In February of this year, Australians woke up and found that they could not access or share any news stories on their accounts. The reason is that Australia will introduce laws to force technology giants to pay for news content on their media platforms. Facebook stated that in response to this legislative proposal, it was forced to block Australian news.
The battle between the Australian government and the tech giants over a law that would make them pay for news content has been rumbling on for a while. But Facebook’s move to ban all Australian news content from its platform has taken the conflict to a whole new level. One of Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers described it as “an act of war”. But others see the actions of Australia’s politicians as being an outrage against the principle of net neutrality.
In the end, the battle ended with a win-win result for both parties. Facebook has announced it will restore news content to its users in Australia. Australian Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said amendments would be made to the law. “Facebook has re-friended Australia,” he told reporters in Canberra.
Why did Facebook block news content?
Facebook’s move to ban Australian news was a significant risk. It made global headlines. Why would Facebook openly court such negative headlines? Australian authorities say they drew up the legislation to “level the playing field” on profits between the tech giants and struggling publishers. Of every A$100 spent on digital advertising in Australian media these days, $81 goes to Google and Facebook. But Facebook said it helped Australian publishers earn about A$407m last year through referrals, while “the platform gain from the news is minimal”. Facebook’s local managing director William Easton says the law seeks to “penalise” the company “for content it didn’t take or ask for”. “The proposed law fundamentally misunderstands the relationship between our platform and publishers who use it to share news content. It has left us facing a stark choice: attempt to comply with a law that ignores this relationship’s realities or stop allowing news content on our services in Australia. “With a heavy heart, we are choosing the latter,” Mr Easton wrote in a blog post on Wednesday.
The counter-view
Even amongst Facebook’s critics, not everyone is convinced that Australia has got the right approach. The web’s creator told an Australian Senate hearing that if the idea of forcing companies to pay for certain links spread around the world, it could make the internet as we know it unworkable. For him, the principle of net neutrality — that all traffic should be treated equally and flow freely rather than being taxed or slowed down according to its nature — trumps all other concerns. The proposed law was also seen by some as heavily influenced by the lobbying operations of media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp — which owns many of Australia’s major newspapers. The law intended to protect struggling journalism, not to line the pockets of a media dynasty.
As far as I am considering, although both sides have moved, and both will claim victory, this whole episode has damaged Facebook. Politicians from across the world offered support to the Australian government — there were even accusations of bullying by the social network. And considering Facebook desperately doesn’t want these laws replicated in other countries, confrontation with Australia’s allies may lead to further losses in its news sector. At the same time, Facebook also lost widespread public opinion support. Also, Facebook’s ban on news sites for Australia-oriented websites will not succeed because this move is likely to cause unverified and untrusted information to become more prominent, and to help the further spread of false information. First Draft, a site that investigates the spread of false and misleading posts online, warned the restrictions would “open up a vacuum that could be filled in part by misinformation and disinformation”.