EXPERT REACTION: Facebook's news site ban

I believe that Facebook's decision to block sites that are in the public interest demonstrates that they are not following the company's mission statement, which imparts to "give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together".

When assessing the impact of this 'overnight' action, people will now seek information from other sources. We need to consider fake news and misinformation already being accepted and how this will affect the roll-out of COVID vaccinations.

In 2010, when exploring how Facebook was used by communities in times of crisis, I found 'a beautiful display of humanity' on this platform. Today, while the world is in the grips of this pandemic, these communities are now blocked from supporting one another, was the motivation purely financial?

The new bargaining laws superimposed upon tech giants clearly call into question the longevity and feasibility of social media advertising revenue models and users’ value proposition. Put simply, social media already lost its ‘social networking’ aims. In place, we have (or had!) a loosely defined broadcast media with many flaws that people have happily glossed over in light of benefits, such as being one the largest advertisers and news platforms in the world.

Like many people across the world, a simple morning habit is to automatically log into social media. A while back this routine would have implied scrolling through updates from friends, holiday pictures and snippets of ‘what’s on people’s mind’. In more recent years, content from personal connections gradually disappeared, making room for news from different sources, updates from brands for which we may (or may not) have a fickle interest and plenty of (unwanted) advertising. Although the illusion of ‘control’ resulting from customisation opportunities offered some ground for slight modifications, over time consumers comfortably slipped into a state of social media ‘inertia’ or less mindful use. And it’s precisely this inertia that contributed to social media giants’ revenue models based on promises of ‘wide reach with no boundaries’ and the (alleged) ability to sway consumer preferences (an aspect called out for by the ACCC in recent reports, due to potential issues with fair market competition). The result has been a value proposition that, in theory, is quite appealing to pursue effective advertising strategies to intercept potential buyers and grow brands. Stripping social media of this, will there be any value proposition left? Will consumers still use social media and engage with content, if said content is neither personal, nor commercial? Unless the changes will see a return to social and personal content, probably not.

The block on sharing and accessing news for Australian Facebook users is an interesting case study to ponder, as social media is seen as a major source of news and information, as indicated in prior research.

Politics aside, this might prove to be an interesting experiment on how social media users' news consumption changes over time, which might well prove to be a double-edged sword. The downside is that people who are over reliant on using Facebook to access news might take epistemic 'shortcuts' to obtain news and information, such as sharing of non-verified anecdotes to fill the news vacuum, which increase their susceptibility to misinformation (on, say, the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic).

A potential upshot to the block is the fact that it encourages news consumers to exercise critical thinking and flex their muscles as a 'knower': in the process of critically evaluating news sources off-Facebook, selecting credible ones to trust, and exercise judgment in revealing media biases. Furthermore, it can hopefully help users avoid the unintended consequences of Facebook's 'filter bubble' -- the phenomenon of social media algorithms curating what they 'think' we want to see -- which will prove healthy for science communication.

Facebook, if they were going to follow through with this threat, at least needed to make a proper list of news organisations and stick just to that list. I think they have deployed an algorithm to turn anything that might be news off and in that process have cast such a wide net that they have fundamentally broken emergency services information. They have done this in the fire season, they have done this while people are still looking for information about COVID-19.

I think they have lost the argument now by casting such a wide net and doing real damage to people who had no idea that this was coming and will probably think that there simply is no new information rather than it being blocked. I think there's a lot of appetite for holding Facebook more accountable in the last few years. Facebook is playing a pretty dangerous game of poker that they could lose quite badly. It will be interesting to see if the Federal Government or Facebook blink first.

I have many concerns about Facebook’s ban on sharing and providing Australian news content across the platform. Facebook are depriving users of easy access to constant and reliable news sources. In this age of misinformation, fake news and the proliferation of conspiracy theories, this is a dangerous move by the tech giant.
 
The ban appears to also have affected the Facebook accounts of a number of government agencies, including health departments. While we are in the middle of a worldwide pandemic, many are still relying on their Facebook feed to provide them with access to critical advice from public health leaders and government officials. Australians have also historically relied on Facebook during times of natural disaster, most recently during the 2019/20 bushfires and floods. There are far-reaching health, safety and social implications if this access is restricted.
 
Beyond health pandemics and natural disasters, Facebook has spent a lot of time and resources designing its platform to create and build communities. Restricting access to news and interfering with the ability for communities to share news, impedes this community-building and the support networks that these online communities facilitate.

What I’m most concerned about right now is all of the non-news organisations that have found themselves blocked from Facebook today, suddenly and without notice. This includes Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), Queensland Health, Women's Legal Services Tasmania any dozens more organisations and government agencies, along with news satire sites like The Betoota and The Chaser. Clearly the method of blocking news on Facebook is not working which suggests this was either rushed through or this is a deliberate act designed to cause public outrage.
 
I think it’s very unfortunate that governments, news organisations and social media platforms did not actively take this issue to the public long ago. This is about the future of news media in Australia. This code has been on the table for years but it appears the final code was arrived at with the participation of too few actors and is the result of serious closed door political lobbying. It’s the public who lose out here. For those who spend many hours each day on Facebook, which is a significant proportion of the Australian adult population, their information access and sharing options and choices have now been diminished.

The timing couldn’t be worse. Facebook censor anti-vaccination content 'for public health' at the same time as restricting user's access to local news at the start of a vaccine rollout.

Three days before our COVID-19 vaccine rollout, Australians using Facebook as their primary source of news can no longer get access to credible information about vaccination from news organisations and some government and public health organisation pages.

This is the very time we rely on people accessing vaccine information easily, from their preferred platform.

Over the last decade Facebook has become the ’new front page’ for many Australians and is integral to how breaking news is received. Facebook's actions today in restricting news content in Australia is not in the public interest, particularly when it comes to issues of community safety.

Many rely on Facebook as their primary newsfeed and for community warnings such as those issued by the BoM, many in the community could be put at risk, in the short term, by the suppression of this feed. Removing the  @BOM_au feed on a day of potentially dangerous floods in QLD and severe fire danger in WA, is irresponsible.

Facebook’s biggest asset is its user base. The more users engage in the platform, the more revenue Facebook makes. The major means of keeping user engagement is through sharing content – user generated or otherwise.

In this particular case, Facebook has decided that Australian news content and its subsequent interactions with it don’t create much revenue, and they can afford to discontinue it.  

I think they are probably right in this assessment. For many Facebook users, losing access to the news service and the Facebook pages and links of news websites is potentially a minor inconvenience rather than a deal-breaker. Some might miss sharing news articles among friends and engaging in spirited discussions.

However, we need to understand who might be at a loss because of this unfortunate standoff. I think at least in the short run, it will be the media companies, especially the small-scale ones.

We have to recall the fact that, actually it was media platforms using Facebook as a platform to reach wider audiences. What was visible in Facebook was only the thumbnails, and article highlights, whereas actual paywalled content was still protected.

This brings us to the fundamental problem whether we are following the right approach here. For me, content sharing happens on other social media platforms too, such as Twitter, Reddit and LinkedIn – shouldn’t they be part of the discussion? All these platforms act as means of increasing the media’s audience.

I just heard this morning that both the government and Facebook are open to further discussions - which is definitely the way to go moving forward.

In the latest senate committee hearing, Facebook declared that news items shared or posted on Facebook are only less than 5 percent of people’s news feed. But as a political economist of communication, I know very well the incredible benefits that platforms get in aggregating news and information. When I explain this to students, I like to refer to platforms as Digital Lords. They lock their users in, by attracting them into their digital estate.

The more attractive the content is, the more consumer engagement they have, and in this way, they can extract more and more data from their users.  They then use these data to target the same users with more sophisticated advertising.

What I would like to say to citizens using Facebook: take this opportunity to stop having your data collected incessantly.

There is a diversity inquiry debating the unprecedented media concentration in the Australian media system: take this as change to stop supporting big media giants, and instead support smaller publishers who struggle to find their voice in a system controlled by big business.

It will be interesting to monitor the backlash from users. Already we’re seeing Australians diversify the types of platforms they are using for news and current affairs, such as Reddit, so we want to see where they go instead of Facebook owned platforms.

People have always shared news in texts and email – more than via Facebook. The difficulty is this use is harder to measure.

It’s clear that they didn’t follow Google’s tactic of negotiating with news companies because they are worried about it setting a precedent for content licensing claims.

With the media bargaining code passing through the House of Representatives this week, it was only a matter of time before Facebook and Google advanced to the next stage of their strategy. For Google, who threatened only a short while ago to remove their search function from Australia, it was negotiating deals with major publishers whilst Facebook has continued to push their agenda.
 
Google and Facebook have become the main way for Australians to access their news. With the flick of a switch Facebook is changing the game - what does this mean for the millions of users who found factual information published in their newsfeeds by professional credible journalists and the potential subsequent spread of misinformation and conspiracy theories left to fill their void?
 
Imagine an Australian Facebook with the likes of Liberal backbencher Craig Kelly spreading unfounded COVID-19 treatments and misinformation about climate change, with no factual journalistic content to dispute his claims.
 
Perhaps this is an opportunity for Australian entrepreneurs to launch alternatives to Facebook. Facebook's heavy-handed approach is likely to increase ‘techlash’ and will most likely do them little good in public opinion and illustrates why the news bargaining code is needed - to counterbalance the close to monopolistic dominance of Facebook.

In the middle of a global pandemic and on the back of an announcement that they will ban fake news about vaccines, Facebook today announced that they will stop Australians from sharing or viewing any real news in Australia.

They are prepared to abandon the main source of fact-checked and accurate information on their platform to avoid falling under the news media bargaining code. They were never serious about fighting misinformation.

Facebook's current ban of news for Australian users may have extremely negative and dangerous consequences through the prevention of access to accurate local information. COVID-19 demonstrated the deluge of misinformation and disinformation on the platform which could only really be combated with accurate information from official and trusted sources.

Today Facebook also banned government health bodies from sharing information which is extremely irresponsible and hopefully an error on their part.  Some of the questions that need to be addressed are:

• What is news?
• How can a government body be classed as a news outlet?

The sharing of news on Facebook has pros and cons for both parties and hopefully an agreement can be reached between Facebook and the Australian government to dial back the current ban so that it can work for both parties and not leave Australian Facebook users in such a precarious position without current access to accurate information.

Removing news content from Facebook makes it more difficult to challenge the misinformation that circulates on the platform. This couldn’t come at a worse time - in the middle of a health emergency when the public needs timely and accurate information most.

The immediate problem with Facebook’s move is that it seems to have removed more than just the big outlets, it has removed Australian Government pages, health content, and weather sites. Those people who access much of their news on the Facebook risk missing important warnings and information. 

Facebook already suffers from a lack of good will amongst the public and this may be the last straw for many Facebook users.

There will be a variety of unintended consequences of this announcement. Content blocking of this nature can result in more unnecessary outlets being blocked, rather than less. This is already occurring with the likes of emergency services and weather forecasts being blocked. We’ve also seen that satirical sites, such as The Betoota Advocate, have also been blocked from using their Facebook page.

Another example we’ve seen as a result of Facebook’s decision overnight is that The First Nations media organisation, Bumma Bippera Media 987 FM, also cannot reach their audience via their Facebook page. 

This issue raises some general questions about what role digital platforms play in our society. We need to be clear that they are commercial entities relying on a business model, whilst using exploitative data mining tactics.

Digital platforms benefit from a variety of creators. However, it is unclear why there is a law specifically focusing on news providers, while the general issue of digital platforms is exploiting creators without adequate compensation. Using peoples' data without adequate compensation has not been approached by legislation in a suitable way.

These types of blocks cannot be circumvented via a VPN or other similar solutions, as Facebook does not rely on IP address localisation. The platform has sufficient information about each of its users and it cannot be used without being logged in.