Politics Facebook blocking news in Australia

[muck]

Facebook blocking news in Australia

That really a loss, though?

You don't have to rely on Facebook to access the latest information about stuff. Perhaps it's about time that everybody remembered and taught Facebook a lesson?

 

[BravoZulu]

I’m a fan of anything to bring big Tech to heal.

A big fan.

However, while we need to prevent over reach by government or Big Tech, we need to balance it against the Hot Competition we face against a rising China.

While the West suffers a Mao like Cultural Revolution Chocker full of digital Struggle Sessions, we cannot forget that the CCP/PLA of today is the same that liquidated 40+ million in Mao’s Great Leap Forward, many thousands at Tiananmen, and unknown numbers very recently in Hong Kong and with the Uyghar people.

That’s what they do to their own people, a worse fate surely awaits non Han people who inhibit the CCP/PLAs pact with the people of China.

If we kneecap our own Big Tech, while further innovative replacements are likely, we will also likely run into a wall of Metcalfe’s Law(network effect) and Zipf’s Law(distribution).

In short. If you‘re biggest and first, you win....decisively.

China’s Baidu, Alibaba, Tencent, and Huawei(BATH) have a fully integrated strategy akin to Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines combined arms and cross domain operations in concert with government.

In the west, FAANG are fighting each other and government.

In order to win, we need to:

1)Bring Big Tech to heel
2)Trust government, which requires government to be truly worthy of it
3)Develop a geodigital strategy that offers a compelling value proposition for rest of world.
4)While partnering with Big Tech to compete against China, nurture and protect new innovation.

Measures of global power are no longer measured in just carrier battle groups.

The new measures of power are installed user base, daily/monthly active users, mobile transaction value/volume.

If you have the installed user base, active users, and mobile transaction value/volume then you have the power to change the means of exchange used on the platform.

Facebook’s Libra is stillborn, the digital Yuan relentlessly continues.

I absolutely despise Facebook, but they are one of our most powerful weapons to counter China in rest of world.

Beautifully and succinctly put @Flagg

 

[downsizer]

So basically they(FB) are blocking links to external news sources?

 

[TheKiwi]

I'm just seeing politicians panic because someone other than them has some modicum of power.

The aflutter about "fake news" is especially ironic considering how many of them lie to our faces about everything.

 

[Penny]

So basically they(FB) are blocking links to external news sources?

I can't see any, though I got a suggested French news page come up in my feed, which I've never seen before that I know of. I don't know if I am allowed to post news articles from other countries or if its just articles from oz. But to be honest I haven't read up on it.

 

[muck]

I'm just seeing politicians panic because someone other than them has some modicum of power.

The aflutter about "fake news" is especially ironic considering how many of them lie to our faces about everything.

There's a lot of truth to that – especially given the usability of social media to rally the masses against the so-called establishment. But there's also a valid concern to be had about their business model and influence on politics.

Regardless of the justifiability of legislation against "hate speech" or intellectual property theft, I still struggle to understand why virtual spaces should be governed by a different set of rules than real spaces. At least that's what many people seem to think.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

I still struggle to understand why virtual spaces should be governed by a different set of rules than real spaces. At least that's what many people seem to think.

Because people believe in the trope that" it's a private company, therefore they can do whatever they want; and if you don't want them to do something, just create a law".

Thing is:
-no, being a private company does not allow them to do whatever they want.
-there are laws to prevent them from doing whatever they want as a private company, namely: anti-trust laws.
-a big company does not have jurisdiction over a country's legislation/constitution/sovereignty/etc...
-a big company has no right to insert itself in a country's legislative/constitutional/sovereign/etc... processes unless called upon to do so.

We have seen, recently (and I am not necessarily referring to the US elections, but the COVID crisis is a still visible one for instance), social media, and to some extent youtube as well, inserting themselves as "third party fact-checkers", cancelling/censoring/silencing "dissenting opinions" on the subject, and acting as publishers by editing and editorializing. And so on and so on.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[BCNTM]

Because people believe in the trope that" it's a private company, therefore they can do whatever they want; and if you don't want them to do something, just create a law".

Thing is:
-no, being a private company does not allow them to do whatever they want.
-there are laws to prevent them from doing whatever they want as a private company, namely: anti-trust laws.
-a big company does not have jurisdiction over a country's legislation/constitution/sovereignty/etc...
-a big company has no right to insert itself in a country's legislative/constitutional/sovereign/etc... processes unless called upon to do so.

We have seen, recently (and I am not necessarily referring to the US elections, but the COVID crisis is a still visible one for instance), social media, and to some extent youtube as well, inserting themselves as "third party fact-checkers", cancelling/censoring/silencing "dissenting opinions" on the subject, and acting as publishers by editing and editorializing. And so on and so on.

You are under the impression that the Aussie Government can do something about this ??

If FB pull all their staff out of Auss and close down all their operations in that country how are they going to enforce 'anti-trust' laws - good luck on that one

Its stupidity on behalf of politicians that has got them in this position in the first place - shows who really is in control

 

[Ivan le Fou]

You are under the impression that the Aussie Government can do something about this ??

If FB pull all their staff out of Auss and close down all their operations in that country how are they going to enforce 'anti-trust' laws - good luck on that one

Its stupidity on behalf of politicians that has got them in this position in the first place - shows who really is in control

So... FB should be allowed to run as a free and rogue entity? Able to act, behave, interfere as they please regardless of a country's sovereignty?

Countries should bend over backward so their institutions/legislation/constitutions/etc... work in accordance to FB's TOS? And not the other way around?

Politicians do stupid stuff, that's kind of sine qua non, but they are and can be held accountable by the people who put them in office. At least in theory. It rarely happen, but it can be done.
These politicians, though expected to do stupid things, still have to follow and act according to the laws and founding principles of their country. Once again: at least that's what is expected of them.

FB is not bound to anything and does not answer to anybody.

I don't know if you have had the opportunity to watch the various US Senate and Congress hearings with the "Big tech" executives, but regardless of the laws they do not answer to anybody. The "staff" (in its most absolute broad definition) makes the rules.

 

[muck]

@Ivan le Fou

What I'd meant to say – maybe I didn't convey it clearly enough – is both corporations and internet users will often be vehemently opposed to regulation the like of which they readily accept in the real world. Maybe I'm overthinking it; maybe the internet really is that separate from the physical world to justify a different set of standards; or maybe it really is as simple as their protecting their financial interests. But still.

Some time ago, Angela Merkel called the internet "terra nova" and got roasted for it real good. Come to think of it, though, maybe she was kind of right (for a change). It really is a wilderness compared to all other aspects of public life. Mind you, I'm not advocating regulation here. All I'm saying is I've yet to hear a good argument as to why the internet shouldn't be subject to the same kind of regulation.

 

[BCNTM]

@Ivan le Fou

What I'd meant to say – maybe I didn't convey it clearly enough – is both corporations and internet users will often be vehemently opposed to regulation the like of which they readily accept in the real world. Maybe I'm overthinking it; maybe the internet really is that separate from the physical world to justify a different set of standards; or maybe it really is as simple as their protecting their financial interests. But still.

Some time ago, Angela Merkel called the internet "terra nova" and got roasted for it real good. Come to think of it, though, maybe she was kind of right (for a change). It really is a wilderness compared to all other aspects of public life. Mind you, I'm not advocating regulation here. All I'm saying is I've yet to hear a good argument as to why the internet shouldn't be subject to the same kind of regulation.

Politicians are just looking at a way of regulating and taxing it for their own purposes - not realizing it is actually bigger and much more powerful than they are

Anyone who uses FB is a hostage to it and its policies - read the TOS and the very small print they own everything you put on there

 

[Ivan le Fou]

Politicians are just looking at a way of regulating and taxing it for their own purposes - not realizing it is actually bigger and much more powerful than they are

Anyone who uses FB is a hostage to it and its policies - read the TOS and the very small print they own everything you put on there

FB's uses of its users' personal data is one thing. FB isn't the first private company to exploit and sell private information for this or that reason. It does not make it any good, acceptable or better in any way though.

And though it is a serious issue that needs to be clearly defined, or at least more clearly defined, it is a whole different subject than the one of "FB blocking news for a whole country" because said country took measures that displease FB. This is, indeed, very different.
On the one hand you have data being exploited more or less fraudulently, or in a dishonest way, that is more a cause of annoyance than harmful in a significant way; and on the other hand you have a private company that applies a country-wide blanket sanction on, fundamentally, freedom of the press.

Meanwhile FB still allows dangerous/reprehensible behaviors from countries and/or individuals (representing, or not, sovereign states) to keep posting.

I know I am being redundant, but this is a very serious and worrying overreach on FB's part.

 

[NZM305]

I don't see it as an over reach at all, i see it as a reminder that FB is a private company and that they have the right to decide if they want to "play" or not.
It should serve as a wake up call to governments and news services that relying on FB to reach people instead of setting up your own systems was a bad idea. And it should remind users of FB the same thing, that as much as fb has allowed people to connect and stay in touch, don't rely on it to always be there.
Hopefully its just a wake up call all round.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

It also shows that social-medias still need to define their identity.

2016, following the US election and the nascent/gestating BLM movement (and others similar), was the first wake-up call: what is a social-media? What it is supposed to do? What role should social-media play? And what about the political point of view?
Should it be a platform for everybody? A platform for every position/opinion? What is allowed and what is not? Based on what ground? Would foreign laws apply to another country? How would, for instance, blasphemy laws be applied in a country in which such laws don't exist?

Thing is, these questions got asked after things got out of hands.
How would you build a swimming pool? Would you build the container first then fill it up with water?
Or would you go the other way around by pouring water and then build walls around it?


Then, a few years ago, social-media got confronted with another conundrum: fact-checking and editorializing contentious subjects, and the subsequent sanctions.
There also was, and still is to some extent, the subject of "hate speech". Not all countries have the same definition of what constitutes "hate speech". Nevertheless, social-media do have, in their guidelines, "definitions" of what constitutes "hate speech" and what does not.
And finally, among other things, the concept of "fake news" that got broaden far beyond the mere limits of illuminati, tin-foil hat conspiracy theories.


Social-media like FB were created as a kind of public square without clearly established boundaries, until these boundaries were established in a ad hoc and empirical fashion.

 

[morris]

News pages to be restored on Facebook

It comes after amendments were made to the government's media bargaining code legislation.

www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au

 

[Redav]

I had no idea where to post this

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies