Facebook threatens to block Australians from sharing news over ACCC bargaining code
Facebook has threatened to block Australians from sharing news across its platforms in response to the ACCC’s proposed code which would see publishers able to bargain with tech giants for payment for their news content.
The sharing of personal content between family and friends wouldn’t be affected by the change, but Australian users would be unable to share both local and international news on Facebook or Instagram.
Will Easton, managing director for Facebook in Australia and New Zealand said the News Media Bargaining Code would have a negative impact on the publishers who are calling for the change, as well as the tech platforms.
“Australia is drafting a new regulation that misunderstands the dynamics of the internet and will do damage to the very news organisations the government is trying to protect. When crafting this new legislation, the commission overseeing the process ignored important facts, most critically the relationship between the news media and social media and which one benefits most from the other,” said Easton in a blog post.
https://twitter.com/cheynederson/status/1300601352016420864
The purpose of the code, which has received support from all major media companies, is to reset the balance of power between the media giants and the tech platforms by allowing publishers to bargain for payment when their content is used. Facebook has confirmed that all publishers will be impacted if it decides to block news content in Australia, not just those involved in the ACCC discussions.
“Assuming this draft code becomes law, we will reluctantly stop allowing publishers and people in Australia from sharing local and international news on Facebook and Instagram. This is not our first choice – it is our last. But it is the only way to protect against an outcome that defies logic and will hurt, not help, the long-term vibrancy of Australia’s news and media sector,” said Easton.
Facebook’s comments follow a strong response from Australia’s other major tech platform, Google. MD Mel Silva said the changes would create a ‘dramatically’ worse experience for consumers and warned that publishers would make ‘unreasonable and exorbitant financial demands’.
Easton called the proposed law ‘unprecedented in its reach’ and said the ACCC would force Facebook to pay for content that was voluntarily being shared across its platform.
“The ACCC presumes that Facebook benefits most in its relationship with publishers, when in fact the reverse is true. News represents a fraction of what people see in their News Feed and is not a significant source of revenue for us. Still, we recognize that news provides a vitally important role in society and democracy, which is why we offer free tools and training to help media companies reach an audience many times larger than they have previously,” said Easton.
Both Facebook and Google have denied they receive significant commercial benefit from news content. They have also questioned other parts of the code, including the possibility that the platforms would need to expose their algorithms or provide news producers with more data than they currently have access too. Google warned in an open letter to consumers that the proposed changes could be dangerous for Australian users.
https://twitter.com/cameronwilson/status/1300599798421098497
“A proposed law, the News Media Bargaining Code, would force us to provide you with a dramatically worse Google Search and YouTube, could lead to your data being handed over to big news businesses, and would put the free services you use at risk in Australia,” said Silva.
Easton also denied that Facebook makes money from news, saying that in the first five months of 2020, Facebook providing Australian news websites with 2bn clicks, worth an estimated $200m, for ‘no charge’.
Campbell Brown, Facebook’s vice president of global news partnerships, also posted about the change, saying the platform’s commitment to journalism had not changed and pointing to its ongoing investment in news reporting and investigative journalism.
“We are disappointed by the outcome in Australia. This is not what we wanted and I want to make sure you know that the decision has nothing to do with our ongoing global commitment to journalism and the Facebook Journalism Project. We will continue to invest heavily in news around the world,” Reid said.
The announcement about news came as Facebook warned users it would be updating its terms of reference next month. The agreement says: “We also can remove or restrict access to your content, services or information if we determine that doing so is reasonably necessary to avoid or mitigate adverse legal or regulatory impacts to Facebook”.
Facebook is also changing its terms of service, allowing it to remove content to "avoid or mitigate regulatory impacts to Facebook" pic.twitter.com/Wnxf4VIC9Y
— David Swan is on leave (@swan_legend) September 1, 2020
Facebook came under criticism for the way it chose to announce the news, briefing American journalists before the event and providing exclusive interviews, but refusing to talk to Australian media.
Critics have said Facebook’s decision to focus its announcement in America clearly shows where the tech company’s priorities lie.
https://twitter.com/arielbogle/status/1300587695245201409
“We already invest millions of dollars in Australian news businesses and, during discussions over this legislation, we offered to invest millions more. We had also hoped to bring Facebook News to Australia, a feature on our platform exclusively for news, where we pay publishers for their content,” said Easton.
“But these proposals were overlooked. Instead, we are left with a choice of either removing news entirely or accepting a system that lets publishers charge us for as much content as they want at a price with no clear limits. Unfortunately, no business can operate that way.”
topics
ACCC
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Campbell Brown
Facebook
Facebook Australia
Facebook Journalism Project
Google
Google Australia
Mel Silva
News Media Bargaining Code
Will Easton
Did ACCC and the Publishers seriously expect a different response from FB (and Google before them)? What the ham-fisted revenue sharing model they’ve come up with fails to acknowledge is that the relationship between publishers and FB/Google is mutually beneficial. FB gets “some” benefit from allowing users (and the publishers themselves) to share news content (although I don’t think it’s as great as the publishers seem to feel it is). And the publishers get their content in front of a massive audience they couldn’t hope to on their own as well as very significant traffic to their own sites. As FB’s local chief says, the revenue sharing model “would force Facebook to pay news organisations for content that the publishers voluntarily place on our platforms and at a price that ignores the financial value we bring publishers.” Quite.
User ID not verified.
I would absolutely prefer it if this came to pass.
User ID not verified.
This is a huge ACCC failure.
The ACCC should safeguard consumers not big media.
As a consumer I want the ACCC to protect my data and content rights.
For access to my data, I want legal restrictions on use. Facebook should not be allowed to simply waive all responsibility without condition.
I want unfiltered publishing OR my fair share.
Facebook stopped protecting my free speech with the launch of news feed. Algorithms editorialise my social media voice in every moment. So Facebook needs to be either accountable to media laws OR face a public class action for commercial license rights of our collective images and content. The real content and data comes from people – not news media.
The ACCC is supposed to stop monopolies like Facebook from taking all the money, paying no tax and carrying zero consumer responsibility.
User ID not verified.
These platforms do not directly benefit from news.
What they offer is a concentrated volume of audience that is offered more choice in where they receive their news from, whereas previously it was mostly the FTA networks and major news publishers only.
What these platforms have done is dilute the distribution advantage that these traditional platforms held by offering more choice to the end audience. Hence why they are crying foul.
User ID not verified.
“This is not our first choice – it is our last”
Hate to get technical, but choosing to pay journalists for access to their content is actually the last choice Facebook is deciding to make here.
User ID not verified.
Media orgnisations currently voluntarily give their content over to FB no?
Like a comment on a similar FB/ACCC article stated, it literally takes 3 lines of code to stop it being shared on Google…
Pretty obviously a politically motivated shakedown (hence the $150k minimum..) to ensure the media keeps pushing the narrative the Govt. wants them to push (or in News’ case openly propaganda for the Govt.).
User ID not verified.
Define what you mean by access to their content? In terms of choices – news publishers “choose” to have a Facebook page, they “choose” to post their content on FB to reach a wider audience, they “choose” to have social media share buttons on their website so people can amplify. If this brought in monthly active users and revenue to Facebook than they wouldn’t be blocking. It’s clearly replaceable with content from friends, family, pages and groups. Why should they be forced to pay millions to billions in Australia for (mostly trash) publishers voluntarily post on their platforms? Risking their global business for 16m people in Australia?
User ID not verified.
Can’t really blame news publishers for trying to gain value now the duopoly has been built off their content. (Yes, its not all built on their content – but lets not split hairs, its a percentage)
To be perfectly fair, the content providers should be back-paid that percentage from when Google and FB first launched in Oz to represent the share of input into their ad software dominance.
Wont happen of course as the news publishers walked into this mess. This deal is a steal though for Google and FB – they should just pay it and move on. Its essentially a parking ticket that legitimises their control of the ad industry.
User ID not verified.
This is rubbish. Facebook was already an empire before news businesses could post their stories on platform. People were more interested in seeing what their “friends” or long lost school acquaintances were up to. Also what does Instagram have to do with news and journalism? People would rather follow their passions and influencers. Don’t see how News Corp or Nine add any value to Instagram and 13m Australians who use the platform?
There is also this belief from people with NFI about digital advertising that news content is valuable for FB algorithms, building data profiles and selling advertising – this is way off how Facebook actually works. Transactional data and shopping signals is what matters to them.
User ID not verified.
I assume you work for Facebook but this purist comment?
And give society some credit. Yes a large portion of people are on platforms to look at old friends, influencers etc. But the upcoming generation is only in there – and they can and are being served news in different ways.
Sit in that for sec and ponder.
User ID not verified.