‘Ill-timed and misconceived’: The industry responds to Facebook’s threat to ban news in Australia
Yesterday Facebook made waves across the country when it announced it would remove the ability for Australians to share news content across its platforms should the ACCC’s proposed News Media Bargaining Code come into effect. Mumbrella’s Hannah Blackiston looks at how the industry responded.
Unsurprisingly, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) did not welcome Facebook’s threats to withdraw news content from its platform in Australia.
The watchdog’s chair Rod Sims responded swiftly yesterday, calling the announcement ‘ill-timed and misconceived’ and pointing to the tech giant’s role in spreading important information during a global pandemic.
“The draft media bargaining code aims to ensure Australian news businesses, including independent, community and regional media, can get a seat at the table for fair negotiations with Facebook and Google,” said Sims.
Sims called Facebook’s comments ‘ill-timed’
“Facebook already pays some media for news content. The code simply aims to bring fairness and transparency to Facebook and Google’s relationships with Australian news media businesses.
“We note that according to the University of Canberra’s 2020 Digital News Report, 39% of Australians use Facebook for general news, and 49% use Facebook for news about COVID-19.”
Sims went on to say that he hopes as the draft code is finalised, Facebook will continue to be part of the discussions to reach a result all parties are happy with.
Sims’ thoughts were echoed by Nine, one of the major media companies who has thrown its support behind the code. A Nine spokesperson said the company is ready to meet Facebook at the table.
“We find it a strange response as it is a demonstration of Facebook’s use of its monopoly power while failing to recognise the importance of reliable news content to balance the fake news that proliferates on their platform,” said the spokesperson.
“We are ready to engage and hope to come to a constructive outcome with Facebook which will work for both of us and importantly the Australian community.”
Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, who fronted calls for the code following the ACCC’s digital platform inquiry, wasn’t so polite in his statements.
The government won’t respond to ‘heavy-handed tactics’ said Frydenberg
“Australia makes laws that advance our national interest and we won’t be responding to coercion or heavy-handed tactics, wherever they come from,” Frydenberg said.
“We want a sustainable media environment and key to that is to seek payment for original journalistic content. We’re committed to these reforms – we won’t be bullied, no matter how big the international company is, no matter how powerful they are, no matter how valuable they are.”
Communications minister Paul Fletcher agreed with Frydenberg, saying the threats were likely empty and that the government wouldn’t be swayed by them.
Facebook’s threat to block news posting across Facebook and Instagram by consumers in Australia won’t impact international users, the tech giant has said, but will include publishers not involved in the ACCC’s code. Will Easton, managing director for Facebook in Australia and New Zealand posted the announcement yesterday, saying it was an unfortunate turn, but that Facebook’s hand had been forced.
“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.
Free TV, the industry body for the free to air broadcast industry, accused the platform of ‘holding Australians to ransom’ in its response to the post. CEO Bridget Fair said the move proved at its very core why the ACCC is drafting a code in the first place.
Fair said Facebook was ‘bullying’ and ‘holding Australians to ransom’
“What we’re seeing today is a global monopoly that will say and do anything to avoid making a fair payment for news content. Australian Facebook users are being held to ransom as a tactic to intimidate the Australian Government into backing down on this issue,” said Fair.
“This type of bullying behaviour is exactly the reason that the ACCC concluded that the Mandatory Code was the only reasonable way to even up the bargaining power between Facebook, Google and Australian News Media Businesses.
“Facebook is already awash with fake news and conspiracy theories. Removing trusted Australian news from their platform will only serve to allow misinformation to be further spread unchecked and unchallenged. Unfortunately Australian consumers will be the collateral damage in Facebook’s campaign to hold onto monopoly profits.”
It isn’t yet clear how Facebook would handle the ban, but the platform did roll out a warning to consumers that it could ‘remove or restrict access to your content, services or information’ if ‘doing so is reasonably necessary to avoid or mitigate adverse legal or regulatory impacts to Facebook’. The platform has said content sharing between friends and family wouldn’t be impacted by the ban.
Michelle Rowland, the shadow minister for communications, said the focus from here onwards should be whatever outcome best benefits Australian journalism.
“Australian media is in crisis and the Morrison Government’s track record for delivery in the communications space inspires little confidence,” she said.
“It is the Morrison Government’s responsibility to land a workable code. The range of concerns held by all stakeholders demands a credible response from the Government.
Never has the Fourth Estate been more important and it is imperative that the Government gets this right.”
Australian media industry: The tech giants are stealing our content and monetising it. We want a fair deal.
Tech giants: Oh, sorry. No problem; we really don’t make any money off of it. We will stop allowing your content.*
Australian media; Stop bullying us. You must take our content and pay for it.
Pathetic.
*Something already possible on Google with the addition of about 3 lines of code (robots.txt)
User ID not verified.
Whatever the original design and intent of Facebook, in the here-and-now I find this tool is not useful. In fact, the opposite is true, I characterise Facebook as a time-thief and anxiety-driver (at best).
User ID not verified.
maybe I’m naive, but surely if Facebook wasn’t allowing shared media articles it would also affect their traffic?
I say we call their bluff
User ID not verified.
I agree that Facebook should need to pay publishers for content that either Facebook users or the publishers themselves share on the Facebook platform. Certainly make Facebook pay for news aggregated onto the Facebook News platform (which everyone seems to agree they already do in the overseas product), but I agree that if publishers can charge for however much content they decide to share then that’s unfair to Facebook.
I also don’t agree that Facebook and Google should have to share advance warning of changes which could impact on traffic the publishers are sent. That’s a plainly stupid idea.
Having said all of that, if Facebook block the ability to share news then I’ll be using publisher sites a lot more and Facebook a lot less. I think Facebook really does have the most to lose here.
User ID not verified.
Removing serious news from their platform will mean facebook will become a hive for fake news, hearsay and conspiracies… It will be the end of them as a serious platform, advertisers will leave in droves and no one will take them seriously. They won’t do it.
User ID not verified.
“fair payment for news content”: seriously, this is not about that, otherwise it would have been a copyright law action, for which there is no case as no copyright materials are actually being used. This is a shakedown. If the intention behind this wasn’t about political influence and a shakedown, media companies would have been welcoming Facebook pulling news from its platform as it would have reduced their reliance on an aggregator and given the industry the opportunity to create it’s own news aggregation service. In this world of the internet you are either the aggregator or you are being aggregated: pick which one and develop a business model accordingly.
User ID not verified.
Wow. It’s almost like Facebook don’t care what governments think. Who would’ve thought.
User ID not verified.
It’s only fair that FarceBook and Google pay sources for genuine news, and so good on the ACCC and The Feds!
However, it should also be incumbent on news providers [so-called ‘original sources’ for Facebook and Google] be genuinely up-to-date
So often, major news providers feature headlined articles for days and even weeks in a row, on their sites, news.com.au being the worst perpetrator
Furthermore, just as frequently, when one has viewed or read a piece or article, it pops up next day in another one or more local news medium, absent of attribution; and thus, while we call on F&G to be ethical and responsible as well as pay original sources, it is equally incumbent on News, Nine, etc. to be just as responsible, pay their other original sources for material
Playing fields are rarely level when any form of self-interest is involved
User ID not verified.
And while Allan Fels said he’s not surprised by the tech giants fighting back against the new law, the public will expect the tech giants to “suck it and see”….. Oh really Allan.
User ID not verified.
Why is this bullying? I thought FB got a decent amount of revenue from news on their platform, hence the ACCC code to get them to share some of it??? Or really the media industry needs FB more than FB needs them?
Ridiculous Code is going to get a ridiculous response. There is 100% a national interest in a healthy media, but forcing a company to pay because your business model isn’t as effective as it once was is a crazy precedent. A tax levied on the digital platforms and the govt. distributing it out to the media industry seems like a way more level headed response to the structural issues affecting media/journalism.
User ID not verified.
Did you have any agencies or clients contacted for comment?
It would be interesting to get their point of view considering how important the ad market is to Facebook.
How would the user experience and therefore ad experience be without News content?
User ID not verified.
This could be a net positive for users – if they stopped people from sharing news, then they would stop people from sharing fake news!
User ID not verified.
Rather than the repetitive condemnation of the platforms, when will we actually get a response addressing the concerns the platforms are raising?
User ID not verified.
“A tax levied on the digital platforms and the govt. distributing it out to the media industry seems like a way more level headed response to the structural issues affecting media/journalism.”
So, in other words, government/taxpayers subsidising media companies ? no thanks.
User ID not verified.
Was Facebook ever designed to be a “News” sharing platform? I don’t think so. It’s called “Social Media” for a reason and that to inform friends about your cat , lunch and the kids new handstand capability etc. FB and other social platforms have all crashed off their original track. I don’t care if you share a “3” dog ate Princess Dianna’s lunch” stories, nor the “news” as the other media outlets deliver. SM is full of bile, invective and abuse. If someone shares a “news story,” 99% of the time it’s behind a paywall. News is News and its either newsworthy or it isn’t. Maybe if News outlets came up with a better way to present their news, people might not share it on SM. Be not worried – the media giants will come to a deal, sticking it to advertisers in the process!
User ID not verified.
If the publishers seriously believe FB and Google are ripping them off and unfairly benefiting from their content, then how come they (the publishers) collectively spend so much time/money/effort trying to get that content onto those platforms (SEO, SEM, Facebook marketing, dedicated social and search specialists etc etc)? Isn’t that tacit acknowledgement that they derive a lot of benefit from accessing the platforms’ audience, and from the traffic they drive back to their sites?
User ID not verified.
Publishers absolutely frothing over this alternate dystopian reality, where they actually have power again.
“Lets take it back to 2010 and charge $200k for a daily roadblock and a weird spinning cube format that comes out of an mrec”
User ID not verified.
100% agree with the tax/levy + distribute idea from ‘lol’. If the end-game here is to get dollars from the digital platforms and put it in the hands of Australian news organisations, there’s a much more efficient way to go about it.
Facebook’s revenue comes from ad spend. If Australia enacts ‘the code’, then FB is just going to pass the cost on to Australian businesses in the form of higher advertising costs. So fundamentally, Australian businesses are going to be paying to prop up the Australian news industry regardless.
You can get the same result without all this ridiculous back-and-forth by whacking a levy on Australian digital ad spend, and putting it in a pool. Then ‘the Code’ can govern the rules and eligibility for how news organisations can access the funding in the form of grants/concessions, thereby making profitable the kinds of journalism that doesn’t necessarily drive revenue but is considered in the national interest.
User ID not verified.
Will you use publishers sites if you have to pay for them?
User ID not verified.
Exactly right.
User ID not verified.
The key issue everyone seem’s to be harping on about is a healthy journalism industry, which I do think is important to maintain for modern democracy. Journalism’s traditional business model (advertising) has been disrupted by the tech aggregators and so more effort should be focused on working out a way to subsidise this.
Unfortunately this has turned into a public shakedown by Nine/News leveraging political power to extort money from Google and FB. FB and Google are not extorting Nine/News, if anything they’re extorting the Aussie tax payer by paying no tax. Thus I think it would be more worthwhile if we just levied a tax on these companies which could then be used to fund “public good” journalism subsidies.
We tax cigerettes to cover the health expenses they cause, we should do the same with the tech companies.
Unfortunately this whole debate has not addressed the core issue, it’s just turned into the media industry leveraging their political power to unfairly utilise the government regulator to line their pockets due to their ongoing business model issues. It’s frankly ridiculous and unfair to other businesses (and independent journalists [who are not subsidised in the code], websites etc) trying to make a fair go of it out there.
User ID not verified.
agree 100%.
there’s a simple answer for publishers who bleat about being exploited and taken advantage of by the big bad platforms. Block your content from being searched or shared on those platforms. Publishers know very well how easy it is to do this, but they choose not to. Maybe the publishers could explain why ?
User ID not verified.
I agree Josh, well said.
User ID not verified.
SMH and AFR in Incognito Mode plus ABC means I don’t need to pay the publishers – aside from being a number to be served an ad. Even if I did have to pay the publishers it wouldn’t be any different if I first saw the headline on their website or Facebook.
User ID not verified.
One thinks that our major media players, like same in other sectors, do complain too much expecting a form of national socialism from captured government while expecting everyone else to embrace libertarian economic ideology.
On the other hand they squeal if Facebook (or a Google) threaten to exercise their own commercial or libertarian business choice in not carrying content from Australian commercial media.
Maybe Australia and its media are the problem and a metaphor? Not expecting to innovate and relying upon the government to maintain their commercial position; denying the ‘corporate eugenics’ promoted by their own ideology?
User ID not verified.
yep, just cut it off and see who really needs who
User ID not verified.
Why does none of this appear to add up?
If media houses don’t feel they’re getting a fair deal for their content and Facebook and Google are offering to stop driving traffic / sharing content, wouldn’t this solve their complaint? Surely then they go back to competing for eyeballs and driving their own traffic via marketing and other means.
Why does the ACCC feel they should be telling the tech platforms how to run their business if FB and Google said they’re happy to pay for the content but not adhere to all the other terms around data sharing and updates to their algorithm? If it’s truly about the money then surely just let that be the focus and put some legislation around that. If the tech companies think it’s unfair due to the free views/ clicks they already drive, then why don’t they just charge the media houses like they do other advertisers?
Remember when the big media houses used to hold all the power and no one did anything to stop that. Seems odd the government is siding with these companies who drive agendas.
User ID not verified.
Make them pay, I say. Facebook is spreading hate and lies, the world is a mess yet the tech giants are busy spreading fake news and defending their monopolistic business models. It’s time they face up more regulation and take responsibility for the evil they put out into the world instead of being so defensive and arrogant.
User ID not verified.
Ha! Do you think any agency will provide anything other than a non-committal, fence sitting opinion on this? They will remark that they will invest in whichever platforms are in the best interests of their clients and that they remain platform agnostic
User ID not verified.
Oh my, Agency view irrelevant. I don’t think enough people have worked in the business end of creating news. Yes while everyone was sleeping, FB and others came around and lured vast numbers of people onto the platform. That’s fine. and it’s fine that as time went on they created reasons for you to spend more and more time and to rely more and more on them. That’s what all big techs do and that’s the big digital amplification strategy. It’s the business model. It’s also the whole point to aggregate rather than pay for content that costs a lot of money to produce.
How could anyone in the media and advertising industry sympathize with any of these big tech companies. How does Nine or News not have the rite to say, “creating that content cost me $100 and FB/Google suggests an intangible $10 should make me happy.”
FB won’t go anywhere, neither will Google. Just look north to see what happens when they’re not dominating in a market…god forbid a competitor rises.
Stick fat everyone. The world will be a better place even if News are the creators of such iconic productions like FoxNews.
User ID not verified.
@Lisa most people would rather see posts from friends, family and pages/ groups they follow. Facebook already deprioritised news content it and had zero impact on active users and time spent. Advertisers will invest in what drives ROI for their business and where their customers are. Unfortunately legacy news media can only offer those beautiful digital display banners that are now even smaller on a mobile phone. Why would FB risk a $ Trillion Global business for some backwards Australian policy from dinosaurs who don’t understand the internet or modern advertising landscape?
User ID not verified.
Facebook ? What’s that?
User ID not verified.
Media Organisations … really?
Facebook and Google do you a HUUUUGE favor!
User ID not verified.
Time to call their bluff – opportunity to rethink news distribution and alternative platforms.
User ID not verified.