1

Radio Show & Podcast Feedback / Re: Facebook pulling out of Australia

« on: 07/03/2021 23:51:27 »

Wow, yes - and that discussion is partly why I'm just a bit disappointed with the podcast and their representation. The entire thing has been a discussion on 'this is what the media are saying' rather than the actual facts about how any of this works, and I guess it highlights just what a hold the media has on the world when the only place you are getting actual facts is from a website such as techdirt.

I would have thought a podcast like the naked scientist would have at least fact checked rather that regurgitating the lie that is the trope of the current media.

Also, yes, both Facebook and google have come to 'agreements' with the government to be excluded from the code for a number of years. As I pointed out, this is the modern day equivalent of 'please pay your protection money' and people should be horrified that a western government has just run a shakedown operation in conjunction with the main stream media.

Of course, those performing the shakedown will never describe it as such.

Yes, it was totally "theft of content" yet no one can describe how they stole the content.. I mean, that might accidentally lead into a discussion on how the internet and linking to web pages works..

2

Radio Show & Podcast Feedback / Facebook pulling out of Australia

« on: 06/03/2021 23:33:56 »

Hi there,
I'd like to start by saying that I really enjoy listening to your show and like the way you bring science to the masses.

However, the podcast on 2/3/21 had a section about the Australian media bargaining code that had a few (almost all) points the really should be corrected, especially on a show that is aiming toward facts.

Let me start by saying that both Facebook and Google, and plenty of other 'social media' outlets are pretty darn shocking in how they operate and behave, but this is beside the point of what is going on in Australia.

What I find absolutely fascinating about this is just how effective propaganda is in the media as virtually NO media outlet was telling the actual truth behind what is going on and as a result, for a layperson trying to work out what's going on it was markedly difficult. You basically had to go to the source of the code (the legislation) and read it to work out what the government was trying to do, and it was a doozie. (more on that later)

Anyway, onto the podcast and some pretty big boo boos.

a) Statement that the 'tech giants are "giving away the content for free" on their sites'
This is patently false, what the 'tech giants(google and facebook) were doing was linking to the content, they would include an image, a headline and usually the first few lines from the site, all of which can be controlled by the owner of the site (the news company). The actual content existed on the target website and if people wanted to read the article they were taken to the actual news companies website to do-so. Additionally, one of the things that wa stated in the media was that the Tech Giants were displaying advertisements and making revenue from this, they were, on their own site. If you followed the link then you were now on the news companies site and they were displaying their own advertisements.

b) Facebook taking down news feeds/sites hosted on facebook - the comment "They also took down some stuff they shouldn't have" is also one of the primary misunderstandings about the law. In this instance, facebook were between a rock and a hard place where they ended up making the decision to simply not host any news content that fell under the law and therefore the entire discussion would be moot. As a private company, this is entirely their decision, but the reaction highlights another problem with the proposed law, but first. The content that was removed - the biggest one that made headlines was the Bureau of meteorology - Weather right, thats not news! However, the legislation defines news as..

core news content means content that reports, investigates or
explains:
  (a) issues or events that are relevant in engaging Australians in
       public debate and in informing democratic decision-making;
or
  (b) current issues or events of public significance for Australians
       at a local, regional or national level.

And the BOM could easily fall under this definition, meaning that if Facebook linked to it then they would need to pay. Additionally, other facebook pages were criticised, but they ALL fell under this definition, because it was stupidly broad and some would argue, was written that way on purpose. It should also be noted that at no point does this "news" content actually have to be true or based on fact. It is rather "does it create discussion", meaning all the tabloids can also get a payday.

c) The background being a dispute between the content 'providers' and the content 'distributors', again, this was never the reason. The primary reason here is that the old news providers used to rely on a physical widget that was sold, with advertising in order to make money, and when the Internet came about they found it hard to hold onto this revenue stream and have not found ways to adapt to the new market they find themselves in. This entire thing is pretty much a shakedown by the 'old media' using the government as their goons. We know this as anyone that's been paying attention has see the print media lose market share over the past two decades at least.

d) The Australian authorities are the ones bringing this code to bear, they have last legislation making this a requirement for doing business in Australia and it will be quite interesting to see what happens once the grace period has worn out. Anyone can read the legislation at
[ www dot aph dot gov dot au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6652 ]
(sorry, no link policy)

Now, onto what's actually happening.

Imagine that whats going on is that the news corporates have a product to sell (the article) and are going to an advertiser (say, google) and saying "Hi there, I would like to place an advert on your site that reaches billions of eyeballs that will redirect readers to my site so I can make some $$" and the advertiser says "Sure thing" and lets them place a link. Not only that but the price was free. This was like placing an advertisement for your company in the old Yellow Pages phone directory, except, it was free..

The advertising site is making money by selling its site as a place to come and get all this information, and the news corporate gets visits from people that it can in turn monetise.

Then, they still see their business waning and the place they put their advertisements on growing and have decided that it is their advertisements that are causing the growth and want some of that pie.

They then got their buddy to write a law that said that not only did the advertiser need to pay them for their advert, but that the advertiser, if they were in the business of putting up adverts, was no longer allowed to refuse to put their advert up and each advert needed to have money going to the news corporation.

At the same time, in order to get the public on board, they fuel a moral panic, that the advertiser is also stealing their content and point to the adverts they put up as to the reason why this is the case.

One of the advertisers made a deal that if they paid out $X in bulk they wouldn't be covered by this new law for a few years. The other advertiser said 'you know what, we quit the advertising business in australia'

This is in essence a shake down of the new media companies by the old media companies and it has been codified into law.

If my explanation is a bit hard to get your head around, techdirt (yeah, not main steam but no one else was covering it) had a brilliant article about why this was a terrible law (Again, with the link restrictions :-( sorry! )

[ www dot techdirt dot com/articles/20210217/22383446265/bizarre-reaction-to-facebooks-decision-to-get-out-news-business-australia.shtml ]

I know this will probably go nowhere but it is just really sad that the only reporting I am hearing on this is patently false and when the segment started on your podcast I was "YES! Finally we may get some truthyness!" and then was sorely disappointed :-(

Actually, I lie, the ABC in Australia had an interview with some guy in America who completely rejected the ABCs reasoning that Tech companies were 'stealing content' from the poor news companies and actually gave a good summary of the environment, and the interview was never seen again..

Anyway, despite this, I really do enjoy listening to your show and recommend it to anyone that will listen :-)