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

Read 10 tweets

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

Share this page!

emily bell

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

More from @emilybell

emily bell

emily bell

emily bell

emily bell

emily bell

emily bell

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Like this author's thread?