Facebook - The beginning of the end...

[dutchie]

You may not know it, because of the news block, but Facebook has gone bankrupt.

 

[bellenuit]

This law seems ludicrous to me and I don't blame Google and Facebook for standing firm

Didn't Google cave in. They have been signing deals over the last few days to pay for content. Seven Wst Media was one and I think Nine Network was mentioned.

 

[Joe Blow]

Didn't Google cave in. They have been signing deals over the last few days to pay for content. Seven Wst Media was one and I think Nine Network was mentioned.

They may have. I'm not sure. I haven't been following the news closely in the last couple of days.

 

[dutchie]

Zuckerberg might not be sharing the news with you but you are sharing your news with him.

 

[satanoperca]

News organisations should be thanking Facebook and Google for the free traffic. This proposed Media Bargaining law is just a heavy handed way to force Facebook and Google to subsidise old media companies such as Fairfax and News Corp. who are becoming increasingly unprofitable and irrelevent.

I will happily take all the free traffic these ungrateful corporations do not want. This law seems ludicrous to me and I don't blame Google and Facebook for standing firm. If news websites thought it was bad before, just wait and see how bad it gets after Facebook and Google stop sending them traffic.

Playing devils advocate, but you are only taking that side as google gives you revenue through Adsense.

Posters provide you content for FREE
Your sites get more visits making it more attractive to advertisers that general use one of googles platforms
You get paid for running and supporting the site.

While I agree that old media companies are becoming less profitable, Facebook also saw the removal/distruction often by users intent of a lot of forums across the internet. You might be next.

But lets discuss the business of the internet (IT IS NOT FREE, people are kidding themselves if they believe in the concept), so the question is if google or facebook have a feed for news.com.au or seven news etc, do uses click through to the originating site (CTR), I will guess that it is very very low CTR, hence no real benefit to the originator of the news article.

While I believe the old media companies were very slow on the uptake of free media, it is hard to change user behavior, ie we once we happy to buy the newspaper $$ but now we expect the news for free online.

This site is no different, it cost Joe to run it, he needs to be paid for his time and expenses, how he generates revenue is through banner ads, more than acceptable, if it is not, I wonder how many users of this forum were willing to pay a yearly subscription to access all the site content, I will guess again, by it would be <20% of the current user base.

So inturn, all ASF users are supporting Joe through google, the circle of life.

 

[SirRumpole]

Our politicians are doing the bidding of Murdoch, however I'm pretty disgusted with the way Facebook have reacted to the laws of a sovereign elected government, Zucker must have an ego bigger than Musk.

Facebook pays very little tax in Australia compared to the revenue generated, I think our politicians would be better advised addressing that issue rather than stuffing Rupert's Christmas stocking.

Anyway, the way is open for alternatives to Facebook to step in and fill the gap.

Personally I rarely use FB, if I want weather or news I go directly to the relevant sites.

 

[Smurf1976]

Personally I rarely use FB, if I want weather or news I go directly to the relevant sites.

Isn't that really the point FB are making though?

News organisations aren't really adding much value to FB so it doesn't make sense for them to pay for it.

If I want actual news, FB would be third tier at best of places I'd go to get it.

 

[SirRumpole]

Isn't that really the point FB are making though?

News organisations aren't really adding much value to FB so it doesn't make sense for them to pay for it.

If I want actual news, FB would be third tier at best of places I'd go to get it.

I think the value to FB is that having news on their pages makes it more like a supermarket, easy access to a range of stuff while people are swapping cat photos (no offence meant to cats, lovely creatures ).

So if people have to go elsewhere for news and other info then they may spend less time on Facebook.

Therefore imo there is a value to having as much on their page as they can in order to keep customers in their shop, even better if you don't have to pay for the goods.

 

[Smurf1976]

I will happily take all the free traffic these ungrateful corporations do not want. This law seems ludicrous to me and I don't blame Google and Facebook for standing firm. If news websites thought it was bad before, just wait and see how bad it gets after Facebook and Google stop sending them traffic.

If the traditional media can't grasp the value of promoting themselves on another platform with a large audience then they've really shot themselves in the foot given that their entire business depends on others doing exactly that and paying to be promoted in newspapers or on TV.

Effectively arguing that advertising has negative value and that the host ought to pay the advertiser, when their own business revolves around selling advertising, is really quite bizarre.

 

[sptrawler]

I think a lot of this is about creating the argument to arrive at a reasonable compromise, there is so much interconnection and cross over involved with websites.
I think for the government it is like trying to undo a knot in a fishing line, so they can work out who to tax and for what.
It must be impossible to find out who gets paid for what and how much IMO.

 

[satanoperca]

If the traditional media can't grasp the value of promoting themselves on another platform with a large audience then they've really shot themselves in the foot given that their entire business depends on others doing exactly that and paying to be promoted in newspapers or on TV.

Effectively arguing that advertising has negative value and that the host ought to pay the advertiser, when their own business revolves around selling advertising, is really quite bizarre.

Smurf, I responded in the other thread.

But I am guessing you do not or have not worked in the digital marketing and advertising space.

But just to add "advertising cost $$$", employing reporters costs $$$, FB using the copy/articles from reporters for free so that their customer base benefits is not the media companies gaining anything.

 

[SirRumpole]

ASX endures second-worst day of 2021; Facebook has been 'dead money for months', analysts say

Facebook shares fall on concerns it might face tougher regulation overseas after its Australian news ban, while the Australian share market has fallen sharply and retail sales are off to a slow start in 2021.

www.abc.net.au

"
"The market was reacting to information which may support the argument that Facebook is now too big, and needs more anti-monopolistic regulation put in place to maintain a level playing field for competition," said Chris Pedersen, the chief executive of Pedersen Asset Management.

"It is really about Facebook wanting to be one-stop shopping for all your information sources.

"This is a monopolistic business plan — it's the end result of a tremendously successful business model. Free market economics and capitalism at work."

The social media giant was sold off more heavily than its tech-related peers, including Apple (-0.9pc), Netflix (-0.6pc), Google's parent company Alphabet (-0.6pc), Tesla (-1.4pc) and Microsoft (-0.2pc)."

 

[SirRumpole]

What is Facebook all about ?

Surveillance capitalism.

All Facebook cares about is your personal data. Should it really be running Australia's quasi-public messaging board?

The fog lifted after Facebook blocked Australians from "news content" last week; we saw the role the social media giant plays in Australian society. Our heavy reliance on a corporation to provide fundamental public services is deeply problematic, writes Gareth Hutchens.

www.abc.net.au

 

[mullokintyre]

Don't read any further if you don't like a good rant.

I have to admit that I have disliked Facebpook and other social media companies for years.
Facebook is one in particular, and Mark Zuckerberg a man I despise with real fervour.
I just watched one loud mouth egotistical Republican , Ted Cruz, destroy Zuckerberg in hearings at Washington re pedophilia,



Its one of those Right Wing conspiracies that people of the left have derided as RWNJ material.
But Zuckerberg and hos dirty money hingry company have been shown for what they are, liars, theives and totally lacking morals or ethics.
Instagram, facebook, Tik Tok, X, they are all tyhe same.
There is money in pr0n, and pedophilia is the very lowest of the low.

Rant over.
Mick

 

[SirRumpole]

Apart from this site I keep away from social media. No X, Facebook or Tiktok for me, they are all a cesspit.

 

[SirRumpole]

What is Facebook all about ?

Surveillance capitalism.

All Facebook cares about is your personal data. Should it really be running Australia's quasi-public messaging board?

The fog lifted after Facebook blocked Australians from "news content" last week; we saw the role the social media giant plays in Australian society. Our heavy reliance on a corporation to provide fundamental public services is deeply problematic, writes Gareth Hutchens.

www.abc.net.au

The article above was presented on the ABC which uses guess what platform for it's information sites?

 

[wayneL]

Don't read any further if you don't like a good rant.

I have to admit that I have disliked Facebpook and other social media companies for years.
Facebook is one in particular, and Mark Zuckerberg a man I despise with real fervour.
I just watched one loud mouth egotistical Republican , Ted Cruz, destroy Zuckerberg in hearings at Washington re pedophilia,



Its one of those Right Wing conspiracies that people of the left have derided as RWNJ material.
But Zuckerberg and hos dirty money hingry company have been shown for what they are, liars, theives and totally lacking morals or ethics.
Instagram, facebook, Tik Tok, X, they are all tyhe same.
There is money in pr0n, and pedophilia is the very lowest of the low.

Rant over.
Mick

This has been a *known* problem for a very long time which "seems" to be intentionally obfuscated and side-stepped, just like the lizard person is doing here.

I brought this issue up, not specifically about Facebook, but in general a few years ago on this very forum and was told I was nuts.

On the other hand, I have been suspended/banned a few times from FB for fairly innocuous memes and/or statements.... Including from messenger which I use for business.

Watch this get swept under the carpet, again.

 

[wayneL]

Apart from this site I keep away from social media. No X, Facebook or Tiktok for me, they are all a cesspit.

I like X for up to the second news fairly free from MSM bias, plus there are many, economists and macro folks that post great info, plus science, and other real world stuff I'm interested in.

I am forced to use FB and messenger for my business and local area issues, but I hate it.

No Instagram, tiktok, threads or any of the others.

 

[Smurf1976]

they are all a cesspit

Like anything it depends how you use them.

Facebook the only thing I use it for is to keep in touch with actual friends. Bearing in mind they're scattered in different states and so on, I don't really use it in the context of anyone I see regularly.

Instagram I really only use to follow what various bands are up to. Not because I worship celebrities or anything like that, just because it's an easy way to keep track of whatever they're doing be it new music or a concert tour since they're sure to post it. Plus the random silly stuff - I wouldn't know one particular band was selling whiskey otherwise, and that they probably now have writers cramp from signing all the bottles.

 

[IFocus]

Market place is handy