Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Canada ready to tag in for Australia after they pile drive Facebook into oblivion   (reuters.com) divider line
    More: Giggity, Google, Facebook, MySpace, Social media, Australia, Yahoo!, Stanford University, Mass media  
•       •       •

1969 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Feb 2021 at 6:24 PM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



153 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-02-19 12:53:29 PM  
Unfortunately, that just means more propaganda masquerading as news that FB won't block.
 
2021-02-19 1:00:13 PM  
Oh no, eh.
 
2021-02-19 2:53:37 PM  
Kill FB one cut at a time if necessary.
 
2021-02-19 6:28:48 PM  
Then Facebook has an excuse to drop news from Canadian feeds as well. They're not really hurt by this.
 
2021-02-19 6:32:17 PM  
I honestly don't see the upside to Canada or Australia in this. Can someone please point out what the govts are trying to accomplish? Why would Facebook pay to have links to news sites? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
 
2021-02-19 6:32:50 PM  

NeoCortex42: Then Facebook has an excuse to drop news from Canadian feeds as well. They're not really hurt by this.


Don't spoil the submitter's fantasy.

This week, Facebook said news makes up less than 4% of content people see on the platform but contended that it helped Australian publishers generate about AU $407 million last year.

Probably not this year, though.
 
2021-02-19 6:36:25 PM  

HeavyD8086: I honestly don't see the upside to Canada or Australia in this. Can someone please point out what the govts are trying to accomplish? Why would Facebook pay to have links to news sites? Shouldn't it be the other way around?


Link taxes are asinine. They're trying to prop up a dying industry by charging one of the few businesses that is actually sending traffic their way.

I don't want journalism to die, but this isn't the way to save it.
 
2021-02-19 6:39:20 PM  
Facebook without news is ideal for me
 
2021-02-19 6:39:22 PM  

HeavyD8086: I honestly don't see the upside to Canada or Australia in this. Can someone please point out what the govts are trying to accomplish? Why would Facebook pay to have links to news sites? Shouldn't it be the other way around?


Sure but... Considering that Facebook's reaction was to ban ALL news links, and FB is the preeminent source (aside from Fox News) for disinformation, maybe the end result 'aint so bad.
 
2021-02-19 6:40:10 PM  
The important thing is how would legislation like this change Fark? Would Fark.ca be a pay only site so that Drew can pay off news sites?
 
2021-02-19 6:40:45 PM  
facebook threatening to boycott your country's internet is like having the russians threaten to store all the polonium at someone else's embassy.

there is absolutely ZERO reason to cut a deal with a group who actively harms your country.  they can either play ball or show them the door.
 
2021-02-19 6:43:03 PM  
Delete Facebook.
 
2021-02-19 6:43:16 PM  

HeavyD8086: I honestly don't see the upside to Canada or Australia in this. Can someone please point out what the govts are trying to accomplish?


It's a thinly veiled cash grab, targeting a foreign company in hopes of propping up dying local businesses.
 
2021-02-19 6:44:31 PM  
I wish them the best of luck.
 
2021-02-19 6:45:50 PM  
If I download a movie for my private viewing in my home from some pirate site, I'm committing a federal crime,

If FB shows content from tax paying, legal companies AND makes money off of it, then its all A-OK.

Did I get that right, Mark?

fark FB, fark Mark and fark anybody that ever logged into FB.

(including me, when 11 years ago my boss asked me to check why people were criticizing his company on FB... I signed up, checked that people's complaints were totally based on true facts, signed off, and never logged in again.)
 
2021-02-19 6:46:03 PM  
As much as I despise FB I'm not sure I agree with this.

Just make it so all news content links through to the original source so they get their clicks.

It's starting to smell like RIAA bullsh*t.
 
2021-02-19 6:46:32 PM  

mongbiohazard: HeavyD8086: I honestly don't see the upside to Canada or Australia in this. Can someone please point out what the govts are trying to accomplish? Why would Facebook pay to have links to news sites? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Sure but... Considering that Facebook's reaction was to ban ALL news links, and FB is the preeminent source (aside from Fox News) for disinformation, maybe the end result 'aint so bad.


BigNumber12: HeavyD8086: I honestly don't see the upside to Canada or Australia in this. Can someone please point out what the govts are trying to accomplish?

It's a thinly veiled cash grab, targeting a foreign company in hopes of propping up dying local businesses.


That seems to be it. It appears that referrals for news sites are going to go down the drain. I won't miss derpy news on Facebook.
 
2021-02-19 6:46:37 PM  
Well I see facebook has gotten all their comments in.
 
2021-02-19 6:46:50 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-02-19 6:48:18 PM  

NeoCortex42: Then Facebook has an excuse to drop news from Canadian feeds as well. They're not really hurt by this.


"This is just an excuse to remove more content that users want from our platform -- checkmate, content producers 😎"
 
2021-02-19 6:49:58 PM  

here to help: As much as I despise FB I'm not sure I agree with this.

Just make it so all news content links through to the original source so they get their clicks.

It's starting to smell like RIAA bullsh*t.


Like didn't Drew have to deal with something similar many moons ago?
 
2021-02-19 6:50:58 PM  

INTERTRON: NeoCortex42: Then Facebook has an excuse to drop news from Canadian feeds as well. They're not really hurt by this.

"This is just an excuse to remove more content that users want from our platform -- checkmate, content producers 😎"


Just speaking for myself, I'll be happy if that content goes away. I don't use Facebook for news and I don't think it's good for people that do.
 
2021-02-19 6:52:51 PM  
I feel like I am such an outsider for not using facebook sometimes.  It seems to be such an influence in people's lives but it also seems to be such a burden.
 
2021-02-19 6:53:58 PM  

NeoCortex42: INTERTRON: NeoCortex42: Then Facebook has an excuse to drop news from Canadian feeds as well. They're not really hurt by this.

"This is just an excuse to remove more content that users want from our platform -- checkmate, content producers 😎"

Just speaking for myself, I'll be happy if that content goes away. I don't use Facebook for news and I don't think it's good for people that do.


noone uses facebook for news
the problem is very many people THINK they do
 
2021-02-19 6:55:18 PM  
Google and Facebook are monopolies in their areas, and they sure as hell have the money to pay the news content creators. Let them pay up.

Besides, Mark has been a no good thief since he stole the Facebook concept. He deserves no sympathy because he's being asked to do something fair.
 
2021-02-19 7:00:50 PM  

Gergesa: I feel like I am such an outsider for not using facebook sometimes.  It seems to be such an influence in people's lives but it also seems to be such a burden.


It's a trash website. At first it was cool to connect with people and promote my shows but then it just turned into an all consuming hellbeast pitting people against each other.

It so f*cked watching two sane, cool people who have always been friends completely turn on each other over some dumb sh*t on FB.

The fact the company itself INSISTS on creeping your every movement is also very unnerving/annoying.

You made the right call.
 
2021-02-19 7:02:44 PM  

mongbiohazard: HeavyD8086: I honestly don't see the upside to Canada or Australia in this. Can someone please point out what the govts are trying to accomplish? Why would Facebook pay to have links to news sites? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Sure but... Considering that Facebook's reaction was to ban ALL news links, and FB is the preeminent source (aside from Fox News) for disinformation, maybe the end result 'aint so bad.


The disinformation isn't coming to FB from reputable news sources.  It's coming from Fox, OANN, Sinclair, and people's cousins.  Cutting off legit news sources mean all the "news-like" info that people receive from FB is garbage.
 
2021-02-19 7:02:48 PM  

NeoCortex42: INTERTRON: NeoCortex42: Then Facebook has an excuse to drop news from Canadian feeds as well. They're not really hurt by this.

"This is just an excuse to remove more content that users want from our platform -- checkmate, content producers 😎"

Just speaking for myself, I'll be happy if that content goes away. I don't use Facebook for news and I don't think it's good for people that do.


That doesn't really detract from the joke

I mean, they don't need an excuse, if the news is such a burden to them, they can just cut it right now.  They don't, because they benefit from it.
 
2021-02-19 7:04:26 PM  

mongbiohazard: HeavyD8086: I honestly don't see the upside to Canada or Australia in this. Can someone please point out what the govts are trying to accomplish? Why would Facebook pay to have links to news sites? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

Sure but... Considering that Facebook's reaction was to ban ALL news links, and FB is the preeminent source (aside from Fox News) for disinformation, maybe the end result 'aint so bad.


Indeed.  Fox isn't much of a factor in Canada.  Probably not in Oz either.
 
2021-02-19 7:07:43 PM  

BigNumber12: HeavyD8086: I honestly don't see the upside to Canada or Australia in this. Can someone please point out what the govts are trying to accomplish?

It's a thinly veiled cash grab, targeting a foreign company in hopes of propping up dying local businesses.


Not quite.  It's a bunch of countries saying that a corporate entity does not trump their sovereignty.
 
2021-02-19 7:08:03 PM  

here to help: Gergesa: I feel like I am such an outsider for not using facebook sometimes.  It seems to be such an influence in people's lives but it also seems to be such a burden.

It's a trash website. At first it was cool to connect with people and promote my shows but then it just turned into an all consuming hellbeast pitting people against each other.

It so f*cked watching two sane, cool people who have always been friends completely turn on each other over some dumb sh*t on FB.

The fact the company itself INSISTS on creeping your every movement is also very unnerving/annoying.

You made the right call.


I was disappointed to discover that there are government agencies and charities in Australia that use Facebook as their main communications site.
 
2021-02-19 7:20:15 PM  

Mike_1962: Fox isn't much of a factor in Canada.


Ya but SunCorp and Rebel Media are.

whatshisname: I was disappointed to discover that there are government agencies and charities in Australia that use Facebook as their main communications site.


It's sad that such orgs even have to consider FB as a portal to services and the like but so many people seem to just use it exclusively for communication.

Since I am completely separated from all my friends and FB seems to be the only way most of them communicate now I am totally out of the loop since I started boycotting it entirely.

Jerks.

-;-)
 
2021-02-19 7:36:38 PM  

mechgreg: The important thing is how would legislation like this change Fark? Would Fark.ca be a pay only site so that Drew can pay off news sites?



Fark is directing traffic to news sites, you click you see the websites ads. You'd think they'd pay Drew for the traffic?
Disclaimer *  I have no idea how the internet works.
 
2021-02-19 7:37:12 PM  
On one hand I can't believe people are stupid enough to get news from FB, on the other its not like media publications are hiring actual journalists much any more. So Fark them both.
 
2021-02-19 7:37:44 PM  
I'm just wondering how they will be able to define "news". I mean politics is obvious but so is the weather and there's lots of times those intersect. Is a pet food recall "news"?
 
2021-02-19 7:40:07 PM  

Mike_1962: BigNumber12: HeavyD8086: I honestly don't see the upside to Canada or Australia in this. Can someone please point out what the govts are trying to accomplish?

It's a thinly veiled cash grab, targeting a foreign company in hopes of propping up dying local businesses.

Not quite.  It's a bunch of countries saying that a corporate entity does not trump their sovereignty.


It has nothing whatsoever to do with sovereignty, other than the fact that countries are completely free to enact shortsighted laws that inspire companies to stop offering services there.
 
2021-02-19 7:53:42 PM  

I dont want to be on this planet anymore: You'd think they'd pay Drew for the traffic?


Some sites actually do.

It was a big hubbub like 10 years ago or so.
 
2021-02-19 7:57:47 PM  
Facebook without news is just Stormfront.
 
2021-02-19 8:14:01 PM  

TheYeti: NeoCortex42: Then Facebook has an excuse to drop news from Canadian feeds as well. They're not really hurt by this.

Don't spoil the submitter's fantasy.

This week, Facebook said news makes up less than 4% of content people see on the platform but contended that it helped Australian publishers generate about AU $407 million last year.

Probably not this year, though.


If you believe that I've got a fantastic bridge that just fell off the back of a truck.
 
2021-02-19 8:19:12 PM  
So, I actually read the article. Am I wrong to think that the idea here is for Facebook to pay fees to news media for their work if it's used on the site? And that's a bad idea why?
 
2021-02-19 8:26:57 PM  

Action Replay Nick: Facebook without news is just Stormfront.


Mine isn't.  Must depend on who is on your friends list.
 
2021-02-19 8:31:48 PM  

Jerry Curlan's Horsey: So, I actually read the article. Am I wrong to think that the idea here is for Facebook to pay fees to news media for their work if it's used on the site? And that's a bad idea why?


Because Facebook isn't actually using anything.  The United States had a similar 'discussion' roughly 30 years ago, and came down heavily in favor of the aggregators.  We'll wait for you blokes to catch up.
 
2021-02-19 8:36:32 PM  

DeathBySarcasm: Because Facebook isn't actually using anything.


They're making money off people interacting with the site.

Content is what keeps people interacting with the site.

News is a subset of that content.

Facebook can claim that they make 0 marginal dollars as a result of the additional content that is this news, but it's implausible for it to be literally nothing.
 
2021-02-19 8:40:10 PM  

Jerry Curlan's Horsey: So, I actually read the article. Am I wrong to think that the idea here is for Facebook to pay fees to news media for their work if it's used on the site? And that's a bad idea why?


Because FB doesn't put the content there.  The users post links to it.

So I could create a bot farm.  Dump thousands of links to CTV news and then get a fat check from CTV news cut to me each month for the fees FB is forced to pay.

Seems dumb.

So if FB doesn't want to pay the fees then simply not allowing the news site links to go up is fine.

I bet the day after FB cuts news links the news sites are begging for fee exceptions for their site to get the traffic back.
 
2021-02-19 8:42:56 PM  
I'd rather see a tax on internet/media access, heavy regulation of social media, enforcement of fair use and accreditation or code of conduct of "journalists". I have no idea how any of it would work, but a link tax doesn't seem sustainable and against core internet principles.
 
2021-02-19 8:43:53 PM  
So, a good chunk of the posters defending Facebook are giving me a strong "Hello, fellow kids" sock puppet sort of vibe.

Anyone else?
 
2021-02-19 8:44:32 PM  

goodncold: Jerry Curlan's Horsey: So, I actually read the article. Am I wrong to think that the idea here is for Facebook to pay fees to news media for their work if it's used on the site? And that's a bad idea why?

Because FB doesn't put the content there.  The users post links to it.

So I could create a bot farm.  Dump thousands of links to CTV news and then get a fat check from CTV news cut to me each month for the fees FB is forced to pay.

Seems dumb.

So if FB doesn't want to pay the fees then simply not allowing the news site links to go up is fine.

I bet the day after FB cuts news links the news sites are begging for fee exceptions for their site to get the traffic back.


The same thing happened with business competitors using bot farms to click on their competitors' ads and drive up their ad costs.

It wasn't the end of the world.  Ad firms just blocked bot farms.  Anti-fraud technology was developed, and it's a budding industry with its own jobs that popped up from nowhere.  It's not perfect, but it's good enough.

Any other brain busters?
 
2021-02-19 8:50:07 PM  

DeathBySarcasm: Jerry Curlan's Horsey: So, I actually read the article. Am I wrong to think that the idea here is for Facebook to pay fees to news media for their work if it's used on the site? And that's a bad idea why?

Because Facebook isn't actually using anything.  The United States had a similar 'discussion' roughly 30 years ago, and came down heavily in favor of the aggregators.  We'll wait for you blokes to catch up.


Yeah, I didn't get the feeling that anything had yet been set in stone, only that they were looking at different approaches. I also didn't get the feeling that the government was planning on backing down on checking out their options. But if their argument is that Facebook should pay if I post a link to a Canadian news site, I fail to understand why they would think so. There's a missing piece here, somewhere.
 
2021-02-19 8:51:12 PM  

INTERTRON: DeathBySarcasm: Because Facebook isn't actually using anything.

They're making money off people interacting with the site.

Content is what keeps people interacting with the site.

News is a subset of that content.

Facebook can claim that they make 0 marginal dollars as a result of the additional content that is this news, but it's implausible for it to be literally nothing.


Facebook never said didn't make profit-they said they were fed up
With Australia's socialist horse
manure, and will no longer play that game.  When they link content, the content creator profits (sometimes considerably) with actual money that they would never have otherwise realized.*  And if they have a problem with being linked, they can always stash their stuff behind a paywall.  And I wish any business doing so the best of luck with that model... it normally leads to bankruptcy.

*Offer no longer valid in Australia
 
2021-02-19 8:54:45 PM  

INTERTRON: goodncold: Jerry Curlan's Horsey: So, I actually read the article. Am I wrong to think that the idea here is for Facebook to pay fees to news media for their work if it's used on the site? And that's a bad idea why?

Because FB doesn't put the content there.  The users post links to it.

So I could create a bot farm.  Dump thousands of links to CTV news and then get a fat check from CTV news cut to me each month for the fees FB is forced to pay.

Seems dumb.

So if FB doesn't want to pay the fees then simply not allowing the news site links to go up is fine.

I bet the day after FB cuts news links the news sites are begging for fee exceptions for their site to get the traffic back.

The same thing happened with business competitors using bot farms to click on their competitors' ads and drive up their ad costs.

It wasn't the end of the world.  Ad firms just blocked bot farms.  Anti-fraud technology was developed, and it's a budding industry with its own jobs that popped up from nowhere.  It's not perfect, but it's good enough.

Any other brain busters?


Please.  That is less than perfect.

100's of millions of $$ are lost in bad faith participants in AdTech.

Why start something you know is just going to be corrupted out if they are like this?

I don't get it. If the government doesn't like how much money these tech companies make then come up with a tax for their income. And I would be fine with that (btw, I don't like Facebook).

What they are proposing is just stupid.

I would bet that most Major news outlets and a good portion of the smaller ones have most of their traffic originating from Facebook, Twitter and the like.

So you place fees at the source.  The source dries up and now the news sites die from lack of traffic.

These are rules made by people with no understanding of how the economy of the internet works.
 
Displayed 50 of 153 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.