Facebook rejects Australia’s pay-for-news plan, proposes its own idea: How about no more articles at all, sunshine?
- Reference: 1598930776
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/09/01/facebook_australian_news/
- Source link:
By plan we mean a [1]mandatory code of conduct that's been in a public consultation phase. Under these proposed rules, drawn up by Australia’s Competition and Consumer Commission, publishers can negotiate primarily with Facebook and Google so that news outlets are [2]paid a fee for having their articles shared and read on the aforementioned web platforms. If the negotiations fail, an independent arbitrator will decide the final offer from those put forward.
A [3]post today by Facebook's managing director for Australia and New Zealand Will Easton said the draft code of conduct “misunderstands the dynamics of the internet and will do damage to the very news organisations the government is trying to protect,” and that the commission “presumes that Facebook benefits most in its relationship with publishers, when in fact the reverse is true.”
A choice of either removing news entirely or accepting a system that lets publishers charge us for as much content as they want
Easton said Facebook is open to working with Australian publishers, and has even contemplated introducing to the nation the Facebook News service it operates in America, in which it pays news publishers for linking to their content.
But Facebook's antipodean boss described Australia’s proposal as “overcooked." Presumably the arbitration part is too much for the US giant to swallow. Indeed, we're told the code of conduct leaves Facebook “with a choice of either removing news entirely or accepting a system that lets publishers charge us for as much content as they want at a price with no clear limits. Unfortunately, no business can operate that way.”
As such, Facebook will pull the plug on sharing news in Australia unless it has its own way.
Easton’s justification for his argument is that “news represents a fraction of what people see in their News Feed and is not a significant source of revenue for us.”
Google says Australian pay-for-news code means it can’t quit the country [4]READ MORE
Facebook wants to support journalism, it is alleged, and does so by providing tools that help publishers find an audience. Those efforts, Easton wrote, turned into 2.3 billion clicks of traffic in the first five months of 2020 alone. Facebook valued that traffic at AU$200m and suggested it allowed publishers “to sell more subscriptions and advertising.”
“Facebook products and services in Australia that allow family and friends to connect will not be impacted by this decision,” Easton said. “Our global commitment to quality news around the world will not change either. And we will continue to work with governments and regulators who rightly hold our feet to the fire. But successful regulation, like the best journalism, will be grounded in and built on facts. In this instance, it is not.”
Reg comment
Easton’s argument misrepresents the arbitration process Australia proposes, while also proposing regulatory capture.
The misrepresentation is expressed in his assertion that publishers will be able to “charge us for as much content as they want at a price they want.” The reality of the situation is that an independent arbitrator will be involved to set prices if bargaining breaks down, and that negotiation will be possible beforehand.
"If the news businesses and the digital platforms cannot strike a deal through a formal three month negotiation and mediation process," the competition commission explained in July, "then an independent arbitrator would choose which of the two parties’ final offer is the most reasonable within 45 business days."
That Facebook intends regulatory capture is evident in Easton’s assertion that Facebook is happy to use its own pay-for-news scheme it operates elsewhere while rejecting Australia’s proposed model.
The core of Australia's model is an attempt to balance the bargaining power between local media and web giants Google and Facebook.
As Facebook demonstrates in this post, its bargaining position is either to set all the rules itself or to take itself off the board and out of reach of the commission. Which to your humble hack’s mind shows just how much power Facebook has, just as Google has shown its hand by plastering its properties with warnings about the implications of Australia’s plans. ®
Bootnote
The Register is not eligible to receive payment under Australia's planned code of conduct – while we have staff in Australia and the Asia-Pacific region, we do not operate primarily in Australia for the purpose of serving Australian audiences – and reports this story as it is potentially a global precedent for how governments, publishers, and web giants interact.
Get our [5]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/draft-news-media-bargaining-code
[2] https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/australian-news-media-to-negotiate-payment-with-major-digital-platforms
[3] https://about.fb.com/news/2020/08/changes-to-facebooks-services-in-australia/
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/24/google_australian_campaign/
[5] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Sounds like Censorship to me
First they came for the Australians...
Klaatu Barata Nikto!
Earth has about 7,800,000,000 people on it. Australia is home to about 25,600,000 of these people. That is around 0.33% of the total. I have no idea how many people in this small fraction of the whole Facebook actually uses every day. In my own very cynical opinion it is not an issue of money for Facebook to take this stand but an issue of principles. In their minds they cannot afford to let some little, uppity, funny-talking country on the bottom of the world dictate terms to them because that might give larger, more powerful, and richer nations ideas.
If anybody Down Under is reading this I want you to know that I support your rights to self determine your enconomy and your culture. I say you send the Aliens packing and be better off for it.
Re: Klaatu Barata Nikto!
I think Facebook would probably have the same response if both the US and EU together had the same plan. Facebook makes money off people sharing/viewing news stories, but only so much. They could afford to let that go and figure maybe news sites suffer from the loss than they do and come back with a proposal they can live with. Or if not, live with the loss of revenue.
I'm certainly no fan of Facebook, but this is no different than trying to a charge a web site for linking to your content. That's not how the internet works, or should work. If Facebook was reproducing news stories that's one thing, but 99% of the links to news stories I see posted just include a link to the story and a comment from the poster. The Register posts a lot more content from the story than people on Facebook do, even though it is augmented by a lot more additional comment than the one-liners that usually accompany news posts on Facebook.
Get on with it, we'd be better without you
I hope FB go ahead and ban Aussie news and other content. I'm already pissed off that some ABC programs only use FB to show their wares. I never use it, so am locked out of taxpayer-funded content. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Re: Get on with it, we'd be better without you
One step further... I hate clicking on a news story(from any outlet) only to be taken to Youtube... I don't want to watch the stories... If I'm at work, the story can sit on another tab until coffee time or lunch when I can READ it!
Trumpbook
No issue if "Facebook" decides to not publish. That's their call.
Given the lousy thumb-on-scale scheme to decide "what you want to see", seeing nothing would be an improvement.