Does that makes sense to anyone? I would assume they would be happy that someone posts a link to their article and drives traffic...
back
5 comments
It makes sense in Australia as NewsCorp (and to a lesser extent, the other trad media companies) has much influence over public opinion via TV and newspapers, so political parties are beholden to it, and thus the legislation to force internet companies to pay news sources.
See also https://www.thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2019/01/10/rupe...
News Corp typically supports the National/Liberal coalition in Australia. But Labor ministers have "quickly slammed said the decision, stating it “represents a dereliction of its commitment to the sustainability of Australian news media”."
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/01/faceb...
Edit: the article has apparently been edited and the specific quote has vanished, but there is more along the same lines.
From TLA: "Australian news publishers deserve fair compensation for the content they provide."
I don't think this person quite understands that if Meta blocks all news, there's no "providing" at all! So it's fair enough that Meta makes this move. People might even venture outside the Facebook bubble, which would be a net positive.
Just so everyone reads this correctly, ministers are -slammed- being very pissy and throwing a tantrum towards Meta, not the law, in fact they're tripling down on it.
The piss poor words of "Rod Sims" demonstrates it all in that article.
Glad Meta is leaving, maybe news publishers can demonstrate their value to the people to naturally bring them to their platform. I doubt it though. They want all the eyes to look at them and will pay Meta + Google top dollar for it, but then demand they get paid back for a bad bet, then get in bed with the government to enforce their terms.
Sickening. All the more reason to never visit, turn ad-block on to its most aggressive if I ever am forced to interact with these news sites.
This is a really bad look that media companies in Australia have so much lobbying power that they can introduce nonsense laws like this.
As best as I can tell it only makes sense to the Canadian media lobbyists who found an angle to blame "big tech" for their sagging print revenues.
Wasn't there some calamity in Canada not too long ago where they were begging Facebook to show the news?
Yes, you may be thinking of last year's wildfires where some politicians where blasting meta for blocking Canadian news during the fires.
Of course, this didn't mean they were repealing the law and they still expected Meta to pay whatever rate per link the media orgs wanted for the privilege.
The claim is it doesn’t drive traffic. People read the embedded snippet or what the person said it says and doesn’t follow to the site.
I have no idea how true that is though.
I know i rarely read the articles, i just read the headlines and the small amount of blurb accompanying it. Perhaps a lot of people are like me, and the newspapers are supplying the headlines/blurbs/image and not even getting a clickthrough, and then people don't feel the need to visit the news sites to get 'up to date'. Perhaps that's why they feel they're missing out.
In a world driven by advertising revenue, they would be happier if you visit their cesspit ad-filled website than if you converted the news into a headline, image and article summary. I guess significant% of people don't bother clicking on Facebook news links?