SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the at-what-age-does-it-change-from-news-to-olds? dept.
Facebook said Wednesday that it'll restrict users from viewing or sharing Australian news, because of a proposed law in the country that would require the social network to pay news publishers for content.
Called the News Media Bargaining Code, the legislation also affects Google, which surfaces news articles in search results. News outlets have struggled to compete with tech firms for advertising dollars and argue they should be compensated for articles shown on online platforms such as Facebook and Google. Facebook's move comes after Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. signed a landmark deal with Google so the media outlet gets paid for news content.
Facebook said the business benefits of displaying news on its platform are "minimal," noting that news makes up less than 4% of the content people see in their News Feed. The social network, which has been combating misinformation, has also been reducing the amount of political content users see on Facebook.
The new restrictions appear to already be in place. Users who visit an Australian news outlet's Facebook Page no longer see any articles displayed.
Related:
Google inks deals, while Facebook blocks content in Australia media dustup
Australia news media 'large and small' discuss Google deals
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2021, @08:00PM (4 children)
Facebook is violating copyright for their own profit. Let them either compensate the authors or die.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 18 2021, @09:46PM
Preferably both. But especially the latter.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Thursday February 18 2021, @10:26PM (2 children)
Are they? Are they REALLY?
Sounds like Facebook is being entrapped because the copyright owners are the ones putting the links to their copyrighted works on Facebook. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 19 2021, @01:41PM (1 child)
I would say that sentence was phrased improperly. Let's change it up:
There. That appears to be more accurate. Facebook has created a marketplace for the exchange of information. People do exchange information in this market. Facebook profits from this market. But, Facebook fails to share that profit with the people who generate said information.
Sometimes, you have to think around the box. Facebook is still responsible for the copyright violations, and Facebook alone profits from the violations.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday February 19 2021, @07:37PM
Facebook may be profiting, but not through their own actions then. So the correct answer was to block these news outlets and government sites from sharing those specific links which infringed.
So from another point of view, Facebook is blocking the infringing content now. That was an option available to them, and it still sounds like the news outlets and government sites are pissed that Facebook didn't choose to pay them for it instead.
I disagree with forcing Facebook, or SoylentNews, to pay for links to copyrighted content when those links are posted by others. I strongly disagree that posting a link is a violation of the copyright. Going even further, taking an excerpt of the news article (not all of it, or the most important part of it), would fall under Fair Use.
As much as I dislike Facebook and social networks in general here, I also strongly dislike the abuse of copyright.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.