Previously, Facebook had banned all users from sharing links to Australian news sources, Australian post pages, hosting their own content, and Australian users from sharing news links, Australian or international. Here`s what the platform looked like during the big news blackout: In fact, and as we`ve made clear to the Australian government for many months, the exchange of value between Facebook and publishers goes in favor of publishers – which is the opposite of what the legislation would require of the arbitrator. Last year, Facebook generated about 5.1 billion free referrals to Australian publishers worth an estimated A$407 million. After a few days that Australians saw Facebook do without the news, a significant amount of global backlash against the company, and conversations with the Australian government that led to last-minute changes to the law, Facebook decided the new terms were good enough to end the ban. The law was passed a few days later. Facebook has obviously taken a different path. The reason given was that if Australians can`t share news links and Australian news organisations can`t publish their own content, then Australian law won`t apply to that – after all, there`s nothing media companies have to pay for. But there is no law yet. Facebook cut off Australian news posts before it really did, giving them, their government and their readers a taste of what would happen if the media bill were passed.
Facebook may have hoped that a preview of its platform without Australian news would make lawmakers more accessible to passing a version of the law that Facebook preferred. Now that Australian lawmakers have added a few changes, it seems like the game was fair. Facebook will still have to pay for the news in some way if it wants its platform to host links, but it has a little more control than before. In Australia, the question now is which news outlets will really benefit from the law, or whether most of that money will go to the big players, who have very little to do for the small Murdoch publications that the law should help. If Google and Facebook are able to offer enough offers that the law no longer applies to them, small posts can still accept what is offered to them. They could be the ultimate losers here. When Facebook decided to restore news content in Australia, the big question arose as to who blinked first: Australia or the tech giant? The government argues that this requires a ”fairer” negotiation process between the parties, as there is more influence over media outlets. The law, passed Thursday, stipulates that digital platforms like Facebook and Google must pay news organizations when their content is displayed on those platforms, such as in Google search results or Facebook shares, unless they do enough business with those organizations outside the law. If platforms and publishers cannot enter into a payment agreement, they will appear before an arbitrator who will decide on a fair price to pay, or they will face significant penalties. The Minister of Finance decides which digital platforms are subject to the Act. Over the past three years, we have worked with the Australian government to find a solution that reflects the realities of our services.
We have been working for a long time on rules that would foster innovation and collaboration between digital platforms and media outlets. Unfortunately, that is not the case with this bill. Instead, it tries to penalize Facebook for content it hasn`t accepted or requested. ”Following further discussions with the Australian government, we have reached an agreement that will allow us to support the publishers we choose, including small and local publishers,” Campbell Brown, facebook`s vice president of global information partnerships, said in a statement to Recode. ”We are restoring the news on Facebook in Australia in the coming days.” The bill fundamentally ignores the relationship between our platform and the publishers who use it to share news content. This presented us with a difficult choice: try to comply with a law that ignores the realities of this relationship, or stop allowing news content on our services in Australia. It is with a heavy heart that we opt for the latter. Read an additional statement from Campbell Brown, Vice President, Global News Partnerships, on our Facebook Journalism Project website. Journalism professor Jeff Jarvis called the law ”media blackmail” and said Google had ”yielded” to the devil Murdoch.
Facebook, he said, ”either stood on principles” or simply decided that the information content for Australian users wasn`t worth enough for the company to have to pay. Both tech companies lobbied the Australian government for a change in the law while pursuing contracts with local news companies. The news code encourages tech giants and news organizations to negotiate payment deals between themselves, and commits Facebook and Google to invest tens of millions of dollars in local digital content. The government – which was taken by surprise by the social media company – can say triumphantly that it has convinced Facebook to reverse its decision. We are pleased to have reached an agreement with the Australian Government and appreciate the constructive discussions we have had with Treasurer Frydenberg and Minister Fletcher over the past week. We have always supported a framework that would foster innovation and collaboration between online platforms and publishers. After further discussion, we are pleased that the Australian government has agreed to a number of changes and safeguards that address our fundamental concerns about allowing trade agreements that recognise the value of our platform to publishers compared to the value we receive from them. .