"No News For You Australia!"
Nobody thought it would happen, they said - but it did. On Thursday morning, Facebook pulled all the news feeds from its services in Australia. A lot of other services were taken out in the big purge, but most importantly, Facebook thumbed its nose at the Federal Government with its gun-to-the-head legislation.
Since then there has been much
scuttlebutt about what this means, and some of it is just hilarious.
The move was made in response to the government’s media bargaining code, which is designed to force it and Google to pay publishers for news content.
Facebook executives - in consultation with founder Mark Zuckerberg, vice- president of global partnerships, business and corporate development Marne Levine and head of global news partnerships Campbell Brown - were weighing up what to do for weeks.
The tech platform made its intentions to remove news content from its main platform clear last September, after a draft form of the media bargaining code was made public.
Even Simon Milner, Facebook’s director of policy for the Asia-Pacific region, wasn’t sure if Facebook would follow through with the threat when he fronted up at a parliamentary inquiry in late January. In fact nobody was certain until the eleventh hour, when the Facebook’s most senior executives saw the final bill to be debated in parliament and decided to pull the trigger.
Under the direction of Zuckerberg, the company’s founder, major shareholder and most powerful figure, the company pushed through tweaks to its algorithm to restrict news content for Australians.
What's sidesplittingly funny is that the government thought this was a shock move. Since then we've heard admonitions from Josh Frydenberg that somehow this would reflect badly on Facebook, and Greg Hunt telling us that without the news Facebook will be filled with fake news and misinformation.
The joke is the government was going to rely on Facebook to get its word out about the COVID-19 vaccination programme - starting next Monday - and suddenly that channel had disappeared. You can't make this stuff up. And so they took to the airwaves on old media to wag their index fingers, telling Facebook its reputation would suffer, the news needed to go back on, and Facebook had to go negotiate these contracts with Seven West and Nine-Fairfax and the Truly-Evil-News-Corporation.
I mean, I'm no fan of Zuckerberg but come on - a five year old can figure out if he doesn't want to do something, he can just say no. And if he had to give up 4% of his Australian business, so be it.
Ryan Stokes of Seven West Media wants Facebook to put the new back on, and pay Seven West like Google acquiesced.
“Their decision to ban legitimate news and information … makes them seem more like a publisher than than just a digital platform,” he told The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
“I think the government’s commitment to pushing the code through and legislation through is a really important position and being resolute in that and not responding to these types of interim steps and decisions, I think is really important. And then I think it’s going to be up to Facebook. And frankly, I think it’s in their interest to get the information back on their platform, because that’s what their users want.”
You gotta laugh. Ryan Stokes sounds like he just missed out on a multi-million dollar deal with Facebook who simply declined and walked away. What a
loser.
Let's face it, the laws were written to target Facebook sharing news. If Facebook does not share the news, it's not breaking the planned law. The government looks stupid for passing a law against something that is not happening. It can't then demand Facebook break the law so it can un-break the law by signing a deal it doesn't want to sign. It's easier not to infringe the law and not pay the fine. Everybody understands Facebook was put in the situation by the Australian government. Nobody thinks worse of Facebook than they already do by any of this.
It's just too funny.
Why Are You On Facebook Anyway?
It's worth pondering for a moment. There was a time when the news wasn't on Facebook and dare I say it was better then. The intrusion of news made the Facebook experience a lot more convoluted. It's not like Facebook is without its faults. The rise of trump and Trumpism, the proliferation of Flat-Earth-Anti-Vaxx-Committed Stupid can be squarely put upon Facebook. Yet a lot of that came about because Facebook allowed itself to be a conduit of all news and views.
The reason I am these is because my friends who live in distant places are there. I guess I could call them on the phone instead, but there is something useful about quickly conveying a thought through Facebook. And that's it. If I never get to see an article from Politico or Rolling Stone or the Sydney Morning Herald or ABC..net.au through Facebook, I couldn't really care less.
Does Facebook have a responsibility to carry the news? Surely not.
Does Facebook need to carry the news, from the user's point of view? No.
Is Facebook worse as an experience without the news? Not at all.
So I think most people will stay on, The commentary saying this would drive people away fro Facebook and that some other platform will take over, are premature. Surely they have not seen what has happened with Parker in the wake of the US elections, the Capitol Insurrection, the banning of Trump and the avowed move to Parler made by many Trumpty-Dumb-pties. It's hard to find an alternative to Facebook that everybody can agree.
About Fires and Emergencies Services Getting Blocked
It's a bit rich that the government that presided over the worst bush fires in the history of modern Australia can complain that people can't access news regarding Fires and Emergencies through Facebook. The government came out swinging like Little-leaguers on red cordial saying Facebook shouldn't switch off emergency services but when you think about it, it's not Facebook's internet. Facebook didn't switch off the internet for those services. They just decided not to carry that social responsibility ion it makes them liable to the proposed laws. The Communication Minister arguing like Facebook made those services inaccessible makes him look like a moron.
The sites complaining that Facebook doesn't carry them any more are right to complain but at no point did the government make it official that Facebook should be the place where messages like that should be pushed out. It was the free and unfettered market that decided that. The government should take responsibility that it has intervened in the market and there were unforeseen outcomes because of that intervention.
In some weird way I'd like to see talks break down so much that Google and Facebook both leave Australia and we all get to see what the hell the landscape looks like then. I'd imagine it would be pretty fun and wild.
Who Do You Hate More?
What all this comes down to for the consumer is no just who do they hold responsible, but also who do they blame for the perceived disruption. I already don't like Zuck, I don't like Facebook even though I'm there. I don't like Scomo and his moron-minion Josh-boi, I don't like the Coalition, but I live here in Australia. People say I can't remove Zuck from FB and that's an issue, but I can't seem to vote out Scomo any more than I can vote out Zuck.
So it really comes down to who do you hate more? I've realised I hate Scomo and Josh just a little bit more than I hate Zuck-the Fuck. I think we all learned something through this experience, and that is what I have learned. I hate odious idiots far more than I hate odious smart-alecs.
The politicians are trying to posture that they have the high ground. There is no high ground at the bottom of a hole you dug. It's entirely laughable.
