Facebook called the bluff lol

Rockford said:
I don't get where it starts and ends for FB. What about a popular Cooking demonstration thing on FB, will FB be forced to pay them as well in the future? A musician doing tutorials, will FB be forced to pay them as well? Why is everyone so hung up on only the News being rewarded for their content and click throughs? There are numerous examples of great content being created and not rewarded. In my mind they are being rewarded via click throughs to their website where they can monetise what they are doing be it via Ads on the site, subscriptions etc they are not paying FB for use of the platform (i.e if it is free you are the product), how else would they get the same exposure? I always saw it as a you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.
Click to expand...
Good post. I think that may have been the original intent for the platform but it obviously evolved and that’s the main issue here: evolution without regulation. It’s been suggested that Facebook may have to ‘return to its roots’. There will likely be a distinction made between what content is considered ‘paid’ and ‘unpaid’ depending on the original author. Certainly going to be interesting to see how it plays out.
 
Rockford said:
I don't get where it starts and ends for FB. What about a popular Cooking demonstration thing on FB, will FB be forced to pay them as well in the future? A musician doing tutorials, will FB be forced to pay them as well? Why is everyone so hung up on only the News being rewarded for their content and click throughs? There are numerous examples of great content being created and not rewarded. In my mind they are being rewarded via click throughs to their website where they can monetise what they are doing be it via Ads on the site, subscriptions etc they are not paying FB for use of the platform (i.e if it is free you are the product), how else would they get the same exposure? I always saw it as a you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.
Click to expand...
Thats exactly my take on it.

It's a vexed question. Who gains the most?

I contend that FB provides a free service to those who chose to use it. They have, by way of offering something no one else did, managed to take over and manipulate the populations personal information but Govt never regulated that, and is not attempting to regulate it now with their new legislation.

The Govt are only trying to get payment for the big news organisations. Joe Blow with his blog or public interest site, wont get a cent bc FB will tell him/her business to get lost.

I realise they are manipulators and all powerful but I believe in free enterprise for all not just Big Media. Our news gathering is very limited already. We can virtually foresee no investigative journalists if that diversity of news comes to pass with this law.

FB provide a free site to all businesses who care to set up their page. In reality, millions of people have access to their free exposure and advertising. They also provide free to the public community pages, the Govt themselves set up sites to get info to the public in disasters, health crises, welfare etc etc etc.

How many other businesses, are there any?, that provide such a level of engagement and wholesale availability free of charge to put your business, connect with family etc etc etc.

I think many businesses are finding that it is of great, free benefit to them and their traffic and sales enquiries are way down.

Anyway this rant is not to praise Zuckerberg and his oligarch ways...there's no defence of the way FB has evolved and wormed its way into every inch of our lives.

I just point out that the Govt is not trying to curb his power. They just want FB to pay Big Media and the legislation does not even stipulate that it must be used in employing, or even keep, the existing journalists we do have ...even after Murdoch sacked hundreds after closing down every single Regional newspaper he bought up as part of his monopoly.

There's lots of issues to think through for mine.
 
Last edited:
doggieaaron said:
Forget who you vote for but good on scomo for standing up to China previously and now mark z ,the whole world is behind Australia with this and mark z has fuked up big time imo with his reaction
Click to expand...
But but but we are meant to be diplomatic when being fucked in the arse because we are only a small weak nation :grinning:

Fuck China and fuck Facebook
 
Natboy said:
But but but we are meant to be diplomatic when being fucked in the arse because we are only a small weak nation :grinning:

Fuck China and fuck Facebook
Click to expand...
FUCKING A!
 
about.fb.com

Changes to Sharing and Viewing News on Facebook in Australia

In response to Australia’s proposed new Media Bargaining law, we'll restrict publishers and people in Australia from sharing or viewing news on Facebook.
about.fb.com about.fb.com

Changes to Sharing and Viewing News on Facebook in Australia
February 17, 2021
By William Easton, Managing Director, Facebook Australia & New Zealand

Update on February 22, 2021 at 8:20PM PT:
We’re pleased that we’ve been able to reach an agreement with the Australian government and appreciate the constructive discussions we’ve had with Treasurer Frydenberg and Minister Fletcher over the past week. We have consistently supported a framework that would encourage innovation and collaboration between online platforms and publishers. After further discussions, we are satisfied that the Australian government has agreed to a number of changes and guarantees that address our core concerns about allowing commercial deals that recognize the value our platform provides to publishers relative to the value we receive from them. As a result of these changes, we can now work to further our investment in public interest journalism and restore news on Facebook for Australians in the coming days.
Read an additional statement from Campbell Brown, VP, Global News Partnerships on our Facebook Journalism Project site.



----------------------------------------

Now to wait and see what the new deal is, although by this statement, it seems Facebook got what they wanted.

Personally, rather than this government spending their time in trying to line their mates pockets, I would have preferred the same effort to get corporations to pay their fair share of tax in Australia, to you know, benefit the Australian people
 
Who caved?

Facebook set to end ban on Australian news (9news.com.au)

Facebook is set to end its ban on Australian news appearing on its platform just six days after the controversial decision was implemented.

Facebook has told the Federal Government it intends to restore Australian news pages "in the coming days" following amendments to the News Media and Digital Bargaining Code

Currently, all Australian news pages are blocked from sharing content and all users are banned from sharing links to Australian news sources.
 
Nice work Frydenberg and his team. These big tech giants think there a law onto themselves. As corrupt as any media outlets in the world with censorship of opinions which don’t align with there own
 
4081BCE1-2839-45A8-8F5F-41804268001E.jpeg
 
DinkumDog said:
Netflix burn cash like I’ve never seen.
$25bn revenue for $1.9bn profit - less than 0.01%.

They can’t keep putting up the price either - Disney+ is half the price of Netflix. It’s going to catch up with them sooner or later.
Click to expand...

how about $33.7bn revenue for $5.4bn profit? what does that work out to be? 0.03%? netflix is improving but poor old rupert has given up and he has been gutted like a fish

cricket costs $20m a year more than it did, afl over $100m more, the nrl deal is going to come up this year and they will want a big increase, news ltd print media and cable news and sports networks are a dying industry like i said, foxtel has half the customers since we last spoke, now AI is writing articles for news, when warner brothers launch and take away HBO then binge will hurt even more

this is his kodak moment, when everybody ran to twitter to see what happened to trumps ear then it shows that even the news is gone
 
Rodzilla said:
how about $33.7bn revenue for $5.4bn profit? what does that work out to be? 0.03%? netflix is improving but poor old rupert has given up and he has been gutted like a fish

cricket costs $20m a year more than it did, afl over $100m more, the nrl deal is going to come up this year and they will want a big increase, news ltd print media and cable news and sports networks are a dying industry like i said, foxtel has half the customers since we last spoke, now AI is writing articles for news, when warner brothers launch and take away HBO then binge will hurt even more

this is his kodak moment, when everybody ran to twitter to see what happened to trumps ear then it shows that even the news is gone
Click to expand...
Ah Zil :tearsofjoy:.
Having humiliated yourself with the ‘higher power’ absurdity before watching your beloved RFK Jr go down like a $2 hooker in the polls, you’ve now decided to have a crack over a three year old thread to ‘prove that you’re right’?? Too funny. I haven’t looked at the results closely but $5.4b banked ain’t shabby at first glance. If that’s ’gutted like a fish’ I’d take that carcass.

Apart from some pretty wild assumptions that AI and Twatter are killing news (no evidence either is largely true) what you’re overlooking is diversity. Netflix and Twatter have all their eggs in one basket, News don’t. I wouldn’t be so sure about WBD and streaming - they’re a strong brand but they’re very late to the game and Paramount+ and Peacock aren’t doing great.

Sure the delivery method is changing, it was always going to - content has been migrating to the internet for years - hardly a newsflash. But Rupes still had a lot in the armoury including the cash to acquire and assets to divest as needed. To say it’s his Kodak moment is more likely another case of premature ejaculation over things that don’t come true. I’d say your hate of Rupes is akin to Gates and that’s the motivation here. And I’d know - because I’m a Microsoft and News shill as you so expertly deduced years ago :-).
 
DinkumDog said:
Apart from some pretty wild assumptions that AI and Twatter are killing news (no evidence either is largely true) what you’re overlooking is diversity.
Click to expand...
Journalists beg to differ. 2024 Media landscape report.
1722724387089.png
 
Doogie said:
Journalists beg to differ. 2024 Media landscape report.
View attachment 115382
Click to expand...
Never said there’s no impact.
AI is an interesting space to watch.
Just pointing out that as usual the lizard is making definitive predictions and his track record with that as you know is laughable.
 
DinkumDog said:
Never said there’s no impact.
AI is an interesting space to watch.
Just pointing out that as usual the lizard is making definitive predictions and his track record with that as you know is laughable.
Click to expand...
Fake lizard.

#Facts
 
DinkumDog said:
Ah Zil :tearsofjoy:.
Having humiliated yourself with the ‘higher power’ absurdity before watching your beloved RFK Jr go down like a $2 hooker in the polls, you’ve now decided to have a crack over a three year old thread to ‘prove that you’re right’?? Too funny. I haven’t looked at the results closely but $5.4b banked ain’t shabby at first glance. If that’s ’gutted like a fish’ I’d take that carcass.

Apart from some pretty wild assumptions that AI and Twatter are killing news (no evidence either is largely true) what you’re overlooking is diversity. Netflix and Twatter have all their eggs in one basket, News don’t. I wouldn’t be so sure about WBD and streaming - they’re a strong brand but they’re very late to the game and Paramount+ and Peacock aren’t doing great.

Sure the delivery method is changing, it was always going to - content has been migrating to the internet for years - hardly a newsflash. But Rupes still had a lot in the armoury including the cash to acquire and assets to divest as needed. To say it’s his Kodak moment is more likely another case of premature ejaculation over things that don’t come true. I’d say your hate of Rupes is akin to Gates and that’s the motivation here. And I’d know - because I’m a Microsoft and News shill as you so expertly deduced years ago :-).
Click to expand...

well you still don't think you are wrong, so you are going down with the ship, news limited are the ones who have been gutted like a fish not netflix, you said netflix have no way real way of making more money and produced a weird ass graph lol, you talked about them doing smart things like transition from dvd rental as if you'd only just heard about them and read their wiki page ffs, well they grew a third in that short time so you should apologise to your family for selling netflix stock

of course the delivery method has changed and of course twitter is killing news, poor old rupert tried to get in on the action thats what he wanted to do with myspace and now trying to create a netflix of sport with other partners

i just wanted to put another win on my name and show that you are a moron, in your argument that netflix was going to be in trouble and news limited were going to be ok you suggested a future where netflix started trying to acquire sports rights and described how much of a killer that would be for them, you should have used that judgement on the company that currently relies on sports rights but your brain couldn't do it
 
lol oh yeah great graph, perfectly illustrates why netflix is not going to continue to grow

graph.jpeg
 
of course if news limited switched to making coffee then they won't die, but the newspaper and cable tv genre is dying and/or dead
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top