
Facebook to block news on Australian sites after new law, riling lawmakers - 80mph
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-media-facebook/facebook-to-block-news-on-australian-sites-after-new-law-riling-lawmakers-idUSKBN25S36J
======
paxys
Yesterday's discussion on this -
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24337269](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24337269)

The only update is the (predictable) response from Australian lawmakers and
lobbyists.

While this law is idiotic at all levels, I'm secretly hoping that Facebook &
Google do implement a complete news blackout for a significant amount of time
just so we can see how it affects Australian society.

Another angle people don't seem to be mentioning enough is just how scarily
easily a major government effectively banned its citizens from discussing any
news online. How hard would it be for them to include Reddit (or HN), for
example, in the list of entities that are subject to this law? If they did,
this post likely wouldn't be allowed in Australia.

~~~
kevingadd
I'm not sure what law you're talking about here, because requiring Google and
Facebook to pay news sites for reposting their content is very different from
"banning its citizens from discussing any news online".

There's nothing stopping them from just turning it into a hyperlink like it
would've been in the old days. Sites grab excerpts and thumbnails of the
target URL in order to keep you on their site longer and minimize the number
of clicks away.

~~~
grecy
> _requiring Google and Facebook to pay news sites for reposting their content
> is very different from "banning its citizens from discussing any news
> online"._

Part of the law says that Facebook has to grant access to News Corp. so they
(and they alone) can moderate any and all comments posted on Facebook about
any of their articles.

So, actually, yes, it's exactly that.

~~~
crimony
I believe this question has been addressed and clarified as limiting the
moderation of content to the news organisations' own Facebook pages only, not
a general ability to moderate discussion of their articles posted elsewhere by
private citizens.

~~~
jdhopeunique
52S User comments

(1) Subsection (2) applies if the registered news business corporation for the
registered news business makes a request, in writing, to the responsible
digital platform corporation for the digital platform service to do any of the
following:

(a) ensure that the registered news business corporation is provided with
flexible content moderation tools that allow the registered news business
corporation to remove or filter comments on the registered news business’
covered news content that:

(i) are made using the digital platform service; and

(ii) are made on a part of the digital platform service that is set up and
able to be edited by the registered news business;

(b) ensure that the registered news business corporation can disable the
making of such comments;

(c) ensure that the registered news business corporation can block the making
of such comments:

(i) by particular persons; or

(ii) in particular circumstances.

(2) The responsible digital platform corporation for the digital platform
service must comply with the request.

~~~
icedchocolate
Exactly, “on a part of the digital platform service that is set up and able to
be edited by the registered news business“, i.e. on the news site’s own
personal page, which is already possible.

------
jedberg
If the news orgs feel they have something of value, shouldn't they welcome
this move, as it will hurt Facebook?

They are asking for payment for their service. Presumably Facebook will lose
more value from this than what they are being asked to pay, otherwise why pay?

They're tipping their hand here. They know that what they have is not as
valuable as what they're asking for it, otherwise Facebook wouldn't be willing
to give up that value.

~~~
paxys
In terms of pure economics, they should be the ones paying Facebook.

~~~
brutusborn
Is this because Facebook distributes their content?

~~~
caf
I don't think Facebook even distributes it, they advertise it. Much like HN is
doing for Reuters' content in this very thread.

------
lukestevens
Crikey's Bernard Keane has a great take on the issue & sovereign risk[0]:

 _Now the government is pursuing a policy that, in its rejection of the rule
of law and its arbitrary market intervention at the expense of investors and
corporations, is the perfect embodiment of the idea of sovereign risk. And
exactly no one is pointing it out — because Australia’s media companies are
the beneficiaries of it, and the targets of it are two of the most hated
companies in the world._

 _The government’s proposed News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory
Bargaining Code would be a draconian regulation to force two explicitly
identified companies, Google and Facebook, to hand an unlimited amount of
revenue over to Australian media companies, justified by a fiction that those
companies steal news content.[...]_

 _The code is justified by a News Corp lie, that Google steals news content
and makes billions of dollars from it. The ACCC forensically compiled evidence
that this was false. Knowing that the News Corp claim was wrong didn’t prevent
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg from spreading it himself. But the only theft here
is what is proposed for Google and Facebook._

Apologies to HN/YC for introducing risk by quoting from and linking to an
Australian news article :)

[0] [https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/08/28/google-facebook-accc-
ch...](https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/08/28/google-facebook-accc-changes/)

~~~
blaser-waffle
Man I didn't realize just how badly News Corp owns Australia. Lobbyists are
bad in the US but you can at least post news stories on most forums...

------
prdonahue
Facebook is undoubtably the scummiest company of our generation, but this is
the correct and only response here.

I continue to be surprised when politicians fail to think through the logical
response to their actions. Either they failed to anticipate this, and they're
naive, or they did and they went through with it anyway?

~~~
jedberg
This law was pushed by News Corp and is exactly the response they were hoping
for. Their goal is to be the only game in town, because they know they can
survive without FB and Google, and no one else can.

~~~
prdonahue
Will take your word for it (I haven't looked into it).

Do you think the politicians are just feigning surprise/insult here in
response to Facebook's actions as that's what would be expected of them?

~~~
jedberg
I'm not sure they're faking it. My guess is that News Corp's lobbyists are so
persuasive they convinced the politicians that Australian news would die
without this law.

~~~
paxys
The guy overseeing this law is 70 years old, so I'll tend to believe it.

------
Thorentis
Once the people at these news orgs ask their analytics team to show them how
much of their traffic comes from Facebook, I'm sure they'll scrap the push for
this law real fast. If not, their traffic (and therefore revenue) will drop
immensely. Very few people go directly to news sites now. Liking a news page
and then seeing what pops up in the feed is how most people consume their news
(which I hate, because it fuels the headline click bait, but it's just a
fact).

~~~
jedberg
The problem here is that the news orgs know that most of their traffic comes
from FB and Google. They don't like this law either.

This law is being pushed just by News Corp, who knows they can survive without
FB and Google. This is exactly the outcome they were hoping for.

The way the law is written, they don't have to pay the news orgs until those
orgs request it. Perhaps one option is for FB and Google to keep linking to
any news site that doesn't ask for money, and when one asks, just drop them.

~~~
comex
> The way the law is written, they don't have to pay the news orgs until those
> orgs request it. Perhaps one option is for FB and Google to keep linking to
> any news site that doesn't ask for money, and when one asks, just drop
> them.

They thought of that. The law explicitly says that FB etc. shall not
"discriminate between registered news businesses and news businesses that are
not registered news businesses".

~~~
jedberg
Yeah, but that is very nebulous. What defines a news organization? I suspect
the lawyers could figure out a pretty easy workaround.

~~~
brokenmachine
It's defined in the law and up to the whim of the treasurer.

This is a really, really misguided law (and that's being generous).

------
stirlo
As long as they ban ALL news this will make Australia a much better place.

Facebook is a hive of fake news, rumors and fearmongering. If users had to go
to alternative websites to obtain news they'd be far more likely to land upon
reputable outlets like our ABC.

~~~
nostrebored
Or be far more likely to get their news via memes.

I can already tell you that large amounts of people's primary source of
information is meme bottom text.

------
idbehold
"We can't believe Facebook has the gall to obey the laws we wrote!" \-
Australia

~~~
viraptor
If they just did it, that would be less childish.

Right now they're telling everyone in Oz their internet is at risk and
responding with an ultimatum just for show. (And public support?) I'd hope
they have someone discussing the actual issues with the relevant government
people.

I mean, the law is stupid enough that both Google and FB can respond with
specific issues they have.

------
grecy
It's incredible how the ACCC has the nerve to say Facebook response amounts to
Facebook holding Australian's to ransom!

Never mind the draft law as it sits is literally designed to take money from
Facebook and Google and put it directly into News Corp. pockets. This is not
about the government collecting tax dollars for the good of Australia, this is
the government collecting tax dollars for the good of Rupert Murdoch.

Incredibly because of the tight control he has over the media he can ensure
his version of the truth gets repeated over and over until a very large number
of Australians will simply believe it as truth.

Fake news is alive and well in Australia thanks to one company owning an
enormous chunk of all media.

~~~
droopyEyelids
I'm curious what percent of advertising revenue has moved from journalistic
corporations over to Google and Facebook.

I think the places that used to employ journalists to gather news served a
role in our society that Facebook and Google have not stepped into. It COULD
make sense for a government that saw value in that industry to prop it up. The
same way it makes sense for the USA to keep at least one or two foundries
operational.

~~~
paxys
Framing the conversation as Google and Facebook directly taking revenue from
newspapers isn't at all accurate, and just fuels public anger and laws like
the one we are discussing.

The core problem is that people aren't buying newspapers and magazines
anymore, instead getting their news online. Since there is no barrier to entry
for online journalism, the space is dominated by low-effort clickbait and
fake/sensationalist news. People prefer to consume all this for free instead
of paying a reputable source.

Now, completely independent of all this, Facebook and Google have set up
massive communities of users online and have perfected the art of monetizing
them via ads. Regulating both these companies or removing them from the
equation entirely (as they are planning to do themselves) does nothing to
solve the news problem above.

------
protomyth
Am I reading this right that a user or the news org itself can make a post
linking to a AUS news site on Facebook and Facebook would have to pay the news
org for the post under this law?

~~~
grecy
Yep, that's correct.

It's also just the start of the insanity. Google and FB also have to provide
details of their ranking algorithms (and give 28 days notice of any upcoming
changes). The law also only applies to Google and FB (not Twitter, not email,
etc.) AND money only has to be given to News Corp. Not the ABC, SBS, etc.

There are plenty more 'WTF?' items in there, but it all boils down to Rupert
Murdoch owning the government, and making them write laws to do his bidding.

~~~
icedchocolate
No they don’t, they only have to provide details of why they downranked the
website if they do so. This is to avoid them intentionally downranking the
papers to hurt them. Stop spreading lies.

~~~
protomyth
Ok, but if they get all of their employees to post links to their website,
they get paid by Facebook for that?

------
stuaxo
Riling lawmakes, or is it Rupert Murdoch that's annoyed ?

------
renewiltord
Haha, the Australian politicians are trying something from the United Fruit
Company and Dwight Eisenhower playbook except they look like three kids in a
trenchcoat trying to play a man.

They just look like morons.

------
aaron695
In Australia if you play the radio/CD/stream music in a business you have to
pay a license fee.

If the hairdresser turns on the radio, they have to pay.

[https://www.smallbusiness.wa.gov.au/blog/playing-music-
your-...](https://www.smallbusiness.wa.gov.au/blog/playing-music-your-
workplace)

I'm not sure why Australians are happy with this but not with what the ACCC is
doing?

That said, it's fun to watch this go down.

~~~
stephen_g
What Google and Facebook are mostly doing is telling you to go and listen to a
particular song somewhere else. Linking to content. Driving valuable traffic
to the content provider's sites. _Their sites_ , where the news content
providers can show _their own ads_...

I think most Australians wouldn't be aware about the playing music in small
businesses thing too, so I wouldn't use that as a benchmark.

------
dmix
This is the only rational move for Facebook. I highly doubt AUS news doesn’t
move the needle enough for anyone to care. Even for way smaller firms than FB.

------
ferros
This will leave an enormous black hole in news discovery.

The real question is what new discovery methods will fill this massive hole.

It won’t be newspapers, that’s for sure

~~~
skybrian
Unfortunately, lots of people don't cite news articles at all. They just post
memes.

But for people who do want to post a news article, it seems like there are
lots of workarounds, like quoting and citing, or an indirect link through
Twitter.

It will be a question of how smart Facebook is about blocking stuff. I'd guess
they wouldn't be any smarter than they have to be to maintain plausible
deniability.

------
taneq
Oh no!

Anyway... _goes off to read news on actual news sites_

------
icedchocolate
As an Australian, this is fantastic. Why should Facebook and Google get to
show news content for free? The only people unhappy about this, from what I
have seen, are Facebook and Google. Big tech bullies, having a sook with their
lobbyists and website warnings. Good riddance.

~~~
dmix
This law won't live past a year, it's already failed. If it does it's only
going to create fewer independent news sources in Australia.

So your hopes of this somehow punishing Google/FB and benefiting the people of
AUS long term is probably very misguided.

Google/FB don't care about a subset of a percentage of it's traffic from a
small western country.

Twitter and Reddit don't provide any less biased discourse either. And I'm not
sure people are simply going to go back to visiting the homepages directly -
at least enough to replace the traffic.

------
ropable
I'd be curious to see how FB implements this; I assume something pretty basic
like a blocklist of domains. That would be an interesting list to read. It's
obviously still yet to be implemented as I was just now able to share a link
to an ABC website news story.

------
l2silver
Seems like this could open doors for search engines that are willing to pay
royalties. Bing anyone?

~~~
brokenmachine
It's not worth it.

If anything, the news orgs should be paying fb/google for giving them traffic
at all.

------
foxes
As an Australian I support blocking Sky news "content".

