You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
It appears to be a big thing, but I'm not sure I understand.
E.g. I find an interesting article in the Crotch Itch Times about Cougar feltching his pet chinchilla (we can say what we like about him now right?). I post a link about it on my Facebook wall. If I did that in Australia it is proposed Facebook would have to pay the Crotch Itch Times for the link. Is that it?
If it is - I'm not sure I get it. Surely my link is driving traffic to the Crotch Itch Times - a good thing for their readership.
Broader point - not sure the change to a huge number of people who rely completely on news from Facebook via their friends' posts in an echo chamber of click baity headlines and cat memes, though I admit getting all your news from the Daily Hell is no better.
I dont get it either. I thought it would be the news bods paying to share it on Facebook. not the other way around.
A bit like paper manufacturers paying newspapers to use their paper.
Or something.
I think this is FB vs the Aussies, rather than Google, which is a separate issue?
I hadn't even realised Australians could read..... 😉
Sorry, you are right. They are having similar with Google but it's Facebook that's taken its bat and walked off. No idea why I wrote Google.
And the Aussies have no need to fear - the article I linked to was mostly photos unfortunately.
Seriously, f*ck Facebook and I think this will backfire hugely on them.
SM needs to be reigned in.
Facebook is pretty toxic. Humanity wouldn't suffer if it disappeared
They now own WhatsApp and Instagram though so it's hard to escape from them
SM needs to be reigned in.
Scott Morrison? 😉
This might be the start of a good thing. Private companies who hold so much soft power may begin to see their reach clipped.
the article I linked to was mostly photos unfortunately
hang on - convert, have you got pictures of Cougar felching his pet chinchilla. asking for a friend
I don’t get it either. Why are Facebook being asked to pay for news?
Because Murdoch has the Australian political system in a tighter grip even than here.
There are no good guys in this story, only a sliding scale of scumbaggery.
Why should Facebook make money from copying other people’s content?
Facebook has no content.
Users are the content.
I'm filing this under "good, but for the wrong reasons"
Because Murdoch has the Australian political system in a tighter grip even than here
Yes, it's widely accepted here that this is why it's happening. But anything that decreases Facebook's influence is probably a good thing.
anything that decreases Facebook’s influence is probably a good thing.
I see this having the opposite effect.
Yes, it does seem a bit like this is Murdoch's attempt to generate revenue from social media, given his control.
It's basically a legislated code that says social media companies will have to negotiate to access Australian news content. The argument is that the big tech companies make money from the content themselves. Counter-argument of course is that there's way more revenue created by clicks from social media into the news websites.
Back in 2016 (IIRC) Murdoch media pretty much monopolised news coverage in Australia, the competition regulator allowing them to buy up all the local papers across the country! Since COVID, Murdoch shut them all and made them online only. Former PM Kevin Rudd is on a mission to dilute Murdoch's influence. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/feb/19/kevin-rudd-says-australian-politicians-frightened-of-murdoch-media-beast-in-senate-inquiry
There was a stoush with Google, but it looks like Google are coming around to the idea that they may have to pay for content: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/feb/17/nine-agrees-to-join-google-news-showcase-in-australia-for-reported-30m-a-year
(Apologies for the Grauniad links, but I have a paid subscription, so it sorta makes sense to share the links - oh, the irony)
Just wondering...
If I were to click a link to a Crotch Itch News story on FB, and were to load/read the article which (usually) has adverts, who gets the revenue from the advert? FB or Crotch Itch News?
Also, does reading the article via FB count as a page impression for Crotch Itch Times for SEO purposes? If so, surely this will hurt the media...
FB "wiped" access to any news channels and govt agencies for a day. Accidentally, of course. All at the same time. No. Not suss at all.
The issue is news stories from news people being shared and re-jizzed on facebook but I also suspect it's a "woah, slow down zuckerpants chill the phuk at ya greedy barstad"
I don’t get it either. Why are Facebook being asked to pay for news?
Just wondering…
If I were to click a link to a Crotch Itch News story on FB, and were to load/read the article which (usually) has adverts, who gets the revenue from the advert? FB or Crotch Itch News?
theres a difference between users sharing a link and platforms delivering content.
I think the issue with Facebook and with Google's 'News service' (rather than someone searching a topic and finding a result on a newspapers website) - is they both seek to serve up other peoples content whilst endeavouring to keep the user on their own site
For instance in Reeksy's post - he references news articles in the Guardian - this website is configured in such a was that consuming that journalism means I have to go to the Guardians website. If the Guardian cited a story on STW it would be via link that would bring you here. Facebook doesnt want you to leave Facebook once you arrive there - it seeks to serve you the Guardian's content without leaving the Facebook page. Many of the evils attributed to Facebook really boil down to algorithms that don't have any concerns other than to endeavour to keep you on the page. Similarly while stories about this refer to 'Google' what they mean is 'Google's News Showcase' - Google serving up third party content to users on a platform that aims to keep those users on that platform.
Clearly Facebook and Google / Alphabet have come to their own arrangement on this sort of thing in the past - if I share a Youtube video on here the content will play on the STW page but Youtube videos posted on Facebook take you out of Facebook and onto Youtube's site.
Clearly Facebook and Google / Alphabet have come to their own arrangement on this sort of thing in the past – if I share a Youtube video on here the content will play on the STW page but Youtube videos posted on Facebook take you out of Facebook and onto Youtube’s site.
Is that not exactly what happens to media content on FB too? Just looked at an article I posted on FB from the Guardian (obvs the Guardian - I'm on STW!). The main photo and the headline is there to see and my witterings about why you should read it but when you click on it you go to the Guardian website to read it. My act of posting the link has increased the potential impressions on the Guardian article not decreased it.
I'm no FB apologist but in this instance the idea of the platform I choose to promote a third party website having to pay the website being advertised feels 180 degrees money flowing the wrong direction.
hang on – convert, have you got pictures of Cougar felching his pet chinchilla. asking for a friend
I'd post a link, but then STW would have to pay the Crotch Itch Times for the privilege. I'm sure you can imagine it if you your friend tries hard enough......
Is that not exactly what happens to media content on FB too.
see here
- in their own words "One destination, hundreds of sources"
see here
– in their own words “One destination, hundreds of sources”
Ah, ok I see now. So it's a condensed news service FB do (that I had no idea about edit - and can't find. Is it in the UK?) hoovering up articles from other sources for those incapable of doing it for themselves. Not the links randoms post up on their individual walls.
That's different then. Is it popular though? i.e. would FB miss it if they dropped it.
Is it popular though?
Obviously its intended to be. Like I say - FB's key priority is to deter you from leaving Facebook's page for as long as possible once you arrive there.