• Pendulum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Freebooting of news article is distinctly what this is about. Content creators losing clicks, impressions, and ad revenue due to Metas methodology.

    People can have a whinge “it’s news corp so fugg them” but just because something hurts something you don’t like doesn’t make it okay.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zoneOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      No, it’s not. Did you read this article? Did you read earlier articles around the time that the law this article is referencing was first being discussed & came into effect? Did you read Mike Masnick’s article linked in my earlier comment?

      This is about Australia’s link tax, the News Media Bargaining Code. It’s got everything to do with requiring Facebook and Google to pay companies for sending them traffic, and nothing whatsoever to do with freebooting.

      edit: for what it’s worth, this isn’t just News Corp. It was most heavily pushed in its earliest stages by News Corp and other right-wing media, but the Guardian, ABC, and SBS also supported this. That doesn’t make it right. It just serves to further prove how traditional media fundamentally misunderstands how technology works.

        • ⸻ Ban DHMO 🇦🇺 ⸻@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          This conversation has gone too far, you clearly do not understand what this is about:

          • When you post a link on Facebook to a web page it will show an image as well as some text from the article. That is all this is about.
          • Traditional Australian media claim that they are losing money due to users viewing this content from Facebook instead of on their own websites

          That. Is. It.

          There is no place for that kind of language here when discussing something. Read the article before starting a fight over what it is about

        • IncongruousMonkey@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          You’re conflating two distinct issues, that involve three separate groups: traditional media, social media, click farm thieves such as ladbible.

          The Australian legislation relates to the first two and their commercial arrangements.

        • AJ Sadauskas@aus.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          @pendulum_ @Zagorath Clearly you didn’t read the article.

          Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp wanted a law that says Facebook and Google have to pay News Corp for the privilege of allowing links to News Corp websites.

          So Google has to pay News Corp for the links to News Corp in Google search results.

          So Facebook has to pay News Corp for the links to News Corp sites that appear on Facebook.

          The previous Australian federal government, under the previous Prime Minister Scott Morrison, gave him that law in 2021.

          Google and Facebook struck deals to pay News Corp and other Australian media companies.

          Facebook says it won’t renew those agreements.

          Yes, it is a stupid law. News Corp and other media companies profit from the traffic they get from Google and Facebook.

          Look, here’s the relevant part of the article right here:

          "The Australian government wanted local publishers to benefit when links to their news content appeared on sites like Facebook and Google.

          "It argued that there was significant advertising revenue being generated from this “premium content” and media organisations were missing out on their cut.

          "So in 2021, the Morrison government introduced the News Media Bargaining Code, which aimed to address “bargaining power imbalances” by requiring tech giants to pay for displaying news on their platforms.

          "Under the code, the government can “designate” digital platforms like Facebook and Google and force them into mediation to set terms for a revenue-sharing deal.

          "Instead, Meta and Google struck a flurry of independent deals with news companies, all of which are due to expire in the next few months.

          "The deals, with organisations including the ABC, Nine and News Corp, have brought around $200 million to the sector, according to the government.

          “Now Meta says it’s not renewing the agreements because news isn’t a priority for Facebook users and it wants to invest its money elsewhere.”