[ad_1]
Politicians, news providers and civil society groups in the UK and US have reached out to Facebook and said that the company’s decision to block all media content on its platform in Australia should accelerate movements to put your powers under control.
In a move condemned as “an attempt to intimidate a democracy” and “threatening to bring an entire country to its knees”, Facebook blocked its 18 million Australian users from viewing or sharing news overnight in a growing dispute over if I should have to. pay media companies for your content. He said the new rules “ignore the realities” of his relationship with news publishers.
While Google has reached pre-emptive agreements with various outlets prior to the introduction of Australia’s news media code, Facebook’s defiance of lawmakers sparked fierce attacks in Australia and on both sides of the Atlantic.
After Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison called the company’s actions “as arrogant as it was disappointing,” Julian Knight, Chairman of the UK Parliament’s Sports, Media, Culture and Digital Committee, said: “This action , this bully action, that which they have undertaken in Australia I believe will awaken the desire to go further among legislators around the world. “
Knight said the battle was now “a real test case” of how the tech giants should be regulated and required to pay for content.
His opinion was echoed in the United States, where David Cicilline, who chairs the House’s influential antitrust committee, suggested that the measure “was not compatible with democracy.”
“Threatening to bring an entire country to its knees to accept Facebook’s terms is the ultimate admission of monopoly power,” the Democrat said. saying on Twitter, posting a link to an article about Facebook’s decision.
Facebook’s taking a hard line in the dispute came days before a vote on the code in Australia’s upper house that is expected to pass. The new rules require him and Google to enter into business deals with media outlets whose links direct traffic to their platforms, or undergo forced arbitration to agree on a price.
The Australian government says the code aims to “level the playing field” between tech companies and struggling publishers, who have lost substantial ad revenue to US giants over the past decade.
The legislation is widely seen as a test case for global regulators who are considering a push to extract more revenue from internet giants for content providers.
But while Facebook’s action will be seen as an attempt to avoid accepting a precedent that could harm its business around the world, the unintended consequences of its move immediately complicated its case against the Morrison government.
In addition to mainstream media, government pages, including on wildfires, mental health, emergency services, and even weather, were also blocked, as were pages on community support, women’s health, and domestic violence. .
Facebook said it would quickly reverse those blocks and blamed the Australian government’s definition of news content in the media’s trading code for “inadvertent” passage, an interpretation the government rejects.
There were also concerns that the decision would make it much harder to challenge misinformation spread by Facebook users citing unreliable sources. Facebook said its commitment on the subject “has not changed” and that it will continue to direct people to authoritative information and review misleading content.
Morrison wrote on Facebook: “Facebook’s actions to eliminate Australia today, cutting off essential information services on health and emergency services, were as arrogant as they were disappointing. They may be changing the world, but that doesn’t mean they’re running it. “
In the UK, the government said it was “vital” that the public be able to access accurate news and information, particularly during a global pandemic. A statement added: “We encourage Facebook and the Australian government to work together to find a solution.”
Canada’s wealth minister Steven Guilbeault said Facebook’s move was “highly irresponsible.”
Guilbeault said it “will not deter us from going ahead” with similar legislation there.
Dietmar Wolff, director of the BDZV news publishers association in Germany, said: “It is about time that governments around the world limit the market power of monitoring platforms.”
Leaders of civil society and media groups also condemned Facebook. Tim O’Connor of Amnesty International Australia said it was “extremely worrying” that a private company was willing to control access to the information that people depend on. “Facebook’s action clearly demonstrates why allowing a company to exercise such commanding power over our information ecosystem threatens human rights,” O’Connor said.
Elaine Pearson, Australia director for Human Rights Watch Australia, said it was a “dangerous turn of events. Cutting off access to vital information to an entire country in the dead of night is inconceivable. “
But Bernard Keane, the political editor of the website Crikey, defended Facebook, saying that the move was “the result of a staggering miscalculation on the part of a government that thought it might carry out an extortion business at the behest of the Murdoch against widely maligned big tech companies. ” ”.
In the UK, Guardian Media Group, owner of Guardian and The Observer, said Facebook’s action paved the way for the spread of misinformation at a time when facts and clarity are sorely needed.
“We believe that public interest journalism must be as available as possible to have a healthy functioning democracy,” said a spokesperson. “We have always argued that governments must play a role when it comes to establishing fair and transparent regulation of online platforms.”
MailOnline said it was “in awe of this arson movement.” And Henry Faure Walker, president of the News Media Association, said the Facebook ban during a pandemic was “a classic example of a monopoly power that is the schoolyard bully, trying to protect its dominant position with little regard for the citizens and customers it is supposed to serve. ” ”.
Facebook’s position in the UK ecosystem is quite different, with the launch of Facebook News last month, which involved trade deals with several major publishers. That move has been seen as a strategic game meant to suggest that others should not follow Australia’s lead.
EU countries do not face the same situation as Australia due to new copyright rules that protect publishers in Europe, the bloc executive said.
[ad_2]
