Facebook, Australia Just De-Platformed the Main Stream Media in Australia
Wow that’s really completely unexpected. We have heard about the news media bargaining code that’s been in parliament, it’s been drawn up as a bill and it’s, looking like passing and being put through as legislation in the coming months and there’s been a lot of backwards and forwards. Negotiations between the australian government and the social media platforms, google have essentially caved to some extent and provided some monetary compensation. They’Ve entered into some contracts with some of the news networks already and they’re agreeing to pay for some of the news content when they show it up in the google news application now. Facebook, rather than negotiating, have just completely pulled the plug on the mainstream media news platforms by completely taking their content off the facebook page. That includes the banner image and all of their previous content and videos. So if you go over to channel 7 channel 9 10 or sky news on facebook right now, which i’ve just done you’ll see they’re completely empty. Now i don’t know if this is going to be a permanent ban or whether it’s just a temporary statement to suggest that they are not willing to negotiate with the government here, they’re not going to be paying the news for their content on the platform. So that really does open up a. I guess a question to the wider audience here, and that is how essential are the news and should they be paid, should they be given special privilege over other content that is being shared on these social media platforms? So everyone’s going to have their own particular bias here depends on where you’re coming from and how you view social media in general.
Now, the way i see it, social media operates on an algorithm that will promote the best content to the top and whether your facebook or youtube it depends on the amount of viewers, whether you’re going to be able to monetize your content. So both platforms have a creative partner program for the top tier creators that can generate enough views and video content that will go viral in order to be monetized to the extent that it kind of becomes worthwhile as a commercial enterprise on their platforms. Now, having said that, the compensation provided for these creators is minuscule certainly compared to the kind of funds that you could generate as a mainstream media network when you place large, as on your content over free to air content, for example, so there’s an argument here to Suggest that what the government is doing for these large media networks could eventually flow through to other content creators and create better. You know, bargaining opportunities, if you like, for everybody on the platform, but certainly at this stage, it’s not about that it’s. Just about compensating this particular selected group of content creators that’s, deemed i guess by the government to be an essential, more worthy form of content that deserves greater compensation. So this is where the social media platforms are pushing back, suggesting that they already have payment systems in place for content creators. And why should the news be given special treatment so i’m, not really sure where i stand on this other to say that i’m, a content creator and i’m playing by the rules of the network and sure i would like to see my content, create more momentum and Be rewarded more financially, but i understand the way the system works and that’s about me.
Creating content that’s more viral and is going to have a chance of being seen by more viewers before i get the opportunity to earn a certain amount of dollars so i’m, not sure whether you know these. These news networks should have any special treatment in that regard. But, on the other hand, i certainly feel that all content creators should be compensated more fairly and if this legislation was to then open up an avenue for all content creators to be paid fairly and paid more for their work, i’d be interested in that. But that’s not what this is about, so it really does depend where you’re coming from whether you see this as a battle between our governments and private enterprise, whether you see it as legacy media, not coping and not really finding a way to excel. In this current climate of social media and creating viral content, whether the viewers themselves on the platform really want to see that i mean we’ve got to ask that question. Most people go to facebook to interact with their family and friends to share memes and comical content. They’Re not really going to facebook for serious content. Sure there’s been some groups being created and there are, i guess, threads of discussion that can get quite political, maybe there’s some people that interact on the platform that that go there for serious news. But i would highly doubt that so i’m not sure how important it is to have the news within our social media, certainly if they were feeling that they weren’t able to compete in that landscape.
Maybe it’s about creating better platforms themselves for their viewers and negotiating contracts and deals with advertisers to ensure they’re able to monetize their content accordingly, what they do on the tv, maybe their digital platforms aren’t up to par. Maybe they need to be more interactive and try and build their own sense of community within their own networks. Do they really need facebook in order to flourish in order to monetize their content? That really is the next question, so i’d love to know what you think, whether this is actually a good outcome for the viewers, the users of social media or, if it’s, you know, essentially facebook, not playing ball. Is it a corporation showing complete disrespect for proposed legislation? Here that australia is wishing to bring into effect, should a certain group of individuals, a corporation of one kind or another, be given preference over the individual when the platform really is about sharing amongst your friends and family. More than anything else, i don’t know it’s a tough one to call i’d like to see a situation where, if any of this type of negotiation was mandated by government that it was really done on behalf of the people more than just for a select few corporations That they happen to be representing. I read a book last year by jaron lanier it’s called you are not a gadget, which i would highly recommend, if you’re into social media and into the internet and what’s happening with technology.
And this is a really great read, and one of the concerns that was raised in this book was the fact that you know smaller content. Creators, musicians and artists have really been the ones that have been affected by the rise of social media and the fact that they’re kind of being forced to generate and produce content that really is not being fairly monetized. So, even though we have an avenue to monetize our our creations, the amount, the return we’re getting on that is is no way near what you would normally get in when you’re entering into a commercial arrangement with uh with advertisers of any kind. So you know, maybe it opens up another question about who should be being paid on these social media networks, how fair they are not just for corporations, but for all of us, as creators on the platform, whether you’re, an independent or whether you’re, even just using the Platforms and giving away your data and not being compensated for it. So if you want to learn more about that i’d highly recommend you check out you’re, not a gadget by jaron lanier and if you’ve got any input about this topic. I’D love you to share that with our viewers in the comments box below. Let me know whether you think the government’s gone too far by trying to force a private corporation to enter into a financial contract of sorts or whether you think they’re doing the right thing by representing the news, media and trying to have them being paid more fairly.