about the original articles regarding news in Australia and then Canada.

[Dirtyshado]

News sites were finding their traffic was dropping faster as Facebook and Google started to increase their "news" platforms and the clickbait titles were replaced with full summaries that meant people didn't actually read the news or click the link as often.  Analytics showed that aggregate traffic wasn't passing through social media and if the silicon valley were not going to pay for content, they would have to start aggressively blocking them which included more paywalls more infrastructure and less engagement with readers (through the removal of social media widgets)

 

Oddly its the same argument some are now making to stop AI from scraping their data.  Borrowing other peoples work without permission devalues the original work to the point it can effect their business.

 

It was going to blow up as a full copyright case at one point that could of had global impact when this movement started in France, the social media sites realised that and quickly settled that fearing EU rising up.  But when Australia started raising the issue Facebook and Google throught a fight with Australia would be an easy win.

 

I admit its not the best policy cause Facebooks early fighting actually made the policy a lot worse cause it was rushed, but in the end its a user pay system and silicon valley uses a lot of our and other corporations information with a complete disregard and they should be reigned in every once in a while.

[Thaldor]

I don't know what is included in the media bargaining code but depending what it is these are my opinions:

1) The scrutinized part is including news site's own summary of the article with the link. In that case I am fully fine the social media must buy licensing that content because that is someone elses content they are using.

 

2) Including platform written summary of the article with the link. This is kind of asshole move but greyarea especially when then news media starts to be so damn awful with their clickbait the YouTubers seem to be not misleading with their thumbnails and video titles. I would probably directly move the linking fees to the users and make the users pay for that all because seriously, I would pay for that service so I can go fast through world events without clickbait garbage that the modern news media likes to sow.

 

3) It's not the summary, just that the social media platform links to the article in any form (be it the page title, article title or just the plain URL). News media got completely greedy and they should just crawl under a rock and die. Social media platform should just right out delete every post linking to those sites and make getting to those news sites as hard as possible (no hyperlinks in any form, if user wants to it's typing the URL, copy-paste or through external search engine) and as a cherry on the top, ban the news medias from the platforms (they didn't want their content to be linked on the platform so why would they want to be on the platform in the first place?).

[wanderingfool2]

Good; I really hope that Facebook and Google completely pull out of showing news like that.

 

I get it, news sites are hurting, but so many of them have inaccurate stories or stories just purchased from some media conglomerate which doesn't have any true insights into it.  I've seen way too many ill-informed news articles to really say that news sites are trusted sources anymore (unless they actually reference details etc).

 

Overall seeing it happen here in Canada, the news chastises Facebook for pulling out and putting lives at risk for safety bulletins but at the same time wants a paycheck.  At a certain point they can't have it both ways but that's exactly what the media wants.  Overall Facebook/Google sometimes ends up losing money based on the ad revenue they actually get and then are forced to pay.

[TetraSky]

They already blocked news in Canada because of a stupid bill like that. Blocking news in Australia is nothing to them now that they've seen what happens.

 

15 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Overall seeing it happen here in Canada, the news chastises Facebook for pulling out and putting lives at risk for safety bulletins but at the same time wants a paycheck.  At a certain point they can't have it both ways but that's exactly what the media wants.  Overall Facebook/Google sometimes ends up losing money based on the ad revenue they actually get and then are forced to pay.

 

Yup, the news need facebook and all the eyes on it to survive.

Facebook doesn't need the news to survive.

 

News medias wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

[Kisai]

On 3/2/2024 at 5:48 AM, Holmes108 said:

 

Coming from an admitted place of somewhat ignorance, I never even understood the issue, to be honest. Any of these aggregators I see, be it google news, or whatever, simply show headlines, and links to the articles, no? It's not like they copy and paste the text into their own site. So it wouldn't seem to me they're stealing content. 

Cause the legacy media sees Google and Facebook as competition and a money pinata. Some of these news sources are so poor quality (90% ads for example) that they have nothing of value on them. They just want free money for headlines.

 

 

On 3/2/2024 at 5:48 AM, Holmes108 said:

If anything, it seems like free advertising. I find it hard to believe that traffic to, say, CBC News (Canada) is hurt by Facebook, Google, et al. Are they really claiming a site like CBC would be flourishing more without them?

 

Case in point the globeandmail has the most worthless website in Canada. Google news repeatedly points to it as a source for a story, but you go to it, and you don't even see the headline you see a "Subscribe" nag page. There is no way to tell if it's clickbait to some fluff garbage or generative AI garbage.

 

If anything generative AI going to completely devalue "news" sites, and before anyone thinks video will solve this, no the same clowns writing generative AI garbage news sites are doing "Fully automated" youtube videos too. All garbage.