Facebook Moves to Stop Australians Sharing News Ahead of New "Code"

[anallawalla]

---

System: The following message was cut out of thread at: https://www.webmasterworld.com/goog/5024417.htm [webmasterworld.com] by engine - 11:28 am on Feb 18, 2021 (utc 0)

---

Facebook has stuffed up in its removal of news content in Australia. It has taken down government health and weather sites, a poverty organisation and a few others. This is developing news.

This is Facebook's page about its position.

[australia.fb.com ]

[engine]

Those of you following the news of the new "Code" Bill in Australia will be aware of the big tech taking a stance against the proposals.

[about.fb.com...]

Earlier story Google threatening to pull out of Australia [webmasterworld.com]

[anallawalla]

Not many news reports about this mention that we cannot access news from any country on Facebook. There is no logic to the removal of certain non-news pages - Domino's is affected; Pizza Hut is not. The UK Alzheimer's Society content is blocked. Random bloggers' content is blocked. The only exception I noticed is that if someone outside Australia shares, BBC UK content not related to Australia, then I can see it.

[engine]

I'm sure they've been planning this for some time, and it's probably AI powered, which might explain the inconsistency.

The thing about this is that it's going to be seen as censorship, and i'm sure that won't go down well with FB users. If people could drag themselves away from FB it could be a nail in the coffin for FB.

[anallawalla]

Yes, this legislation has been in the making for two years. The Bill just went into the upper house (The Senate) for approval into law, which was the signal that FB was waiting for.

A few people (whom I don't know personally) announced their departure today in some groups I can still access. Some left earlier on account of FB's inconsistent application of "community standards".

[superclown2]

Good. The sooner these big tech companies disappear up their own orifices the better for everyone. Taking on a government is the height of arrogance.

[engine]

This is going to continue to be really interesting until it's worked through.

Users in Australia could change their habits and not visit FB for news at all, and could end up going direct to their favourite news sites.

[ronin]

I came here in haste after reading this a moment ago:

[news.sky.com...]

I suspect this may end up backfiring on Facebook. I kind of hope it does too. Facebook seems like a very 2010s kind of thing. Ahead of its time in 2007, certainly, but... past its sell-by-date in 2021. FB was much less toxic before it went full-on surveillance. I left it at the end of the decade, in Dec 2019. Still in no hurry to ever go back.

It seems very odd that this is happening in Australia now while, on the other side of the world, something like the reverse is happening...

[webmasterworld.com...]

[graeme_p]

There is a big different between what is happening in Australia and the deal in the UK. The UK deal is about republishing content, the Aussie law proposes to make people pay to link to it.

I do not think paying sites you link to is a precedent webmasters should like to see,

[ronin]

the Aussie law proposes to make people pay to link to it

I've not read the law yet and I can't make informed comment until I do. (Has anyone got a link to it?)

In the meantime, I think we can all recognise that there is a significant difference between:

a) a link out to a site publishing original news content, such that the link may be followed and the content read where it's published

b) a bot scraping original news content and re-publishing it in a non-authorised or semi-authorised manner on a site where the news was not published

We know that when you link to a website from inside Facebook, a bot is launched which goes off to scrape some information from the destination page (this is what OpenGraph is explicitly designed to enable) so you end up with a rich link.

So it's a little disingenuous for Facebook (or any other operator which pursues a similar content strategy) to claim:

we're not allowed to link

if the actual issue (and, again, we need to see the law, so there's no ambiguity) is:

no, you're not allowed to scrape and republish content which you then monetise with ads

If Facebook then wants to claim that scraping is inseparable from linking, I'm sure there are plenty of website owners here and elsewhere, less technically capable than FB, who will vouch for the fact that it's perfectly possible to link out to another website without scraping content in the process.

[engine]

It's a Bill, and not yet Law. Any day now.

[glitterball]

In the meantime, I think we can all recognise that there is a significant difference between:

a) a link out to a site publishing original news content, such that the link may be followed and the content read where it's published

b) a bot scraping original news content and re-publishing it in a non-authorised or semi-authorised manner on a site where the news was not published

Couldn't agree more, and I actually hope that this has a lasting effect on scrapers in general.

This might even make FB better for users by forcing it back towards its original intended use.
Personally, I thought that FB has been going downhill ever since they stopped users from viewing their friends' posts in reverse chronological order many years ago.

Watching with great interest as Australia become the Guinea Pigs for testing action against big tech, though I certainly don't think FB should be forced to provide news.

[anallawalla]

Hi ronin,

Here is the text of the Bill. Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2020 [legislation.gov.au]

Since it amends an existing anti-competition Act, the wording reflect that. Here are some relevant portions:

Definitions:
news business means:

(a) a news source; or

(b) a combination of news sources.

news source means any of the following, if it produces, and publishes online, news content:

(a) a newspaper masthead;

(b) a magazine;

(c) a television program or channel;

(d) a radio program or channel;

(e) a website or part of a website;

(f) a program of audio or video content designed to be distributed over the internet.

The italicised text seems to have affected innocent blogs.

52B Making content available

(1) For the purposes of this Part, a service makes content available if:

(a) the content is reproduced on the service, or is otherwise placed on the service; or

(b) a link to the content is provided on the service; or

(c) an extract of the content is provided on the service.

(2) Subsection (1) does not limit, for the purposes of this Part, the ways in which a service makes content available.

52C Interacting with content

(1) For the purposes of this Part, a user of a service interacts with content made available by the service if:

(a) the content is reproduced on the service, or is otherwise placed on the service, and the user interacts with the content; or

(b) a link to the content is provided on the service and the user interacts with the link; or

(c) an extract of the content is provided on the service and the user interacts with the extract.

(2) Subsection (1) does not limit, for the purposes of this Part, the ways in which a user of a service interacts with content made available by a service.

The above section is the only reference to "links".

52O Australian audience test

(1) The requirement in this subsection is met in relation to a news business if every news source covered by subsection (2) operates predominantly in Australia for the dominant purpose of serving Australian audiences.

(2) This subsection covers a news source if it comprises, whether by itself or together with other news sources, the news business.

Therefore, blocking foreign news outlets and personal websites from us is unnecessary.

I am not quoting parts of S52 as it would make this post very long. It covers notification of changes to the "algorithm".

The rest of the amendment is heavy legalese that does not mention any specific amount to be paid, as it would depend on the "bargaining" between the platform and the news source.

My sympathy is with Facebook, as this legislation would be onerous to police. Blocking everything means that FB cannot be accused of reusing anyone's "news" content.

[londrum]

If the Australian government are proposing to make Facebook pay for users leaving links to news stories, without reproducing the story’s actual content, then that does seem a bit bonkers. But it’s hard to have any sympathy for Facebook

[engine]

All of this could have been handled much better from both sides. It's not good FB throwing its weight around like that, and lawmakers rarely fully understand big tech.
This could have an impact around the globe in differing shapes and forms.

[graeme_p]

We know that when you link to a website from inside Facebook, a bot is launched which goes off to scrape some information from the destination page (this is what OpenGraph is explicitly designed to enable) so you end up with a rich link.

It does make a difference, but if a website has added Open Graph tags (which most news site do), as that pretty much says "please add a preview like this".

Also, all they show is a headline and snippet - a bit like Google does with every search result. Are we all going to get paid by Google everytime a site appears in the serps?

[FranticFish]

52B Making content available
(1) For the purposes of this Part, a service makes content available if:
(a) the content is reproduced on the service, or is otherwise placed on the service; or
(b) a link to the content is provided on the service;

WOW. Who the hell was advising on that?

Reminded of this: [theguardian.com...]

[brotherhood of LAN]

Will be interesting to see which sites get an up tick of traffic for people in AU looking for news.

IIRC I remember a stat that 20-30% of people use social to discover news, not sure if it it/was the same in AU.

[mcneely]

Blocking news (per se') would make it less likely for social media to interfere in elections.

[Kendo]

The bottom line is that most Facebook users do not want a news feed, more ads or recommended links on their Facebook pages at all. All they want is contact with their "friends" which is why they use it and why Facebook got to be popular in the first place. So what is this nonsense? When we want to read the news we visit a an real Australian news site that is not controlled by offshore profiteers.

[anallawalla]

No idea about most users, but I have a lot of Indians on my timeline and they largely like to discuss current events (things are always lively out there). They usually include a link and there are long threads. Suddenly my timeline is very quiet. :) My contacts in the rest of the world are mainly SEOs, so there aren't many news links.

[graeme_p]

@kendo People post news links, and comment on them so but you say they do not want them there?

[Kendo]

people post news links, and comment on them so but you say they do not want them there?

Posting links by selecting a topic (from a preferred news site) and sharing with friends who may have common interests is very different to having news shoved in your face when wanting to hear from friends.

The bigger difference is one of choice vs spamvertising.

[graeme_p]

Posting links by selecting a topic (from a preferred news site) and sharing with friends who may have common interests is very different to having news shoved in your face when wanting to hear from friends.

Agreed, but this thread is about the former, not the latter.