Zuck > A continent
|by Anonymous||reply 1||02/17/2021|
Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.
Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.
Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.
Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||Last Friday at 10:42 PM|
Zuck > A continent
|by Anonymous||reply 1||02/17/2021|
Facebook is a clusterfuck.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||02/17/2021|
And what about it?
|by Anonymous||reply 3||02/17/2021|
Meh I’ll just overthrow their government.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||02/17/2021|
No news content on Facebook is a good thing, no?
|by Anonymous||reply 5||02/17/2021|
They’ll replace the news with Zuck’s dick pics. That can be Australia’s punishment.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||02/17/2021|
How would this be Australia's punishment? It's laid down the law. Facebook has backed off. So now only pictures of kitties and eldergays in high school. As Facebook should be.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||02/17/2021|
We are trying to get Google and Facebook to pay our professional news services for news on their sites, in an attempt to be able to afford proper journalism again, now the internet has sapped all the advertising from newspapers and lowered its benefits for TV.
What Facebook is removing/barring, to be clear, is any news from a source with an editorial policy, fact-checkers, code of practice and other standards that go along with traditional journalism. This means its readers should be aware that from today (assuming it does pull the plug), all "news" they are receiving there is virtually guaranteed to be BS. This should be a great moment, where Facebook loses all its credibility as a news provider, but Zuck is doubtless betting that people are too stupid to register that what they're losing constitutes a problem. Or even that there's been any change.
Google has agreed to pay.
Article from news source with editorial policy below.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||02/17/2021|
Thanks r8 Then Facebook should be legally required to flag their so-called news as fact unchecked news.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||02/17/2021|
Apparently this is Mark Zuckerberg's decision personally and he has just spoken to the Australian government (Australian Treasurer Josh Frydenberg) personally about it.
So although he might try to pretend otherwise in front of Congress - Zuckerberg seems to be very involved in the day to day running of Facebook...
|by Anonymous||reply 10||02/17/2021|
No R4 - because Facebook are only blocking Australian government websites, government emergency notifications such as weather events, bush fires etc. and they are blocking respected authentic news media journalism sources.
Facebook users will still be able to post any other bullshit they want from QAnon and conspiracy theory garbage sources unfettered.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||02/17/2021|
[quote]No news content on Facebook is a good thing, no?
Sorry - that post was to R5.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||02/17/2021|
They should not be blocking Australian government websites, much less emergency notifications. This is breaking news here at the moment, including that they are blocking some sites and not others. Nobody yet understands the rationale.
As I understand it, what the government is seeking is only that they stop stealing the products of journalism. Australian government websites are available free to the whole world, so there's no reason it would limit them to Facebook.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||02/17/2021|
[quote]They should not be blocking Australian government websites, much less emergency notifications.
Exactly. But they are blocking government websites. That's payback directly from Zuckerburg.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||02/17/2021|
Facebook banned Facebook
|by Anonymous||reply 15||02/17/2021|
Don't let anyone tell you private businesses do things better.
Naturally it will take work to set up Facebook properly and responsibly. It was way out of hand.
Good start. Well done Australia! Others will surely follow.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||02/17/2021|
[quote]Don't let anyone tell you private businesses do things better.
This isn’t a private business “doing things worse” — it’s a private company responding to a foreign government exerting blatant protectionism because its local publishers were completely outcompeted for as revenue by Facehook.
[quote]Good start. Well done Australia! Others will surely follow.
Yes, enjoy not being able to access news on Facebook Australia! That’s what protectionism brings.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||02/17/2021|
This news is step 2 of a bigger war.
Step 1 happened about 4 weeks ago when the Australian government demanded that Google and Facebook and Twitter pay a fee to all the traditional news-gathering companies or be hit with higher taxes.
Google responded by threatening to abandon Australia but it reneged on that this week and secretly agreed to pay an undisclosed fee to those traditional news-gathering companies.
Step 2 is Facebook's threat and its clumsy implementation.
Step 3 will be Twitter
Step 4 will happen in the UK where the 3 Tech giants are also manipulating the tax rules of the land.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||02/17/2021|
Fb and Google redirect traffic to those news sites. I think it's the news sites that should pay Google and Facebook.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||02/17/2021|
R17, they were only outcompeted because Facebook outright stole their content.
Y'all need to know that one of the causes of this step by the government is that Murdoch (and the other major owner of media in Australia, along with some smaller concerns) is urging them to, so it's more or less Sociopath Wars.
But the point remains that, as with your individual data, Facebook just takes and profits from anything that appears on its site without any form of compensation. (It's as if movie theatres never paid Hollywood any royalties because after all, the movie is showing on their screen.) That is exactly the kind of activity regulators exist to curb, and in this country (unlike the wild west over there) we believe regulators frequently perform a useful function. In fact, we usually complain they don't go far enough.
Google didn't secretly agree to pay an undisclosed fee. It publicly agreed to pay an undisclosed fee.
R19, are you suggesting that a Facebook user gets directed to a news site, clicks on it, and then goes, "Wow, I'm staying here for my news and abandoning Google and Facebook for the purpose!"? Because, said no-one, ever.
P.S. Apparently the government and related sites "inadvertently" removed by Facebook skew heavily towards sites with a strong scientific component. (They include sites integral to getting out the health department's message about the Covid vaccine: our vaccination program starts next week.) It will be interesting to see how many of these sites are restored.
|by Anonymous||reply 20||02/17/2021|
That's a very sensible post, R20 (apart from the 2nd paragraph).
This fight is all about revenue and power.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||02/18/2021|
[quote] Facebook just takes and profits from anything that appears on its site without any form of compensation.
Exactly. What Facebook has been doing is stealing, and they should be forced to pay.
|by Anonymous||reply 22||02/18/2021|
Wait - so some Australian news company sets up a FB page and voluntarily places links to their website on that FB page, meaning the user has to click on the website? How is that "stealing" from the news company? That's affording the news company additional clicks.
If Facebook copied the story in longform on it's site, enabling the user to read it without clicking through, I can see how that would be a problem, but are they doing that? No.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||02/18/2021|
When Facebook is allowed to show links to news articles, it benefits from news organizations. But as users get redirected to news sites from FB, they get shown ads on those news sites. So news organizations do make money thanks to FB. Why should Facebook pay them on top of this?
|by Anonymous||reply 24||02/19/2021|
So in Australia if you link some news article on DL, DL will have to pay them too?
|by Anonymous||reply 25||02/19/2021|
Only fat, ugly and stupid people read news on Facebook and Twitter. Facebook did the right thing to kill itself there!
|by Anonymous||reply 26||02/19/2021|
Something that will speak to the eldergays on DL:
(1) It's a bit as if the telephone companies had to pay all businesses that they put in their phone book.
(2) it's as if your TV guide had to pay all TV networks for publishing the TV schedule.
It's simply some government-backed extortion.
Stop saying FB has to pay simply because you hate FB. I hate FB too. But this sets a very bad precedent for the internet.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||02/19/2021|
[quote] Yes, enjoy not being able to access news on Facebook Australia! That’s what protectionism brings.
If only there were some kind of system, a system listing the names of all the domains on the internet belonging to these news organizations that people could use to access that news without going through Facebook...🤔
|by Anonymous||reply 28||02/19/2021|
"It could be that future historians of the internet come to see this decision as the moment the world sat up and started to take serious action on making Big Tech accountable to society.”
|by Anonymous||reply 29||02/19/2021|
I doubt it
|by Anonymous||reply 30||02/19/2021|
I think everyone is now aware that, contrary to what Zuckerberg has said in the past, if FB wants to ban/block/stop the circulation of fake news or promotion of far-right groups they can just flip a switch, as they just did with Australian govt pages.
So Z was lying to Congress when he said the procedure was so complex it couldn't be done with any appreciable speed?
|by Anonymous||reply 31||02/19/2021|
[Quote] the moment the world sat up and started to take serious action on making Big Tech accountable
[Quote] I doubt it
Here you go r30 More food for thought.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||02/19/2021|
This has nothing about making big tech accountable. This is about big news wanting more money in addition to what they make from Facebook's traffic.
Ridiculous how OP wants us to believe it's good guys vs bad guys.
|by Anonymous||reply 33||02/19/2021|
So like things like birth, death and marriage are news will they have to come up with code words for that? “So I spotted a Kookaburra in the tree, it looks to be about a 5 1/2 pound girl, we’re naming it Shelia!”
|by Anonymous||reply 34||02/19/2021|
[Quote] Ridiculous how OP wants us to believe it's good guys vs bad guys.
Well, well, well... Do good guys apologize, I wonder... R33?
|by Anonymous||reply 35||02/19/2021|
It must be understood that Murdoch is behind this. He's been pushing for something to happen for years because Google/Facebook/Twitter have decimated his media empire's political influence on Australia's politics and News Corp's ability to make the huge amounts of money that he demands. Murdoch has the conservative Lib/Nat Australian government in his pocket and they jump as high as he tells them to, whenever he tells them to. He just can't die soon enough although - Lachlan Murdoch is reported to be even meaner and more conservative than his father and is behind the Sky News after dark batshit craziness...
*I don't use Facebook so I don't care if it's banned altogether in Australia. Only dummies use Facebook.
|by Anonymous||reply 36||02/19/2021|
It's like watching a warthog and a vulture fighting over the fetid corpse of journalism.
A pox on both their houses.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||02/20/2021|
OP, what's your point? Big tech is being strong-armed by big news. And the Australian gvt is facilitating it (Murdoch is Australian, big tech is American, so makes sense).
Nobody said big tech are good guys. But *you* keep pushing the idea that big news are.
|by Anonymous||reply 38||02/20/2021|
[Quote] But *you* keep pushing the idea that big news are.
That's what you say. I didn't.
Just follow it unfolding. Read and learn.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||02/20/2021|
[quote]Murdoch is Australian
No R38. He isn't. Murdoch is American. He does not hold Australian citizenship.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||02/22/2021|
You homosex always talke about butts. So post with no ass.
|by Anonymous||reply 41||02/22/2021|
R40. Murdoch was born and raised in Australia. He only gave up his Australian citizenship to meet legal requirements to own a US television network.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||02/22/2021|
Yes in 1985 R42. And he became American. He does not hold Australian citizenship no matter how much you want him to...
|by Anonymous||reply 43||02/22/2021|
Looks like the good folks at "Honest Government Advertising" have nailed it again
|by Anonymous||reply 44||Last Thursday at 3:43 AM|
Where else is Facebook regulated or made to pay? China?
|by Anonymous||reply 45||Last Thursday at 10:00 AM|
|by Anonymous||reply 46||Last Friday at 10:39 PM|
Facebook should do this all over the world especially the United States.
If the contards had to type out their lies by hand instead of sharing “news stories” AKA lies that would do away with 75% of it.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||Last Friday at 10:42 PM|
Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Don't you just LOVE clicking on these things on every single site you visit? I know we do! You can thank the EU parliament for making everyone in the world click on these pointless things while changing absolutely nothing. If you are interested you can take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT and we'll set a dreaded cookie to make it go away. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.
Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!