Facebook Cancels News: WTF Happened?
So! A lot of Aussies woke up this Thursday morning and realised that all the local and global news sites was gone from Facebook. There has been an unsurprising uproar across the country, and you might be wondering what the heck is going on, and why? I shared my thoughts this afternoon on 4BC radio but I wanted to break it down in more detail — here’s what you need to know!
What happened?
Facebook has banned all news on its platform, meaning you can’t share or consume any news at all. As a user, this is annoying and controversial, but as a publisher, you can’t do anything, and entire pages have been deactivated.
A big hairy problem (among other things) is the term “news” is quite vague and it’s affecting basically anyone who shares story-related content. This has impacted a lot of businesses, pages like realestate.com.au and even government accounts like Queensland Transport and Queensland Health were down (which have been reinstated).
Why did it happen?
It’s the result of an ongoing battle between American tech giants and Aussie publishers. In a nutshell, the media wants to be paid for their articles and content. Facebook barely flinched and straight-up said no, even saying they don’t need news on their platform and they won’t be affected at all if they remove it. Talk about a power move!
Why do media outlets want to be paid?
News media pays journalists to produce content that draws readers. Facebook and Google curate that content which is more convenient for readers (as opposed to going to the media outlet’s website). And since the tech companies make a big chunk of their money from people spending time on their platform and seeing ads, they make (some of) their money from sharing the news, while the actual content creators don’t.
Meanwhile, less people are visiting the media website because they’ve already got the news elsewhere (e.g their Facebook news feed), which means less web traffic for the media company, which means less ad revenue and subscriptions.
As such — a simple way to solve the problem is to get the tech companies to pay the media companies for their content. It’s less about protecting intellectual property and more about protecting their ability to compete with these huge companies on a fair playing field.
Why doesn’t Facebook want to?
As you might expect, they don’t want to. They argue the law doesn't reflect how the internet works, and unfairly "penalises" their platforms.
Facebook stated it helped Australian publishers earn about $407 million last year through referrals, but with only 4% of the content on Facebook in Australia being news, their gain is minimal. They also argue the law penalizes them for content they didn’t take or ask for. (Fair point).
Australia isn’t even a big market for Facebook in comparison to other countries, so why the fuss? It’s speculated that if they cave into Australia, Canada and the UK will come knocking too. Obviously, that’s something they want to avoid.
Facebook wants control and doesn’t want governments telling them what to do or how much they have to pay. And as a result, they flexed their power and showed what happens if you try to threaten them. Not the most professional way to go about it, but certainly showed Australia where they stand!
Where is it heading?
To be honest, I don’t know. Personally, I think it’s a power move from Facebook to show how much negative impact it‘s having, so they can make the point “it’s much better our way than your way”.
That said — this obviously isn’t ideal and likely not sustainable, so I’m sure they will meet in the middle somewhere. Treasurer Josh Frydenberg tweeted he had a "constructive" discussion with Mark Zuckerberg on Thursday. Apparently, Zucks raised a few issues with the government's news media bargaining code and they agreed to continue their conversation to try to find a pathway forward.
(FYI it’s also not the first time a country has demanded this, it has happened before in France and Spain).
Will people stop using Facebook?
I doubt it. As an everyday user, perhaps some people take a stand and go elsewhere, but a lot of people are addicted to social media (whether they admit it or not) and the frustration will likely fade.
As a business, Facebook is one of the most effective ways to advertise and generate customers — so if it can still do that, they will still use it (and pay for it). I don’t think people’s ethics will stop them from using something that works… and therein lies the problem! Facebook is the big dog, and they can do what they want.
What about Google?
Google made a similar threat to shut down its entire search engine across the country. However, since then they’ve handled the situation very differently to Facebook and seem more committed to a resolution. They have come to a few agreements including agreeing to pay for some of Newscorp’s news content, in exchange for cutting them some slack with the new law. More updates to come from them.
A quick note about the algorithms…
I just wanted to add… whilst I think news should be allowed on Facebook and the media outlets should have a fair go, people shouldn’t consume all of their news from Facebook. Social media is designed to be as engaging as possible so you stay on it, and one of the ways they do that is by knowing what you like.
They know what you like based on what you read, click, engage with and even when you stop scrolling to read something (even if you don’t touch anything). Once they know what you like, they will send you more stuff you like because it will keep you around.
Which means! If you start looking at things like fake news, conspiracy theories or other misinformation, you will start seeing MORE fake news, conspiracies and misinformation. This is a large reason why people are so divided because they are only seeing what re-affirms their opinions. They are surrounded by people and content that believe what they believe and they never see the other side.
Meanwhile, the exact same thing is happening on the opposite side. Meaning people are so opposed and so confident and so passionate. A dangerous cocktail!
So in short… you should get your news from multiple sources.
What do I think?
Whilst a lot of people are vilifying Facebook (understandably so) I do see both sides of the argument. That said, Facebook definitely could’ve handled this in a much more professional way and figured out how to meet in the middle, like what Google is doing.
I do think these “too big to fail” tech companies get away with a lot of dodgy behavior and also make an ungodly amount of money so they can definitely afford it, but the “you have the money to pay for it” argument is oversimplified.
I think some businesses and industries will be seriously affected (like media companies, obviously) and for others, (like local cafes and gyms) it won’t make much difference at all. We will see how it all unfolds!