Media, power structures and the internet

[rustychisel]

Perhaps focus your attention on this for a second. Following the wholesale slaughter of media agencies and outlets over the last 5 years, the Australian Government has devised a 'plan' to charge the 'giants' for the use of content and the dissemination of information.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/sep/01/facebook-instagram-threatens-block-australians-sharing-news-landmark-accc-media-law

A key point. Are the social media platforms publishers per se?
The response. Well, in any other context you'd look at where the money goes, and therefore the power structure under review. In today's reply the bully has threatened to take its bat and ball and go home. Classy.

Now, I'm not saying this is a good 'plan', but this is an issue which deserves to be scrutinised and debated around the world. That's what they're afraid of.

[XXtwindad]

This sums it up neatly:

“Google and Facebook’s aggressive response to regulation reinforces why a countervailing media is so vital for Australian democracy.”
[/I]

[jpw]

They quietly (covertly) fund, through third party organisations (think tanks, foundations, et.c.) 'academic research' that they then present to law makers as evidence in support of their position in regulatory debates about the future of the internet and data control.

The way forward may be to require the behemoths to open up their datasets to API access to a multitude of third party application providers. If this is resisted then break them up.

In some more progressive countries (think Scandinavia) media is publicly funded to ensure a broad spectrum of opinion and debate. The dynamic of the market (network effect, consumer capture, et.c.) leads to quasi monopolistic outcomes. This is bad.

[barnabyjones]

A must watch:

https://www.netflix.com/title/81254224

[rustychisel]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/18/facebook-blocks-health-departments-charities-and-its-own-pages-in-botched-australia-news-ban

Here we go, this is still playing out. Why are Facebook so scared? Because it casts them in the light of publishers who must take responsibility for their own actions, something Mr Zuckerberg has avoided doing to this point.

Google is doing deals with media outlets which is essentially 'blood money' for content.

Never mind the thousands and thousands of small publishers previously forced out of business because, huh, that's the price of progress.

Is there a possibility this model, flawed as it is, could be looked at in other territories?

[dgauthier]

A must watch:

https://www.netflix.com/title/81254224

A must watch indeed. Thanks to this documentary I finally convinced my wife to delete her Facebook account.

[jimoots]

Yeah this is a weird one, I don’t know where I sit.

The moral argument for Facebook et al paying publishers and particularly news media is a clear one: a healthy news media is vital for successful democracy. Hold politicians to account and all that.

The cynical look at this is that Murdoch’s news corporation was slow to innovate and has suffered in the transition to digital. The prevailing party is very much in Rupert’s pocket and are doing his bidding.

Facebook have shown their true colours in a way that anyone who follows their strategy (note: I do) is absolutely no surprise. What will be interesting is how the public react, and if it affects Facebook’s usage.

I think fundamentally I agree that for-profit platforms should pay publishers (a la YouTube) as they directly profit from publishers. And when I say publishers, I’m not just talking about news media.

In the meantime I’m enjoying Facebook without the click bait headlines and angry boomers lighting up the comments.

[rustychisel]

Yeah this is a weird one, I don’t know where I sit.


Indeed, it's complex rather than simple, and I teach this rubbish to higher education students.

It isn't even political. It's much more important than that.

I rather hoped that more forum members might engage in one of the great debates this decade (which rather understates the importance of it), but, y'know, a handful is where it's at for the worlds great democracy.

I'm rather enjoying FB by not being on FB.

[Germany_chris]

I think as a whole it's more important to break up Facebook and Google than to try to regulate them further.

[verticaldoug]

I don't think the issue is paying for news or not paying for news. The real issue is data collection from the user base.

This is true for Facebook, Google, Amazon and others. Apple does it but can easily live without it.

That is why Facebook is upset with Apple over recent IOS changes.

Google sacrifices a pawn to save the queen.... this is obvious

[rustychisel]

I don't think the issue is paying for news or not paying for news. The real issue is data collection from the user base. ....
Google sacrifices a pawn to save the queen.... this is obvious


I think this an excellent point, whether obvious I'm not so sure. It is clear the current non regulatory model is not one they willingly give up.

[makoti]

They quietly (covertly) fund, through third party organisations (think tanks, foundations, et.c.) 'academic research' that they then present to law makers as evidence in support of their position in regulatory debates about the future of the internet and data control.


I don't care who you are talking about, which side of the fence you sit on, this is true. "They" (meaning those with differing views) do this to support their positions. Always have, always will. It needs to stop. For them, not us.
Money. That's the bottom line. With enough, you have influence, and the rest falls into place.

[BobbyJones]

Just give the people what they want.

They'll (we) get what they deserve.

[Hilltopwalters]

I'm actually starting to research the effects that removing the Fairness Doctrine has had for the democracy and pluralism of news outlets in the US. The death of pluralism within political spheres has led to the death of pluralism in the public sphere. Very interesting stuff especially given how easily social media giants and tech-lords can skirt FCC regulation.

[Black Dog]

Social media is not serving humans well. Not sure the cost is worth the price.

[bicycletricycle]

I believe attempts to control communication, by anyone, are dangerous. The government should not be involved in any way with any type of communication systems other than to provide a place to sue them.

The question of if they are a publisher or not isn't that important outside the context of legal protections not provided to publishers, however, they are clearly publishers, they clearly edit content.

[bicycletricycle]

Also,

Social media platforms have obviously disrupted how we get information, this has left traditional media in the lurch. Also, these platforms do benefit from presenting media they have not produced or licensed. But this type of legislation is weird. Should they pass a law making sure authors get paid every time someone mentions a book title, links to a book or types a quote into their youtubes? Isn't this what an author would want? exposure? Looks to me like social media platforms are basically monetizing gossip. Why should they have to pay the people who they are providing widespread exposure to?

Trying to revive a type of media that isn't working just doesn't make any sense. News agencies don't have the right to get paid, they have to figure out a business model that works for the time they are in. If the news is important and if people do value it than it shouldn't be that hard to figure out a was to profit from producing it, in any free market.

If the state feels like their megahorn is failing they should just make the relationship formal, nationalize the dying media giants and force people to play it in public spaces. That way it will be clear when we are getting state messaging and when we are not.

[HenryA]

Being able to apply U. S. copyright law as it was originally intended would be a great tool to hold accountable those otherwise protected by §230. It would also be extremely inconvenient and expensive for those publishers or carriers or conduits as you might choose to call them. They would have to change or pay the price for their transgressions.

The rise of the internet business model (to a large extent enabled by §230) killed off large numbers of creative jobs and traditional outlets for the work of photographers, writers, etc. This was not just the march of time and the creative destruction of markets at work, this was done by government action which gave favorable treatment to one group of people to the disadvantage of others.

I think one best solution is to consider internet publishers to be considered exactly that - as the law had developed earlier for print publishers. The common carrier concept might be a good way as well. But either way will be subject to regulatory or legislative capture. Breaking the giants into many smaller units would also be a way to remove these leeches from their hosts.

When government gives immunity from suit to any entity it is likely done as a favor for support by that entity or industry. Sometimes there might be a rational public policy reason to do so. I am pretty sure we see more of the former these days.

That’s a problem but the other side of it is a bigger problem. What do you do as an individual when any entity injures you but is immune because of an arbitration agreement, contract of adhesion, case law, or a statue prohibiting them from being sued? Your rights have been taken and very much to your detriment. Centuries of civil law were swept aside. Its time for the pendulum to swing the other way.

[azrider]

A must watch:

https://www.netflix.com/title/81254224

This was absolutely terrifying. Especially considering the background and positions these folks held while they were at social media companies.

[jimoots]

I believe attempts to control communication, by anyone, are dangerous. The government should not be involved in any way with any type of communication systems other than to provide a place to sue them.

The question of if they are a publisher or not isn't that important outside the context of legal protections not provided to publishers, however, they are clearly publishers, they clearly edit content.

A hands off approach is nice in theory but what happens when there's a market failure, which is pretty clear in the case of both FB and Google. Huge and effectively monopolies.

[rustychisel]

The rise of the internet business model (to a large extent enabled by §230) killed off large numbers of creative jobs and traditional outlets for the work of photographers, writers, etc. This was not just the march of time and the creative destruction of markets at work, this was done by government action which gave favorable treatment to one group of people to the disadvantage of others.



Well, indeed. A nuanced examination.

Bicycletricycle: being adjudged a publisher goes directly to ownership, control and exploitation of copyrights, among other things. In Australia, numerous legal cases have effectively established that Google and FB act as publishers.

The current issue - legislation to be considered by parliament - is really a tax upon operating in this country... blood money. Such a precedent would open the doors worldwide, so even though Australia is less than 1% of FB's revenues the ramifications are massive.

Incidentally, the current 'agreements' being struck with Google by a few media outlets involve Rupert Murdoch's mob, another large concern, and the ABC (the national broadcaster).

As to the hundreds of other [smaller[ publishers, country newspapers, specialist publications etc who were killed in the FB onslaught from 2013 onward, apparently nobody gives a rats.

[C40_guy]

Just give the people what they want.

They'll (we) get what they deserve.

Ted Koppel spoke at my son's college graduation about ten years ago and said exactly the same thing.

He asked, (paraphrasing):

Wonder why news has devolved from real, hard-hitting journalism, to the mental pablum that's delivered by the talking heads now?

It's because that's what the public wants.

Too bad that's what you're now getting...

Hard to hear, sad to think about...

[rustychisel]

Yes, Koppel was paraphrasing Juvenal's 'bread & circuses'.

[TimD]

I don't think the issue is paying for news or not paying for news. The real issue is data collection from the user base.

This is true for Facebook, Google, Amazon and others. Apple does it but can easily live without it.

That is why Facebook is upset with Apple over recent IOS changes....

Relevant: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/opinion/sunday/facebook-surveillance-society-technology.html

[BobbyJones]

I just watched a news segment on the FB / Australia thing. I didn't understand exactly what was going on.

From what I get, the Government wants FB to pay for UG News content. FB ( a private company) doesn't want to pay, so to be in accordance with proposed (?) laws they pull / block all UG News content.

Uproar ensues.

Doesn't that sound a bit like extortion on the Govt. side? Or am I missing something?

[HenryA]

Some would say that FB is stealing the news from UG.

Any and everything posted on the internet is not free for everyone to use as if it is theirs. (although many seem to believe it is) And more so when the use is for financial gain.

Basics here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_8hKfVgwzg&loclr=blogcop

Expand that from a guy who posted a great cat picture on his blog to a company in the news business that publishes copyrightable work on line. Using anyone's work without prior authorization is, in many people's minds, stealing.

[Llewellyn]

A must watch indeed. Thanks to this documentary I finally convinced my wife to delete her Facebook account.

I haven't used Facebook in years but I'd like to know how to do this please.

[BobbyJones]

Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. The government is telling them (essentially) to pay for it....or stop distributing it.

So they stop distributing it. Why is everyone in an uproar? Especially the government- At least in the news clip I watched.



Some would say that FB is stealing the news from UG.

Any and everything posted on the internet is not free for everyone to use as if it is theirs. (although many seem to believe it is) And more so when the use is for financial gain.

Basics here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_8hKfVgwzg&loclr=blogcop

Expand that from a guy who posted a great cat picture on his blog to a company in the news business that publishes copyrightable work on line. Using anyone's work without prior authorization is, in many people's minds, stealing.

[makoti]

Yes. That’s exactly what I’m saying. The government is telling them (essentially) to pay for it....or stop distributing it.

So they stop distributing it. Why is everyone in an uproar? Especially the government- At least in the news clip I watched.

As I understand it, FB didn't just stop distributing that content, they stopped ANY content like it. Gov site links went dark. Covid information went dark. Lots of information that really wasn't at issue was blocked.

[54ny77]

10000000% agree with this.

Social media is not serving humans well. Not sure the cost is worth the price.

[Louis]

This whole Facebook vs Australian Media thing is nothing more than a battle between Mark Zuckerberg and Rupert Murdoch, and if you can figure out whom to root for in that battle, well, good luck.

A pox on both their houses, I say.

[Llewellyn]

This whole Facebook vs Australian Media thing is nothing more than a battle between Mark Zuckerberg and Rupert Murdoch, and if you can figure out whom to root for in that battle, well, good luck.

A pox on both their houses, I say.

Agreed, a pox on both of them.

Back in a 1994 interview just before his death, Dennis Potter said that he had nicknamed his pancreatic cancer "Rupert" as an symbol of what Murdoch had done to the media.

He was spot on then, and it's been an even more prophetic observation in the years since. Murdoch's media outlets don't report news, they spout Rupert's opinions dressed up as "news".