Was this already being discussed somewhere
Facebook has removed all news media from its platform in Australia after the government said it would have to pay for news content posted by its users.
Attachment 97548
Printable View
Was this already being discussed somewhere
Facebook has removed all news media from its platform in Australia after the government said it would have to pay for news content posted by its users.
Attachment 97548
They have real superhero
https://youtu.be/9QCgqQdmr0M
I have a hard time seeing a downside to this, unless you are a Facebook shareholder.
tbh the social media companies have made their beds on these issues, now they have to sleep in them. I’m incredibly unsympathetic and frankly want nothing to do with any of them.
I have a pretty strong hatred of Facebook. Which is irrational because I don't have the same feelings about google, amazon etc.
At least Google and Amazon still have a useful consumer service, while they rape your privacy. Facebook was useful for about 5 years.
FtfyQuote:
Originally Posted by Tik-Tok
That’s the big difference to me I agree, Google and Amazon at least serves a purpose to go along with their sketch policies.
Facebook serves no purpose and frankly if it disappeared tomorrow I wouldn’t miss any aspect of them.
Google seems to be going more Facebook by the day though, getting pretty sick of their shit tbh.
Honestly it should make no material difference to FB's revenues nor earnings, I doubt posting news drives any additional traffic to FB.Quote:
Originally Posted by killramos
Considering how much REEEEE it actually causes, it may turn out to be a good thing.
I would be too happy if social media giants got fucked... They have far too much reach to far too many stupid people to be healthy for humanity.
Share on PinterestQuote:
Originally Posted by killramos
Attachment 97555
This "law" was lobbied by News Corp in Australia in name of journalism and they got their way.
Google will pay the ransom:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...for-journalism
And the Zuck won't negotiated with terrorist.
EU is probably looking at this now Australia got away with it.
How's a ransom?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtrema
Let's see here:
Make a portal called news.google.com. Aggregate popular news sites. Okay, hey, that's nice.
Make a site called amp.google.com. Take text and graphics from news sites. Provide that content under amp.google.com. Hmm...
Make amp.google.com links the links for the news article when searching on Google. Hold on!
Google still makes almost all their revenue from ads. Their cloud services have been mostly a flop. They are not a tech company. They are a fucking ad broker. They are trying desperately to make something else their primary revenue generator. They are failing.
As in they never had to pay a dime to media companies before and now they do because of this law lobbied by media companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by suntan
Now a lot of news sites has put up paywalls and such to get funding and Facebook and Google has now dominated the ad revenue game leaving traditional media like TV and Newspaper to wither.
Anyway, the Guardian is probably better than explaining this:
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...r-news-content
Oops. did I just cost Rage $0.02 by posting that link? :D
Did you even comprehend my post? How on earth is The Guardian supposed to get any ad revenue at all if Google isn't even letting people get to their site?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtrema
I like to watch Sky news Austrailia. It has a level of anger, disgust and rancour that is extremely hard to find, on par with city level holding dentention cell in the USA. Like a dingo having a fight with a pitbull with a wolf as a referee.
Rebel news doesn't even compare to Sky News Australia.
The news sites need search engine more than search engine need news sites. This law is about balancing the playing field.Quote:
Originally Posted by suntan
As part of the Australian new media law:
So Google News Showcase is a just a front to set up payments to the media to continue to keep them in the search engine without violating this new rule. So now The Guardian (which is really a Brit rag but say they are Australian for argument sake) can go to Google say pay them to have them on the Showcase or remove all content from all Google platforms and it's up to Google to see if it's worthwhile to strike a deal.Quote:
Where the digital platform obtains value directly or indirectly from content produced by news media businesses, fairly negotiate with news media businesses as to how that revenue should be shared, or how the news media businesses should be compensated.
EU Digital Services and Digital Market act (aka link tax) is now looking adopting similar rule to see if they can milk Google and Facebook the same way.
Personally I don't know where I am in this topic. On one hand, if outfit like Rebelmedia ask Google for $, they will gladly drop them from the search engine since they are just fringe news. But it also give power back to MSM to extract revenue off these platforms, especially people who hate MSMs.
At least, that's how I read this... I could be wrong.
News sites don't need search engines. Google's mostly useless anyhow these days having been gamed to oblivion despite their best efforts, the only thing I use it for is as a StackOverflow search engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtrema
Obviously Google sees some value in having news sites, seeing as how they have a portal that did nothing but scrape news site content.
You seem to link to things you don't understand. Before, news sites were getting zero from Google's scraping. Now they'll get something. Ideally Google should stop scraping, but I doubt there's any lawmakers in gov't that even understand such concepts.