Meta threatens to stop sharing news in USA to protest publisher payment plan
- Reference: 1670304554
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/12/06/meta_news_threat_usa/
- Source link:
If that sounds familiar, your memory is holding up well: Australia proposed just such a law in 2021, Facebook [1]pulled news from its platform for a few weeks, but then came back to the bargaining table and agreed to pay local news outlets.
Australia's government argued that news publishers' content has value that Facebook and Google weren't paying for, and asserted they should do so by sending them money to fund their operations.
[2]
The United States' [3]Journalism Competition and Preservation Act of 2022 has similar aims, but relies on smallish publishers (those with under 1,500 employees) and broadcasters to band together and negotiate with the likes of Facebook and Google over "terms and conditions of the covered platform’s access to digital news content."
[4]
[5]
The definition of "covered platform" is online platforms with at least 50 million US-based users, net annual sales exceeding $550 billion or at least a billion worldwide monthly active users.
In other words: Meta and Google.
[6]
Meta communications chap Andy Stone expressed The Social Network's displeasure with the draft law as follows:
Meta statement on the Journalism Competition and Preservation Act: [7]pic.twitter.com/kyFqKQw7xs — Andy Stone (@andymstone) [8]December 5, 2022
As it happens, that language is very, very similar to wording Meta has used elsewhere.
The company's [9]argument against [10]Canada's Online News Act (Bill C-18) also makes the argument that publishers profit from having their work shared on Facebook because it is more widely viewed, which drives subscriptions and helps them to sell ads.
And it's just what Facebook said in Australia, where local execs bemoaned that the local law "fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between our platform and publishers who use it to share news content."
Australia's government stared Facebook down and won, after [11]tweaking the negotiation process so that not all publishers could enter into negotiations, which were facilitated by a mediator and had jump-off points rather than being driven and decided by government officials.
[12]
The Australian scheme has worked quite well. News outlets that have received cash from Google and Facebook have used it to hire staff in rural and regional locations. But other publishers – often smaller entities or those who don't cover hard news – have not been able to bring the web giants to the table for talks, and have seen no cash.
Canada's law is in committee and the US bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights.
There's little prospect it will emerge in a hurry.
[13]Indian MP calls for Australian-style pay for news laws
[14]Microsoft sides with media groups, together they urge Europe to follow Australia's lead, make Google, Facebook pay for news article links
[15]Canada wants Big Tech to share its riches with news publishers
[16]Rupert and Zuck, sitting in a tree, P-A-Y-I-N-G
But the idea that Big Tech should chip in to ensure the survival of news organizations is gathering admirers. India has [17]expressed a liking for the arrangement and New Zealand [18]announced a plan for a pay-to-link scheme last Sunday. Europe [19]likes the idea .
All governments considering the arrangement have Australia's experience to learn from.
The politicians involved may, however, not know that Josh Frydenberg – the minister who drove the negotiations with Facebook – often mentioned securing payments from the company as an example of why he deserved to be re-elected. But he lost his seat at Australia's May 2022 election, when the government of which he was a member was also voted out of office. Reasons unrelated to the Facebook deal were behind both losses. So while Australia's deal with Facebook was welcomed locally, it did not earn much political capital. ®
Get our [20]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/17/facebook_australian_news/
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Y48g1gs1ILMV-xIhn1X43AAAABc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[3] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/673
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y48g1gs1ILMV-xIhn1X43AAAABc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Y48g1gs1ILMV-xIhn1X43AAAABc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Y48g1gs1ILMV-xIhn1X43AAAABc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://t.co/kyFqKQw7xs
[8] https://twitter.com/andymstone/status/1599857809126195201?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[9] https://about.fb.com/news/2022/10/metas-concerns-with-canadas-online-news-act/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/06/canada_news_legislation/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/23/facebook_and_australia_do_a_deal/
[12] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Y48g1gs1ILMV-xIhn1X43AAAABc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[13] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/19/india_pay_for_news_plan/
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/23/microsoft_eu_publishers/
[15] https://www.theregister.com/2022/04/06/canada_news_legislation/
[16] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/16/news_corp_facebook_deal_australia/
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/19/india_pay_for_news_plan/
[18] https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/big-online-platforms-pay-fair-price-local-news-content
[19] https://www.theregister.com/2021/03/11/big_tech_publishing/
[20] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
My understanding was that Google/Meta were/are showing snippets of the articles in question, not just linking to them?
Those media also take advantage from Feckbook or Google by getting a lot of traffic they wouldn't have without a link to their content. They value this traffic through ads. By having more visitors, they have also more opportunity to sell other services to more people.
The media should have the choice to refuse to have their content linked by other corporations if they will. But paying them for these links ? I'm not sure.
== Bring us Dabbsy back! ==
As I understand it, the argument in Australia was that Google in particular was 'scraping' the news websites in order to summarise the stories on their search page. It was therefore much less likely that someone would click-through and visit the news site first hand. Adverts shown on the news sites were never seen and fewer apparent visitors to the sites meant less money charged for those adverts which were taken. Any advertising on Google's page, where its scraped version of the story was shown, went straight to Google.
So the news sites did all the hard work but Google got all the benefit.
You could see this charging system as just another form of old-fashioned syndication where the author of a work lets someone else use that work for their own benefit, on payment of a syndication fee. Why should automated digital scraping engines be any different to the newspapers which take the Peanuts or Farside cartoons?
M.
If the news sites didn't want Google to show content, a simple robots.txt file would have solved the problem.
The link tax solution seems to be a way to get money for the media companies who are enabling the problem for profit.
Given the media is the main beneficiary, I'm also a bit wary of the reporting on this story. Beating the big tech bad drum is very popular but Murdock and friends are some of the dirtiest players out there.
Does Meta get a discount
If it’s fake news?
Re: Does Meta get a discount
They get paid in counterfeit notes....
Yeah, please do
The 'news' shared on Facebook is mostly anti-vax or Qanon lies, so please do stop sharing the 'news' you've specifically chosen to help destroy democracy.
Re: Yeah, please do
I don't know what you're looking at, but most of the news I see on Facebook is of people pointing disapprovingly at pot holes.
Re: Yeah, please do
The war on drugs gets everywhere.
No, Zuck, you do not have the legal right to just take and absorb whatever you like. There are other people in the world besides you and Musk...
Having your Cake and Eating IT ..... Biting the hand that feeds IT
Are the likes of Meta and Google also to be obliged to pay those rags and comics which do not provide for engaging presentation of immediate public comment to breaking news and/or are preventing greater public acceptance [or rejection] of their editorial opinion and stories of activities and events in the past, both recent and more ancient, because of its access only through a paywall?
How will they determine what is "news"?
They will have to draw a line somewhere between q anon type conspiracy sites talking about 5G chips in vaccines and Jewish space lasers vs the AP for what qualifies as "news". No doubt the far right will want to widen that definition as much as possible, since most of their "news" is conspiracy theories.
Re: How will they determine what is "news"?
The left will be happy with the status quo and in no way attempt to widen the definition of what's considered news in order to spew *their* bile.
Our's is *good* bile. Left good! Right bad! I have always been at war with Eastasia.
Until next week, anyway.
Better headline: Meta threatens to improve US society if new law is passed
Personally I think that any company threatening to withdraw from a market for political reasons ought to be forced to actually go through with it. Just call that bluff (yes, bluff, let's not forget that not being in a market also means no advertisers or ad revenue from there).
Once that sort of blackmail is called a few times companies like Google and Meta will go back to ordinary lobbying and blackmailing politicians with the personal information they have scooped up..
You can bet all those private equity firms that have been buying news orgs will be cutting staff if necessary to make sure they're under the 1500 limit and can get free money.
More widely viewed?
I understand Meta claiming that them showing a preview/snippet could work to boost traffic/subscriptions to the source media but to paraphrase Christine Keeler...they would say that wouldn't they.
By giving people a snippet and a link to open a new tab/window to read the article, Meta's intention is that you will come straight back and continue to be monetised. If they stopped showing them then people may go direct to the news site and skip out Meta altogether. I am sure that an independent audit would show that Meta makes more money from the process than any linked media site
Re: More widely viewed?
Well, if people decide to not visit the "news" site after seeing a snipped, it means the rest is not worth reading. It's like movie industry complaining people don't pay for watching trailers.
When "link tax" will be applied, this is only going to increase the incentive for outlets to produce click baits, so that people click that link and see ads rather than actual valuable content.
That being said, the Facebook should be paying for all the content they get on the site, not just publishers.
Re: More widely viewed?
I understand Meta claiming that them showing a preview/snippet could work to boost traffic/subscriptions to the source media but to paraphrase Christine Keeler...they would say that wouldn't they. .... Kevin Johnston
[1]FYI , Kevin ...... [2]MRDA
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FYI
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_Rice-Davies#MRDA
Re: More widely viewed?
Darn it...right scandal, wrong player
The pleb
Why should they only pay the publishers and not the pleb?
After all they make money on all content, even off the picture of your aunt showing off her apple crumble.
Germany and Spain although tried to come up with some "Google Tax" to have Google support the struggling revenue of (online) news papers.
Those attempts pretty much failed to make any impact, i believe all the bigger news outlets gave Google a free licence after Google listed them out when they asked for money.
According to the article the link tax works in Australia, I wonder what's the difference that made it work in down under?
Seems Google [1]are paying up since an EU-wide directive was rolled out .
[1] https://blog.google/around-the-globe/google-europe/google-licenses-content-from-news-publishers-under-the-eu-copyright-directive/
Thanks for the downvotes. I could see that coming from a mile away.
What some people are clearly failing to understand is that the Internet is built on links. Why the hell should anyone have to pay to link to anything, especially when those links give you a shitload of traffic which you can hopefully make some money from?
These stupid taxes fundamentally undermine how the Internet works.
I guess some people's hatred of Facebook prevents them from seeing straight.
Not really an issue in the UK
I'd happily go without "news" from most of our providers.
It's the Murdoch tax or the link tax, because news outlets can't find a way to make money in the digital age. I'm no Facebook fan but nobody should have to pay for merely linking to web pages. The sense of entitlement is fucking breathtaking.