Facebook and Australia do a deal: The Social Network™ will restore news down under and even start paying for it

Facebook and Australia have done a deal that will see news links returned to The Social Network™ Down Under. The House That Zuck Built banned news links last week after talks broke down over the News Media Bargaining Code that Australia’s government introduced to force Facebook and Google to pay local news publishers to link …

[llaryllama]

Ugh

I really, really hate Facebook but you have to think about where this money is going, and for what. I highly doubt that any small news sites independent publishers are going to see any cash, it's just a nice payday for Murdoch and co. And why exactly is this deal being made exclusively for news publishers? If it was a fair system not being pushed by cashed up media lobbyists surely all content creators from YouTubers to cat gif animators should get their $0.02?

[Alan Brown]

Re: Ugh

". I highly doubt that any small news sites independent publishers are going to see any cash, it's just a nice payday for Murdoch and co. "

Yup. The most likely secnario is that "the last man standing" when the dust settles will be Murdoch

buying this kind of legislation is a way of engaging in anticompetitive/cartel behaviour under the guise of taking on another "enemy"

Ask Spain how well it worked out and how many titles are left in business

[Rustbucket]

Re: Ugh

Apparently any media company earning over $150,000 AUD per year is covered by the law. Small media companies can gang together for added collective bargaining power against Google and Facebook.

[Sorry that handle is already taken.]

It remains to be seen, however, if Australia’s publishers spend their new revenue streams on the kind of public interest journalism the nation’s government wants funded.

*coughABCcough*

[Doctor Syntax]

Quite.

"without bringing about the change it was designed to create"

It depends on who designed it. The suspicion is that it may have succeeded depending on how free FB are to choose and what choices they make.

[Anonymous Coward]

When two arseholes fight do you enjoy it or ignore it? I can't decide what to feel.

[Irony Deficient]

When two arseholes fight, do you enjoy it or ignore it?

Yes, I do.

[Trigonoceps occipitalis]

It's a bit like Scotland playing France, you rather hope both loose.

[Pete 2]

Raising the dead

> While Australia has altered its code, it retains its teeth

Yes. it keeps its teeth in a jar by the bed.

Having read the Axios version of events, it turns out that Facebook has demonstrated to the Australian news media just who holds the cards. It isn't them. It is also notable that FB's announce says it will choose which news sources to work with.

The basic premise behind this whole mess is the old-fashioned, dead but still moving, news media is making a last-gasp effort to get some money for old rope. It looks as if they didn't realise that their position is not one of power.

[sreynolds]

Re: Raising the dead

Ahkeep Myteefina Jahbesidabed, the great Pakistani cricketer.

[Scott 26]

Re: Raising the dead

ahhh - all those downvoters have never heard of Billy Birmingham :(

Wazhe Acrim

Whayamean Wazhe

The sad news that Rabish Binny was left out over night, but wasn't collected in the morning.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Raising the dead

The objectuve is to kill all non-murdoch players whilst blaming 3rd parties (FB and Google)

if you look at it that way it makes sense

[WoodlessStickler]

It doesn't help their cause if all you ever hear on the ABC, be it TV or radio, is that you should follow them on either of the anti-social networks. Their pain of being blocked for a day from FB should've been transformed into an insight but it wasn't. I'd much rather listen to them with none of that diversion, fewer jingles, and fewer stings. Some content would be nice for a change.

[tip pc]

No platforming by Social media

So social media is now getting a taste for no platforming when it doesn’t like stuff.

It’s like a baby throwing it’s toys out the Pram.

Will be interesting to see where the EU takes this next. The EU can’t be seen to lose so Facebook etc better start their responses with carrots.

I’m glad Australia got what they wanted but looks like some serious weasel strings attached I.e investing in media to dodge the charges.

[Winkypop]

Knowing the current Lib government

You can bet the farm that Facebook managed to convince them of a deal while simultaneously shafting them over a barrel.

[Krassi]

only the start

This could be the IT equivalent of the oil price shock in the 1970's. That started very gently in about 1970 with one Col Gaddaffi demanding a 30 cent per barrel increase in the Libyan take (from a total oil price of around 2-3 $) , but as each producer country demanded more from the international oil companies (mainly US) , the next country was encouraged to push their terms higher. By 1973 with the oil price around $20 per barrel, the original demands which were shocking to the oil companies at the time now seemed ridiculously timid. The parallels are unpopular foreign companies making vast profits which don't seem to benefit the nations where they operate, and on the other hand governments as always desperate for revenue to fund the state budgets. Facebook , Google et al are where the money is, and governments will be coming for it once they have worked out how. When it turns out that a small charge on news snippets doesn't make the sky fall in or the internet collapse, how about a modest tax on ad revenue or transactions ? And then a slightly less modest tax and so on.

[Graham Cobb]

Re: only the start

Better than taxing them, would be for governments to neuter their ad revenues with really strong consumer protections and limits on the amounts and type of advertising. Along with breaking up the monopolies by forcing Facebook, etc, to open up interfaces to diverse other platforms

Let the people keep some of their money and also their privacy, their ability to choose their suppliers, the biases and moderation they want, etc. And allow home-grown competitors to the big US giants.

[Anonymous Coward]

no matter

traditional news publishing business is dead anyway, with facebook and google scraps they'll just twitching a little longer, pay for a few golden parachutes. Certainly not for those in the boiler room.

[Alan Brown]

Re: no matter

Bear in mind that newspapers started out 200 years ago as advertising media. Journalism came later

Classifieds have been the lifeblood of media forever: They lost 98% of their revenue with the rise of places llke fleabay

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: no matter

Always has been newspapers are selling an audience. The news is the bait.

And let's face it journalism is all bs these days.

[Brewster's Angle Grinder]

Big Bash...

As an outsider, it sounds like Facebook won. Splashing around some cash is the cost of running a successful international monopoly. But when some backwater government took the piss, Facebook reminded them who had the real power, and the locals backed down and modified their request to fit the line in Facebook's accounts.

[Whiskers]

No free lunch

Until this story came to my attention, it hadn't occurred to me that anyone could (let alone would) rely on Facebook for "news". Gossip and rumour, yes, and conversation, certainly. Given that they do, though, it seems only fair that the providers of that content should be reimbursed - and it's slightly shocking if they haven't been.

[A.P. Veening]

Re: No free lunch

The problem is, that the providers of the news content are/were counting on FB (and Google) to distribute it for them and to pay for the privilege as well.

[Whiskers]

Re: No free lunch

Peraps readers of news need to be reminded that someone has to pay for it. Not so long ago it was assumed that you'd pay for your newspaper - even if it did carry lots of paid-for advertisements too. Some publications still manage to survive on that model; some have modified it to get money from on-line readers instead, or as well. Some local printed newspapers in my neck of the woods get all their income from advertising (in imitation of commercial radio and TV stations) and are given away free of charge to readers - generating a mountain of waste paper. Any of those arrangements seems more realistic than hoping that Google or Facebook will voluntarily pay for anything if they don't have to.

Whoever pays for the news, gets to choose what is reported and how, of course. Do Google and Facebook users really trust those corporations that much?

[Alan Brown]

Re: No free lunch

When I am are directing 95% of the views to newspapers, it doesn't make sense to try and force me to pay to keep sending business your way

That's what the chart in the axios report shows. 95% reduction in website hits when FB blocked the references

[mark l 2]

I still think it is wrong for a nations law to specify that it only applied to two specific companies. Why doesn't other services such as Yahoo, Bing, etc also have to pay for linking to news in Australia?

[Alan Brown]

favebook and google directly funding journmalists in

3.....2.......1........

Remember: Newspapers were advertising vehicles FIRST. Journalism comes later

[murrby]

The legislation doesn't require them to pay

The legislation doesn't require Facebook to pay anybody anything. It requires them to negotiate or, as a last resort, accept compulsory arbitration. Once Facebook demonstrates to the media companies the great value they add to their operation the media companies will agree to pay Facebook.

[Anonymous Coward]

"...at the whim of the relevant Murdoch shill"

TFTFY