Meta is ending its deals to pay for Australian news content

[JohnS]

Meta (i.e. the parent company of Facebook and Instagram) entered into an agreement with the Australian Government to pay for new content on their feeds in 2021. This week they've announce that they will not renew that agreement. This is an interesting 'turn of events' that awaits the Australian Government's response...

Meta is ending its deals to pay for Australian news content. This is how it could change your Facebook and Instagram feeds

By Annika Burgess 

Facebook says it has "deprioritised news content" and no longer sees the need to pay Australian media organisations. (AP Photo: Wilfredo Lee)

If you ever get your daily news fix by scrolling through Facebook and Instagram, you may soon be seeing a whole lot less.

For the past three years, Facebook owner Meta has been paying Australian news media organisations for their content.

This has come at a cost of around $70 million a year, which has been helping many newsrooms across the country grow or stay afloat. 

But on Friday, the $1.8 trillion tech giant announced it no longer wants to cough up cash for Australian news that appears on its platforms. 

Meta informed Australian publishers on Friday that it won't be renewing the deals it made when the government introduced a highly contentious media bargaining bill.

It also announced it will be shutting down Facebook's news tab features in Australia and the United States.

The move has led to widespread backlash from the government and the country's biggest news outlets who are calling it an attack on the media.

The last time Meta and the government went into battle, it resulted in Facebook imposing an eight-day block on Australian news.

So what could be the fate of our news feeds now?

What deals did Meta have with Australian news media?

The Australian government wanted local publishers to benefit when links to their news content appeared on sites like Facebook and Google. 

It argued that there was significant advertising revenue being generated from this "premium content" and media organisations were missing out on their cut.

So in 2021, the Morrison government introduced the News Media Bargaining Code, which aimed to address "bargaining power imbalances" by requiring tech giants to pay for displaying news on their platforms. 

Under the code, the government can "designate" digital platforms like Facebook and Google and force them into mediation to set terms for a revenue-sharing deal.

If they don't cooperate, they could face fines.

Meta will stop paying Australian news publishers for content that appears on Facebook. (Getty Images: Fritz Jorgensen)

So far, no company has been designated by the federal government.

Instead, Meta and Google struck a flurry of independent deals with news companies, all of which are due to expire in the next few months.

The deals, with organisations including the ABC, Nine and News Corp, have brought around $200 million to the sector, according to the government. 

Now Meta says it's not renewing the agreements because news isn't a priority for Facebook users and it wants to invest its money elsewhere. 

"The number of people using Facebook News in Australia and the US has dropped by over 80 per cent last year," Meta said in a statement.

What will the move mean for users?

Australia was the first in the world to bring in such a law, forcing internet giants to strike licensing deals.

So when the bill was being negotiated in early 2021, Meta was not impressed.

As a threat of what would come if the bill passed, it temporarily blocked users and publishers in Australia from sharing local and international news on Facebook and Instagram.

For now, Meta has said it will not be removing or blocking Australian news content once the deals lapse.

However, Axel Bruns from Queensland University of Technology's Digital Media Research Centre, says it has been making news less visible. 

By changing algorithms, the company will have more of an argument if the government does try to designate it under the law to say "well, news is not really important on your platform," he said. 

"News overall, even though it can still be posted, will be less visible in your in your news feed and everywhere else on the platform.

"How little we don't know yet."

Meta claims news makes up less than 3 per cent of what people see globally in their Facebook feed.(ABC News: David Sciasci)

Fiona Martin, an associate professor in online media at Sydney University, says there's no transparency around how Facebook algorithms work which is "troubling".

"If they want to reduce the visibility of news and information and then say, 'Oh, we're not consuming much news,' then there's no way we can measure that," she told the ABC. 

Concerns over visibility of fake news

Although his research shows that news isn't necessarily the reason people spend time on social media platforms, Dr Bruns said Facebook still plays an important role in news exposure. 

"The circulation of news on Facebook is important because there are so many people in Australia and elsewhere who don't actively look for news," he said. 

"If that all disappears, then particularly those people who are least interested in the news, will be even less informed about what's going on in the world."

Dr Burns said if Facebook continues to make news organisations' content less visible, there's also a risk that the circulation of disinformation and misinformation will rise. 

"With the down-ranking of official news sources, the only stuff that will still circulate is rumours, hearsay and conspiracy theories," he said.

Professor Martin said we have already seen dangerous deep fake videos and an abundance of "persuasive" fake news appearing across social media, so people are going to need to become far more skeptical.

"Wherever people see news or information, they always need to trace it back to its source," she said. 

"People have to develop, in some effect, journalistic skills or information verification and that's why we're starting to teach those skills in schools."

Another Facebook news ban could be possible 

According to Treasury data, Meta signed 13 deals with media outlets for the use of their content in 2021, worth about $70 million, while Google signed 23 deals.

The loss of the deals has been described as a "major blow" to public interest news and the loss of millions of dollars for the sector.

"The fact that they're pulling out of the deals with news publishers is appalling ... it means around a $200 million loss for public interest journalism," Professor Martin said.

Fiona Martin says the government should move to designate Meta once the current deals lapse. (Supplied: Fiona Martin)

The ABC used funds from commercial deals with Meta and Google to create 60 regional jobs.

In a note to staff, ABC managing director David Anderson said the loss of revenue "would create a financial challenge for the ABC that would need to be resolved on a whole of ABC basis, and we will continue to work with the government".

The government has avenues to respond, including the power to "designate" Facebook.

There have been calls from media organisations for that to be the path it takes. 

"We will work constructively with the ACCC [Australian Competition and Consumer Commission] and Treasury to ensure their designation," Seven West chief executive James Warburton said.

Nine CEO Mike Sneesby said he supports the government's commitment to seek "a fair outcome for Australian news media".

"Meta's decision does not recognise the significant and increasing value of Nine's journalism, unique content and brands to its platforms," he said.

"We believe the News Media Bargaining Code provides an appropriate framework for a fair value exchange between companies."

If the government does designate Meta, Dr Bruns believes another Australian news block on its platforms may be possible. 

The company imposed news content bans in Canada when the country passed similar laws last year. 

"If the government responds and says, 'We're going to make you renew these deals,' then yes, it's quite likely that Meta would react again by banning news altogether," Dr Bruns said.

Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-02/facebook-google-news-media-deal-media-pay-meta/103534342

[El Presidente]

Good on them. 

Remove/block  Australian news, raise your middle finger, pay nothing, move on and tell the Australian govt to piss off. 

 

 

[MrBirdman]

On 3/2/2024 at 9:25 AM, El Presidente said:

Good on them. 

Remove/block  Australian news, raise your middle finger, pay nothing, move on and tell the Australian govt to piss off.

Well if people aren’t using it then I understand it from a business perspective. But stopping free-riding and forcing Facebook to pass along earnings from others work isn’t a problem. If it ain’t worth the squeeze though then it makes sense to drop it. 

[El Presidente]

13 hours ago, MrBirdman said:

Well if people aren’t using it then I understand it from a business perspective. But stopping free-riding and forcing Facebook to pass along earnings from others work isn’t a problem. If it ain’t worth the squeeze though then it makes sense to drop it. 

The amusing thing?

FB doesn't want the news

FB to disable news icon and prepared to block Oz news.

Still, the govt, media and associated entities are squealing like stuck pigs, now claiming FB has a social licence to display media/news.

I don't agree with Zuck often. Eff them. 

[MrBirdman]

2 hours ago, El Presidente said:

The amusing thing?

FB doesn't want the news

FB to disable news icon and prepared to block Oz news.

Still, the govt, media and associated entities are squealing like stuck pigs, now  claiming FB has a social licence to display media/news.

I don't agree with Zuck often. Eff them. 

I don’t see what they’re whining about - if Facebook aren’t using the news then why pay for it? I get complaining if they use it for free. 

[Bijan]

This already happened somewhat recently in Canada. No Canadian news on Facebook for a while now.

[rolaand]

Are there any regulatory implications for sharing inaccurate news there? I wonder if it is a risk exposure measure.

[El Presidente]

11 hours ago, rolaand said:

Are there any regulatory implications for sharing inaccurate news there? I wonder if it is a risk exposure measure.

No more than anywhere else. There are truth in advertising laws which remarkably exclude political parties. True 

[Cigar Surgeon]

On 3/2/2024 at 7:59 PM, Bijan said:

This already happened somewhat recently in Canada. No Canadian news on Facebook for a while now.

No news of any kind.  Honestly I don't miss it, it was 90% politics.