I'm not an expert on Facebook... or this case... but I got caught up in it earlier this week. I tried to share a news story from a mainstream Australian newspaper and got an autogenerated message that the post could not be shared at this time.
(photo below by James D. Morgan/Getty Images.. from Scientific American article linked further down in this post)
When my benign news post from a legit source got blocked, I got curious. I started SIFTing..
Not famliar with SIFT??? Check out this post: http://stuartngbooks.blogspot.com/2020/08/sift-system-and-sites-to-fight-mis.html
What I discovered is an interesting case study in content creators pushing back against lack of credit and compensation for all their work that gets "likes and shares."
Facebook
makes money. The more time users spend on Facebook, the more money it makes. Facebook
engages us with images and stories that we in turn “like and share.” The more
we “like and share” the better for Facebook, its data collecting, and its advertising revenue.
So
who is losing out??
The
content creators. Indie artists. Journalists. Photographers. Facebook was never designed to
credit these sources – much less compensate them for their work. For many users, a Facebook page is purely personal with family pics and favorite meals celebrated. But for indie artists, their social media platforms are vital to connecting with their followers. Facebook, Instagram etc benefit from these pages full of artWORK... but treat even the most shared and valuable content as the platforms' alone to profit from.
As
a result, a robust online culture has developed where users enjoy “free” online
art, images and stories, while Facebook doesn’t have to pay for the very
content their platform thrives on.
Some
newspapers and magazines started adding paywalls – which is reasonable -- but users complain about these. Only
because the business model Facebook designed has conditioned users to expect every thing they want
to “like and share” should also be free.
This
creates tension between the users and the content creators. But where is
Facebook is all this??? Just happily collecting our data and their massive
profits.
Now
there is some pushback coming from the journalism side.
Earlier
this week, you couldn’t share a news story that originated from an Australian journalism
site, because Facebook was upset with new laws the government there is considering.
Right
now, Facebook has resumed allowing Australian news stories to be “liked and
shared.” There’s a cooling off phase that was negotiated so both sides could re-assess and resume talks. This will be an interesting case study to follow.
If
news stories can get credit and compensation from Facebook --- maybe some day indie artists
will get that too??? It's a big ask. But artWORK deserves it. And educated followers can start to push for it.
Here are links for articles on this case from the New York Times and Scientific American magazine, as well as an Op-Ed from the Los Angleles Times.
NY TIMES
"Facebook
Strikes Deal to Restore News Sharing in Australia" by Mike Isaac and Damien Case 2.23.21
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/22/technology/facebook-australia-news.html?referringSource=articleShare
Excerpt: "Facebook
said on Monday that it would restore the sharing and viewing of news links in
Australia after gaining more time to negotiate over a proposed law that would
require it to pay for news content that appeared on its site.
The
social network had blocked news links in Australia last week as the new law
neared passage. The legislation includes a code of conduct that would allow
media companies to bargain individually or collectively with digital platforms
over the value of their news content.
Facebook
had vigorously objected to the code, which would curb its power and drive up
its spending for content, as well as set a precedent for other governments to
follow. The company had argued that news would not be worth the hassle in
Australia if the bill became law.
But
on Monday, Facebook returned to the negotiating table after the Australian
government granted a few minor concessions. Under several amendments to the
code, Facebook would get more time to cut deals with publishers so it would not
be immediately forced into making payments defined by media companies. The
amendments also suggested that if digital platforms voluntarily contributed
enough money to the Australian news industry, the companies could avoid the
code entirely, at least for now."
SCIENTIFIC
AMERICAN
"Facebook Would Rather Ban News in Australia Than Pay for it" by Vanessa Freije. 2.21.21
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/facebook-would-rather-ban-news-in-australia-than-pay-for-it/?fbclid=
Excerpt: "Facebook has barred Australians from finding or sharing news on its platform,
in response to an Australian government proposal to require social media
networks to pay journalism organizations for their content. The move is already
reducing online readership of Australian news sites.
Similar
to what happened when Facebook suspended Donald Trump’s account in January, the
fight with Australia is again raising debate around social media networks’
enormous control over people’s access to information. Australia’s prime
minister, Scott Morrison, says his country “will not be intimidated” by an American
tech company.
My
research in the history of international media politics has shown that a
handful of rich countries have long exerted undue influence over how the rest
of the world gets its news."
LA TIMES
Editorial: "Australia is Trying to Save Local Journalism from Facebook. Will the US be
next?"
by the LA Times editorial board 2.22.21
Excerpt: "That’s
why a growing number of democracies are looking for ways to shore up local news
outlets, which have long played a key role in scrutinizing elected officials
and their policies, uncovering waste and fraud, and holding local governments
accountable to the public. In particular, they’ve looked to tap the staggering
online advertising fortunes amassed by Google and Facebook, two global powerhouses
that have become major outlets of news online — much of it reported and written
by newspapers. Those companies are in lawmakers’ sights also because of the
control they exert over online advertising technology and their ability to
collect data about internet users, including the ones on newspapers’ own sites.
The
latest government to take on this issue is Australia’s, which is poised to
require Google and Facebook to negotiate with news companies — individually or
collectively — for the right to publish links to or snippets of their stories.
The proposal echoes similar measures that have been enacted in Europe and are
being floated in the United States and Canada."
UPDATE -- 2.26.21 LA Times
"Facebook, Australia reach a deal to lift news ban"
Rod
McGuirk, AP (2.24.21)
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-02-23/facebook-lift-australia-news-ban
Excerpt: "Facebook
said Tuesday that it would lift its ban on Australians sharing news after it
struck a deal with the government on a proposal to make digital giants pay for
journalism.
Australian
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Facebook confirmed that they had agreed on
amendments to legislation that would require the social network and Google to
pay for Australian news featured on their sites.
Facebook’s
cooperation is a major victory for Australia’s efforts to make the two internet
gateways pay for the journalism they use.
Facebook
blocked Australian users from accessing and sharing news last week after the
House of Representatives passed the draft law late Wednesday. The blockade
initially cut access to public health, emergency and COVID-19 pandemic
services, sparking public outrage…..
….Frydenberg
described the agreed-on amendments as “clarifications” of the government’s
intent. He described his negotiations with Facebook Chief Executive Mark
Zuckerberg as “difficult.”
“There
is no doubt that Australia has been a proxy battle for the world,” Frydenberg
said, referring to the dispute over the proposed News Media Bargaining Code
legislation. “Facebook and Google have not hidden the fact that they know that
the eyes of the world are on Australia, and that is why they have sought to get
a code here that is workable.”
This
week, Microsoft and four European publishing groups announced they would work
together to push for Australian-style rules for news payments from tech
platforms.
“The
latest twist proves that regulation works,” said Angela Mills Wade, executive
director of the European Publishers Council. “Regulators from around the world
will be reassured that they can continue to take inspiration from the
Australian government’s determination to withstand unacceptable threats from
powerful commercial gatekeepers.”
The
proposed media code in Australia would lessen Facebook and Google’s enormous
bargaining power in their negotiations with Australian news providers by
establishing an arbitration panel. That would prevent the digital giants from
using their hugely advantageous negotiating positions to make
take-it-or-leave-it payment offers to news businesses for their journalism. In
case of disputes, the arbitration panel would make a binding decision on a
winning offer.
