By Mike Cherney
SYDNEY -- Australians were caught off guard by Facebook Inc.'s
decision to remove news from its platform in a deepening spat with
the government over payment for content.
Facebook overnight had followed through on a threat to bar users
in Australia from posting news. The move also cut off access to
information such as the national weather service and some local
health sites, though Facebook said that had been done
inadvertently.
The U.S. company opposes legislation by the Australian
government that would effectively require big tech companies to pay
the country's media outlets for content. The legislation, which is
being watched globally and could offer a model for other
governments to follow, is working its way through the country's
parliament.
Marcey Papandrea is collateral damage in the dispute. Ms.
Papandrea has spent more than 10 years cultivating a small
following on Facebook to draw people toward her website -- called
the Super Network -- where she posts movie reviews and podcasts. On
Thursday morning, she woke at home in Melbourne to find her
Facebook page blocked.
"I have no idea what Facebook's algorithm would be that someone
like me would be targeted," said Ms. Papandrea, 36 years old, who
blamed both Facebook and the government for the outcome. "At the
end of the day, this is like a mudslinging contest."
To Australian users, the Facebook pages belonging to media
outlets in Australia and overseas -- including The Wall Street
Journal -- appeared blank on Thursday with a message saying, "No
posts yet." Users who tried to post a link to a news article got a
notification saying the post couldn't be shared. Some people tried
to find workarounds, such as posting screenshots of articles. Links
could still be shared on Facebook's instant-messaging platform.
Facebook's move was quick to affect web traffic to Australian
media outlets. According to data from analytics firm Chartbeat,
Australian publishers saw traffic from readers outside the country
decrease by about 20% in the hours after Facebook cut off sharing
of news articles for its users there.
Facebook argues that the Australian government misunderstands
the relationship between publishers and the company's social-media
platforms, and it flagged last year it could ban news if the
government followed through on its plan. Facebook and Alphabet
Inc.'s Google, which would also be subject to the law, have argued
that publishers benefit because links on Google and Facebook send
users directly to news websites. Media companies, including News
Corp, parent company of Journal publisher Dow Jones & Co., say
the tech giants have little incentive to negotiate paying for
content because of their market power.
This week, News Corp said it has agreed to a multiyear
partnership with Google to provide journalism from its news sites
around the world in return for significant payments from the search
giant. Google had previously joined Facebook in saying the
Australian proposal set an unmanageable precedent, and had said it
would possibly shut down its search engine in Australia as a
result.
Other countries have sought to compel tech companies to pay
publishers for news or otherwise rein in their market dominance.
The tech giants are facing new rules in Europe and both Google and
Facebook have been hit with antitrust lawsuits in the U.S., raising
the possibility that each country or region could have its own
rules.
"If it is not already clear, Facebook is not compatible with
democracy," tweeted Rep. David Cicilline, a Democrat from Rhode
Island who chairs the antitrust subcommittee in the House.
"Threatening to bring an entire country to its knees to agree to
Facebook's terms is the ultimate admission of monopoly power."
Facebook has said it recognizes news plays an important role in
a democracy and has been willing to pay for news in other contexts.
In 2019, it announced it would pay news organizations -- including
the Journal -- to license their headlines and story summaries for a
news service.
After some pages in Australia were blocked by mistake, including
those belonging to government agencies, Facebook said it would fix
any errors. But it also said that because the proposed law doesn't
provide clear guidance on the definition of news content, the
company took a broad view on what could be considered news.
Some public-health experts said they worried the move would
deprive people of reliable information from news outlets just as
the country starts rolling out its coronavirus vaccinations.
Government officials said they had no advance notice of Facebook's
plans. The health minister called it an attack on Australia's
sovereignty.
"It's an interesting experiment," said Fiona Martin, an
associate professor at the University of Sydney who studies digital
journalism. "We can see the enormous power they have over our
information ecosystem, just in what they've done today."
Ms. Martin said she didn't think Australians would immediately
quit Facebook because the platform no longer includes news. But she
said people's use of Facebook could decrease over time, noting
Facebook's appeal has been that users could do multiple things on
the platform, such as reading news, selling furniture or catching
up with friends.
Max Loomes, a 25-year-old research assistant in Sydney, said
he'll revert to an old strategy to stay informed and set the home
page on his web browser to a newspaper's website.
"It's what my dad used to do," said Mr. Loomes, who previously
would read news and share articles on Facebook multiple times a
day. "I think I'll reduce my Facebook use quite substantially."
In Mount Gambier, a town in South Australia state, Josh Lynagh
said he was surprised that his Facebook page, called Limestone
Coast Community News, wasn't affected by the ban. Mr. Lynagh said
he doesn't make any money from the page, where he posts community
news items he finds himself and summarizes articles from other
media. After the ban, he changed the page's category to community
from news to try to keep his page unblocked.
Mr. Lynagh, 32 years old, said Facebook's early-morning
announcement appeared intended to catch people off guard. He said
it was reckless for Facebook to ban pages that clearly shouldn't
have been included. On the other hand, Mr. Lynagh said he respected
Facebook for not caving into government pressure.
"I don't understand why Facebook should be forced to pay media
companies for them to be allowed to use the platform," he said. "To
me, that makes no sense."
Across town, the local newspaper wasn't as lucky as Mr. Lynagh.
Its page was blocked.
Benjamin Mullin contributed to this article.
Write to Mike Cherney at mike.cherney@wsj.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
February 18, 2021 17:55 ET (22:55 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META)
Historical Stock Chart
From Aug 2024 to Sep 2024
Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META)
Historical Stock Chart
From Sep 2023 to Sep 2024