Australians who logged into Facebook to check the morning's headlines got a surprise earlier this week: no news. Don't worry, remarkable things were still happening and the Earth continued to spin on its axis, but if you were to check Australia's ABC Facebook pages or try to post a link to a Sydney Morning Herald report, then you may find the blank page or and an error message telling you the computer says no. It was not an accident. Facebook has actually banned all news in Australia. Crikey. So what is going on? And how will Australia cope with its ghastly new status as an island paradise with unforgiving weather and no one to talk about politics on Facebook? Continue reading to find out.
Why did Facebook block the news?
In fact, it all started with a dispute between the Australian government and Google. In December 2020, the government introduced a new law to its parliament that would create a new "media bargaining code" that would require designated "platforms" - Google, Facebook and others - to pay news agencies if they want to link to or extract excerpts from their content. The plan was motivated by the fact that the balance of power between big tech companies and news agencies was unbalanced, with news agencies doing the difficult and expensive job of writing the news, but then Google News reaped the benefits. stories. . So when people check out the news, instead of going to a news publisher's website, they just go to Google or scroll down to Facebook. The proposed solution is to tip the scales towards news publishers and have money-rich tech platforms directly subsidize the struggling news industry by heavily arming them to pay for news content licenses. The way it would work is that the new code would allow news publishers to come together to deal with Google and Facebook, the theory being that by working together they can get a better deal, leading to more heavily funded news outlets. The idea is not entirely far-fetched. Green taxing oil companies to pay for solar panels or taxing cigarettes to pay for health care would be reasonable ideas for political debate. But if the new law is passed, Australia would be the first country in the world to test it. But it is not surprising that Google and Facebook are not happy with this plan. They characterize it as an attack on the open Internet because a fundamental principle of how the Internet works is that anyone can connect with anyone else, for free. The debate over the law has been simmering since last year. At one point, Google even suggested blocking Google search from Australia in retaliation. But it was Facebook that threw the first grenade on the negotiating table and made the dramatic decision to prevent users of its platform from linking to current content.
Who has an impact on the block?
Facebook's initial rollout of the ban is pretty broad. All Australian media pages are now blank. And links to news websites, whether Australian or international, cannot be displayed. If you try, a message appears explaining the unusual situation. So the people of Erinsborough will have to stick to posting photos of their pets for now. It appears that Facebook used a rather crude filter, blocking anything tagged with the word 'news', which also led to many different media outlets being reported, such as posts from government agencies and even the Facebook company Facebook page. So Facebook banned Facebook on Facebook. These false positives are being restored, but it illustrates the extent of the new restrictions, and Facebook isn't taking a chance on the news.Wow, why such a broad approach? Won't that bother Facebook users?
Surely that is the point. It could also be because the Australian government has yet to pass the new law. It could just be Facebook trying to prepare for the new law, so it doesn't have to pay. If the law passes, Facebook could be fined up to A$10 million, or 10% of its Australian revenue, for unauthorized links. Or perhaps more likely, Facebook executives may be taking the calculated risk that by stirring up a massive storm they could force the government to withdraw or change the proposed law. It is a deliberately provocative tactic to draw attention to the possible implications of what could happen if this happens. This is not the first time technology has tried these kinds of tactics. In 2012, Wikipedia and a host of other websites "fell into darkness" during the day to protest a US anti-hacking bill. And especially from Facebook's point of view: they won. US senators quickly withdrew their support, returning the proposals to the drawing board.
Why is the news industry struggling anyway? Why should Big Tech pay?
Well, basically it's technology's fault that the media has problems. Before the advent of the Internet, newspapers were important and profitable. Not just because they were the only way to find out what was going on in the world, but because they were a different set of services. They had advertising for local businesses, classifieds, family ads, and sometimes even a dating section, and they could make money from all of these things. Today, though, all of those features have been taken over by Facebook, Google, and other tech companies: eBay has replaced classifieds, Google sells advertising, Facebook is the place you go for family news, and Tinder is where people look to date. . The only thing left is the news, which by itself is not very profitable. So it's not just that there's a lot more competition for attention or that information is available all over the world. It's not even like there's much more competition for your attention. It is because the current economic model no longer works. Which is bad, because information is considered something good and important for democracy to function properly. So one way or another you have to pay for the news. And that's how the Australian government is trying to do it.Do all the big techs agree that it's bad?
Remarkably, Microsoft has sided with the information industry in this debate. Company chairman Brad Smith said the Australian proposals should also be "seriously considered" in the United States. It's just a huge coincidence that the proposed law hurts the business of its biggest competitor and provides an opportunity to increase Bing's market share and earn Brownie points with journalists.How exactly does the law define "news"?
This is an important question. And the answer is... it's complicated. Google called the Code's definition of news "vague", citing language that defines it as "content that reports, investigates or explains current issues or events of interest to Australians". But even if Australia manages to create a working system where a subset of publishers technically count as 'news' and others don't, it could lead to an unusual situation where news-adjacent content such as memes, blog posts and status updates. that talk about politics is allowed, and yet real, credible, factual news content is not. It doesn't seem like a good result.