Tweet

emily bell

18 Feb, 10 tweets, 2 min read

Final thought ordering on the FB/Aus issue.
1. Facebook is entirely within its rights to remove any /all links and pages from its platform so it doesn’t have to pay a link tax on news.(Even though it already does exactly this for news tab, which is ad hoc and discretionary)

2. But the manner and timing of the removal was potentially damaging, and reckless. It removed many items that were not news (like healthcare sites, community pages) and news that is a long way outside the corporate media - eg half all pages in First Nation media network

/It removed the links with no notice before the law has been passed. It wasn’t yet required to remove the links at all. It was simply demonstrating its power over all those terrible people that take advantage of Facebook like ...North Shore Mums

/It removed the material without actually knowing HOW to remove news links from its own site, or WHO would be affected . Even when the law is passed there is a grace period of several weeks to withdraw. But Facebook *chose* instantaneous bulk - during a pandemic.

3. Does FB’s right to remove news links to comply with the law give it blanket immunity from the broader social responsibility it bears to a society where it operates?

4. If Facebook were a civically minded company it could still legitimately withdraw news links from Australia. However in order to fulfill a basic duty of care to its users and all citizens it would have done it in an *entirely* different way. With notice, and care.

5. Facebook is not civically minded. It is commercially minded. It does not care about harm that flows from its actions, it cares about the commercial liability that accompanies it. And, Facebook does not care about news or misinformation. It cares about perception.

6. Google is pretty much the same but smarter. It too would be very happy if news organisations died tomorrow and a perfect ML solution that put people + data together to produce ‘information’ appeared . Google recently closed a local news experiment in the middle of a pandemic..

....not because it couldn’t afford it. So given all the above it is not a viable long term solution to have Facebook or Google arbitrating on how journalism should function, on which organisations should be funded and which should not.

7. The interaction of news services with platforms, the distribution of news services, the support for journalism needs regulation. The Aus act might not be the right law, but, arguably it is better than no law. More enforceable civic obligations are needed not fewer //

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

More from @emilybell

emily bell

@emilybell

17 Feb

@facebook

Here is where the rubber hits the road for @facebook and it’s civic intentions. (Forget the Oversight Board for one minute). It won’t comply with a democratic government law which it doesn’t agree with which costs it money - and removes all accredited publishers including PSBs

This hurts publishers - sure. But it also hurts Australian Facebook users in terms of their quick access to news information . There is NO ‘connecting people for a better world’ in this behaviour or hesitancy over possible harms. Just a ‘fuck you and your legislation’ . Okay.

Companies can withdraw from the market if they don’t like rules. FB says the law is making them pay in a way they don’t think is fair for their extractive digital practices. But Facebook finds itself powerless to resist say, the Vietnamese govt. amnesty.org/en/latest/news…

Read 6 tweets

emily bell

@emilybell

8 Jan

Suspension of accounts is step one, step two is implementing a policy which reflects the fact that powerful individuals need more restrictions, and *more* scrutiny from platforms ...rather than less

Take for instance the fact that executives and others cannot tweet or share certain market -moving information on social media without falling foul of the SEC . But shareholders it seems, get more protection than citizens in this regard

The idea that power should pave the way for additional opportunities to abuse is antithetical to democratic principles . Public figures, those with power and responsibility, are bounded by more rules in most realms. Platform policies need to be made to reflect this

Read 6 tweets

emily bell

@emilybell

9 Oct 20

@TowCenter

Here ⁦@TowCenter⁩ - we’ve been looking into the perennial problem of ‘what is a news organisation?’ . It’s an area where platforms need to up their game ....Google and Facebook Have a News Labeling Problem - ⁦@CJR⁩ cjr.org/analysis/googl…

Facebook allows pages to self-certify as a ‘News/Media company’ , with attendant publisher privileges. There is currently no way to interrogate who is registering as a ‘News/Media company’ through an archive or API. It seems this might be a good step to help identify dark money

Read 5 tweets

emily bell

@emilybell

2 Oct 20

Google’s extension of $1bn to the news industry (maybe) over 3 years represents c 3x it’s current rate of global expenditure on supporting the news industry. Or lobbying against regulation depending on how you see it

The glaring issue often ignored by those funded by Google (in the press and academic research), is how these interventions potentially make very little difference to long term sustainability for newsrooms, but a lot of difference to the progress - or not - of regulation

It’s hard to evaluate the long term benefits of monetary support by platforms of news because it is a. difficult to trace exactly how much and where funds are dispersed, b.the funding is deliberately highly distributed in small amounts - making large impact less likely

Read 6 tweets

emily bell

@emilybell

6 Mar 20

#coronavirus for journalists, short thread : Here’s what we know about the importance of reporting during epidemics. First, repetitive, reliable reporting can change behaviour . There are a number if papers on this - here is one sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/…

Important that news organisations update figures, practical information and news about the spread with calm unsensational regularity *in the same place* . Liveblogs are great for those following, but poor for those encountering the story at different points.

@CarolineYLChen

This advice from @CarolineYLChen is the best thing I have read on the framing of questions for covering epidemics propublica.org/article/i-live… - share widely

Read 8 tweets

emily bell

@emilybell

20 Jan 20

Initial thoughts about the #BBC. It is not just another crisis. The closest parallel is Thatcher + Peacock committee in 1986, where Checkland and Birt had to secure the future of the corporation (amid much internal opposition to their culture and methods). This is worse 1/

The biggest challenge is dealing with a PM who is personally entangled with commercial media, makes policy announcements on Facebook Live and leads an administration openly hostile to the BBC. Public support for the BBC matters less and is weaker than previously 2/

The new DG has to deal with the political challenge and restore the morale and (journalistic) integrity of its key departments. Not sure this exists in one person. Editorial job is to break silos, restore attention to standards, create right goals, make better progs 3/

Read 6 tweets

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!