An Australian Broadcasting Corporation page on Facebook is displayed without posts in Sydney, on Thursday. Photo: AP
tech

Facebook unfriends Australia: news sites go dark in content row

35 Comments
By Byron Kaye

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2021

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

35 Comments
Login to comment

Lucky Australians.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Am just waiting to see how it plays out

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Facebook going the way of the Dodo and MySpace.

Other services are already available. Bye, Zuck!

11 ( +13 / -2 )

Facebook going the way of the Dodo and MySpace.

Really? What are the stats you are using to support this assertion? As far as I know, FB still has more users and activity than any other social network.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

I wonder if these so-called experts actually know what Facebook is or the difference between it and Google?

Now I personally don't like FB and I don't have a personal FB page, however I do have an FB business page, why? Because people join, people share my business posts and that brings in clients.

News services pay zero to use FB and set up their page, they do this so people follow them, share the info and to bring people and or new paid subscriber to their sites.

Sure FB makes money doing this but the benefit to the news services is fat greater than that with Google.

Now if they expect FB to pay them on top of things then FB can do a few things.

It can do what it says it is going to do or it can start charging these news services if they want a FB business page and then pay the news services if people share or link to their News page and or charge people for sharing which would be paid to those need services.

By charging users for sharing would end all news sharing in Australia, by charging news services to use FB would make them think is the benefit of this new law worth more than the cost of using FB.

Now for my business if FB was charging for business page I wouldn't use it as it doesn't bring in that much but I am not a news service that publishes multiple articles a day I am a retail selling fairly specific items in small quantities.

If FB wasn't benefiting news services, then they would not have it bother maintaining a FB page,

Very different from Google or a search engine.

This may end up costing the news services more than FB. Remember they chose to have a Free FB page for a reason, it brings people, subscriber to their News site.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Good move by Facebook. The Aussies were playing a game of chicken and Facebook called their bluff. Oz now gets exactly what they wanted, Facebook is not hosting news for free. Oh and look who is whinging, the same slimy greedy "news" organizations who thought they could shake Facebook down. Rotten Aussies!

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

Here is what will happen if FB says it will pay news services.

First it will start charging news services to have a FB page ( which could lead to all businesses having to do the same if Aussie courts then claim only charging news is not fair) so in the end Aussie businesses will lose. If that happens then only the big services will have FB pages and smaller independent ones will not be able to pay reducing their access to possible new subscribers.

This is why it seems only the big guys are for this.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

America has four groups for world domination. energy, arms and big tech. There is one more group which is secret. Each of the four groups has four entities.

Australia should be very careful about confrontation with one of the four big tech companies.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

This sounds like it will be good for Aussies. Sure, it will be weird to some people at first, but those who want to keep informed will seek out reliable news, and the rest will go back into ignorance, as many people were prone to before FaceBook.

Not everyone has to be on top of everything.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Good move by Facebook. The Aussies were playing a game of chicken and Facebook called their bluff. Oz now gets exactly what they wanted, Facebook is not hosting news for free.

Facebook never was hosting it - the news was hosted elsewhere. Facebook was just re-posting it.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

what is da facebook...?

....

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Facebook never was hosting it - the news was hosted elsewhere. Facebook was just re-posting it.

Actually incorrect.

All these news sites use free FB business pages to post their own content to get it out and bring people to their websites to read the full article.

So in essence they are getting free hosting free access to FB users.

So if they think FB should pay for people that post their content then FB could start charging them for using FB business page and all traffic their FB page generates.

Fair it fair.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Users share news links and this generates traffic to the news sites.

Why should FB pay for the shared links?

Actually, if anyone has to pay for the shared links, why does it have to be FB?

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Mark Zuckerberg proved that he is an idiot!!!

1 ( +8 / -7 )

Do people really go to Facebook for their news?

The tech model is very similar to the drug dealer business plan. Give it away for free and at a loss to get people hooked - funded by the kingpin/VC company - break the law/regulations adhered to for decades by honest companies - become a problem that can only be solved by legalization - kill the old industry off.

Facebook and Google are now media companies - their model is exactly the same as a print publisher (especially free newspapers) since they were forced to switch from VC funding to generating revenue from operations. I’ve worked in both industries.

Both generate their income primarily from selling access to users/readers to advertisers who buy ad space. The difference is that FB and Google don’t don’t pay for the content that they use and writers, photographers, and creatives get ripped off.

The argument is that print media and creatives can monetize the exposure; this isn’t the case when an industry is forced to give its creative content away for free or die.

Google has agreed to pay - Kudos to them. FB pays in the UK so the not sure what they are complaining about.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

This move by facebook has exactly zero effect on me as I go direct to the source's for my news.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Facebook sucks, Australians will be better off without it. As would the rest of us.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

hold on correct me if im wrong, Australian news sites want to charge FB for directing traffic towards their sites!? so does every other business get to charge FB and Google to do the same thing with their sites!? basically free traffic directed to your own sites, all paid for by FB and Google search engines and servers!?!?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

They got exactly what they wanted, which is for FB to pay for content they use.

Of course, this is not good for FB also

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If new sites are missing from Aussies walls, they can thank their govt.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Australia isn't missing out on anything, should happen in the US as well, the nation would greatly benefit from it moving its operations to China if it hasn't done so already.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Billionaires stuffing money in each other's pockets for the privilege of selling lies. Capitalism at its best.

Murdoch should be gone forever, especially Fox News - co conspirators in promoting conspiracy theories, lies, Qanon, far right violence.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Error by FB even though I don't support it and haven't used any social network in mote than ten years.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

It must be nice to use Facebook the way it used be: just feeds from your friends. None of the propaganda.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Deactivated FB and just use messenger !

FB sucks!!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Good thing google didnt go the same way, otherwise those looking for news wouldn't find them as easy also.

Anyway, business on part of FB, they probably concluded they will lose more by paying media outlets than

0 ( +0 / -0 )

by just letting go of whatever revenue they gain now from the news

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It must be nice to use Facebook the way it used be: just feeds from your friends. None of the propaganda.

Made a quick peek at reddit this pm, fb users talking about the change seems happy about the change, but ive only read initial posts

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Im for checking and regulating power of big tech but this doesnt seem about power just money, and thisfeels like extortion to me.

But only with fb, with google they actually use the content and profit greatly off it so they should pay, which is what theyll be doing

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Australia isn't missing out on anything, should happen in the US as well, the nation would greatly benefit from it moving its operations to China if it hasn't done so already.

Facebook and Google are both banned in China. Unless you have a VPN you cannot access either from inside PRC.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Seems to me that this is a good move by fb, good business move, seizing the initiative before the expected passing of the law.

When the law is already in effect then those media outfts who want to be back in fb will negotiate with fb, on fb's terms.

I think media outfits would be happy to be back and will be happier if fb didnt charge them and would be most happy if fb actually pays them

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Do you know of actual evidence cited by those reporting about the Uighurs?

I’ve talked to actual Uighurs. It was before it got as bad as it currently is, but they were being oppressed even then. They hate the Han Chinese overlords.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Facebook never was hosting it - the news was hosted elsewhere. Facebook was just re-posting it.

Actually incorrect.

All these news sites use free FB business pages to post their own content to get it out and bring people to their websites to read the full article.

No, it was entirely correct. The publishers post links to content they've put on their own sites, on on FB. These are the pages FB has removed. The original post, on the publisher's own sites, still exists. So no, not "actually incorrect", actually very correct.

So in essence they are getting free hosting free access to FB users.

No. That is not how hosting works. Hosting is the server on which the content is stored. If the content was hosted on FB, then the content wouldn't exist anymore when FB shut it off. Yet, it still exists on the original sites. That's because it's hosted on the publisher's websites, and re-posted on FB.

So if they think FB should pay for people that post their content then FB could start charging them for using FB business page and all traffic their FB page generates.

I don't disagree. But I don't see many people paying FB either. The free market wouldn't move that way.

Instead, someone with a bit of gusto will build apps/sites in Aus that will work with the new lay of the land.

FB needs us. NOT the other way around.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I am writing from Japan. I do not check FB and Google for news. I even did not know FB put news. To read news there are many places I can check. They have contracts with news services Kyodo and Jiji, and other major newspapers Asahi, Yomiuri etc. I think they pay some money to the news sources.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Strangerland

@Hervé L'Eisa

Have you seen the news on how the news services are now upset because traffic on their sites have dropped since FB decided to do this and also removed all Ausie news and government pages in order not to be caught up in the new law?

No loss in traffic on FB though.

Guess the news sites need FB more than FB needs the news sites oh it also appears the Ausie government also needs FB more than FB needs it.

Free publicity, free access to FB members wasn't enough they wanted more now they have nothing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites