TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Facebook says it will pay news industry $1B over 3 years

55 点作者 lunchbreak大约 4 年前

22 条评论

asymptosis大约 4 年前
So Murdoch&#x27;s empire gets propped up to the tune of over $300 million per year and needs nothing in exchange except keep sending traffic to his sites.<p>Bad news for Australia for starters, but don&#x27;t think Murdoch will be content just with drinking our blood. He&#x27;s coming for USA and UK too, and now he has a tested playbook for getting Facebook &amp; Friends on the leash.
评论 #26259113 未加载
评论 #26259364 未加载
评论 #26262335 未加载
评论 #26269593 未加载
评论 #26259106 未加载
sircastor大约 4 年前
I don’t like Facebook, and I think the way it abuses its position is awful, but I don’t understand the position of the news industry or the judiciary supporting the industry.<p>If I were to stand on a corner and tell people what was on the menu and the daily special of a cafe down the block, I cannot think of a situation where that cafe would think they were owed money for my doing this.<p>I understand that Facebook and Google have a powerful market position, but I don’t see that as part of the argument.
评论 #26259203 未加载
评论 #26259322 未加载
评论 #26259129 未加载
评论 #26259324 未加载
评论 #26259122 未加载
评论 #26259174 未加载
glitchc大约 4 年前
... and mainstream news will never publish anything negative about Facebook ever again. In fact, they will encourage readers to catch their news &quot;on Facebook posts.&quot;<p>So much for free press and the final check on power [1]. Let&#x27;s have an eulogy, the Fourth Estate is now officially dead.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;law.yale.edu&#x2F;mfia&#x2F;case-disclosed&#x2F;fourth-estate-final-check" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;law.yale.edu&#x2F;mfia&#x2F;case-disclosed&#x2F;fourth-estate-final...</a>
shanecp大约 4 年前
This is a very (bad) political strategy, well played by Murdoch. To get some insight, read Bob Iger&#x27;s (Disney ex-CEO) book. He explains how Murdoch was worried about the rising tech-giants, how news is losing edge and his decision to sell to Disney.<p>The sale to Disney happened as a direct result of Murdoch seeing the threat (i.e people moving away from news).<p>Unfortunately for Australia, they cover over 50% of media, and can get the Government to do what they want.<p>To know more about the logical side, see the ex-Prime Minister&#x27;s Senate hearing. This had the most amount of signatures in the history of Australia, yet, unfortunately, it&#x27;ll not reach anywhere.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=Ap_LuSQ5NSc" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=Ap_LuSQ5NSc</a>
评论 #26259501 未加载
mythz大约 4 年前
If it&#x27;s 1B &#x2F;3yr for just News in Australia this is going to set a bad precedent with other countries going to want to rush legislation through and come knocking for a share of FB&#x27;s profit.<p>Although I can see why they&#x27;ve folded, starting to see a trend where my FB friends are posting more infrequently so FB needs to something to fill up content to keep people&#x27;s feeds current and them a reason to return.<p>Would&#x27;ve thought it would be cheaper for them to fund their own &quot;News organization&quot; reporting news from outside of Australia, which if successful I&#x27;d expect to would dissuade other countries from following suit.
mullingitover大约 4 年前
It&#x27;s telling that the response to pulling all content from news sites wasn&#x27;t &quot;This is a fair outcome since we&#x27;re accusing Facebook of profiting from our content in a one-sided fashion.&quot;<p>It&#x27;s pretty obvious that the news publishers are desperately dependent of facebook traffic, so this move was a breathtaking act of chutzpah on their part. Facebook wasn&#x27;t harmed in the slightest by losing news publishers content, but they were facing doom. It was amusing that this was painted as censorship, as if somehow facebook took them off the internet entirely.<p>I&#x27;m not even a fan of Facebook, but they were in a fight with even worse people so it was with a lot of reservations that I was rooting for them in this fight. I would&#x27;ve preferred to see Facebook route around the major publishers entirely and just give grants and promotion directly to smaller independent news publishers.
CivBase大约 4 年前
Companies are motivated by profit. Therefore it is in our best interest for news companies to have a business model such that they profit off of producing quality news coverage. The current market clearly is not doing a good job of rewarding news companies for quality coverage... but I&#x27;m worried this might make it worse. Has Facebook published any information indicating how they plan to distribute that $1B?
drenvuk大约 4 年前
As an American I&#x27;m standing in a glass house when I ask this question but how does an Australian end up voting for these politicians? How do they get elected? There have been a couple of baffling laws that have passed and I&#x27;m wondering if Australians by and large are ok with them.
评论 #26263737 未加载
评论 #26259911 未加载
jaimex2大约 4 年前
I can&#x27;t believe they rolled over like that. They were all talk.<p>What little respect I had for FB just fizzled away.
thu2111大约 4 年前
Urgh, great. So Facebook presumably think this won&#x27;t spread to other places, but now they folded it will.<p>So the news industry is going to fix the problem of falling trust and falling revenues by becoming subsidy junkies extracting wealth from tech firms. And this works because apparently politicians fear the press&#x27;s ability to distort and manipulate the voter base so much that they can get whatever they want, which means that in practice both tech firms and politicians are controlled by the press, who are in turn accountable to nobody - not even anymore the market of their readers. The reputation of journalists will get much worse before it gets better (if it ever does).
codebook大约 4 年前
Then if any news refer FB content, will they also give money to them?
评论 #26259421 未加载
betwixthewires大约 4 年前
So a failing industry gets propped up because governments want it to happen and media aggregator sites have to pay companies for making their content available and expanding their audience.
stickyricky大约 4 年前
Does Facebook host news content or just provide links to it?
评论 #26259076 未加载
solinent大约 4 年前
I think that&#x27;s an absolutely terrible idea.
cevered大约 4 年前
Who decides who gets subsidized by facebook or not? Seems like the government wants their propaganda subsidized
评论 #26259296 未加载
评论 #26259257 未加载
RcouF1uZ4gsC大约 4 年前
Now will the news media pay a Twitter for all the news stories that are primarily sourced from Tweets?
reaperducer大约 4 年前
$1 billion doesn&#x27;t sound like a lot, considering the way Facebook user doom scroll. How much is that per headline+summary viewed? Maybe $0.00001?
评论 #26259016 未加载
Khaine大约 4 年前
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission recommended that something be done in relation to the concentration of digital market power, and the impacts to Australia&#x27;s news media:<p>&quot;The 2019 University of Canberra Digital News Report found that that 33 per cent of Australian consumers report accessing news through social media, with 25 per cent using search engines to search for news brands and 20 per cent using search engines to search for particular news stories.<p>Google is a critical source of internet traffic (and therefore audiences) for news media businesses. A news media business risks losing a significant source of revenue if it prevents Google from providing links to its websites in search results. While Facebook contributes a significantly lower proportion of traffic to news media businesses, it remains a vital distribution channel for a number of media businesses, particularly those seeking to target a particular demographic group.<p>The content produced by news media businesses is also important to digital platforms. For example, between 8 and 14 per cent of Google search results trigger a “Top Stories” result, which typically includes reports from news media websites including niche publications or blogs.<p>While the digital platforms clearly value the news media content that they are able to display to their users, Google and Facebook each appear to be more important to the major news media businesses than any one news media business is to Google or Facebook. As set out above, this provides each of Google and Facebook with substantial bargaining power in relation to many news media businesses.<p>The reliance by news media businesses on traffic from Google and, to a lesser extent, on traffic from Facebook also means the digital platforms and their business models have a significant effect on news media businesses. Particular concerns raised during the course of the Inquiry include:<p>* the lack of warning provided by digital platforms to news media businesses of changes to key algorithms relating to the display of news content or news referral links<p>* the implementation of policies and formats that may have a significant and adverse impact on the ability of news media businesses to monetise their content and&#x2F;or to build or sustain a brand and therefore an audience<p>* the impact of such policies on the incentives for news and journalistic content creation, particularly where significant effort is expended to research and produce original content.<p>A key concern relates to Google’s use of news media businesses’ content in snippets, the short summaries or extracts of text that accompany links to a news story and are displayed when a consumer searches for a news story. A similar concern exists in relation to the posts of news stories that appear in a user’s Facebook News Feed.<p>The ACCC recognises that news media businesses, digital platforms, and importantly, consumers benefit from the reproduction of news content in snippets.<p>Media businesses benefit because a snippet provides context and an indication to the user of the value of that content, increasing the likelihood of consumers clicking through than if no snippet were provided (although this may depend on the length of the snippet). Consumers value snippets for a related reason, as the context enables them to make an informed choice of which article to click on. While Google does not generally sell advertising opportunities next to search queries that are considered by Google as having a ‘news intent’, Google benefits because the inclusion of news stories and snippets in search results increases the attractiveness of the Google search engine.<p>This in turn increases the likelihood that consumers will use the search engine for other queries, which can be directly monetised. Facebook benefits because news stories appearing on a user’s news feed retain the user’s attention, enabling more advertisements to be displayed. However, the inability of news media businesses to individually negotiate terms over the use of their content by digital platforms is likely indicative of the imbalance in bargaining power. Individual news media businesses require Google and Facebook referrals more than each platform requires an individual media business’s content.&quot;<p>The ACCC recommended:<p>&quot;Given the imbalance in the relationships between the leading digital platforms and Australian news media businesses, the ACCC recommends that designated digital platforms should each separately be required to provide a code of conduct to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (the ACMA) to govern their commercial relationships with news media businesses. The ACMA would be responsible for designating which digital platforms should be required to implement a code. The development of each code should be informed by a consultation process with news media businesses and contain a strong enforcement mechanism. The ACMA would closely consult with the ACCC in performing its role under this recommendation.<p>Breaches of the code would be dealt with by the ACMA, which should be vested with appropriate investigative and information gathering powers and the capacity to impose sufficiently large sanctions for breaches to act as an effective deterrent.<p>The ACCC considers that if a digital platform is unable to submit an acceptable code to the ACMA within nine months of designation, the ACMA should create a mandatory standard to apply to the designated digital platform&quot;<p>As I understand it, none of the tech giants played ball, so the Government drafted legislation to force the issue.<p>From <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.accc.gov.au&#x2F;system&#x2F;files&#x2F;Digital%20platforms%20inquiry%20-%20final%20report%20-executive%20summary.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.accc.gov.au&#x2F;system&#x2F;files&#x2F;Digital%20platforms%20i...</a>
arthurcolle大约 4 年前
RIP Fourth Estate
评论 #26259268 未加载
评论 #26259001 未加载
throwoutttt大约 4 年前
Guess they&#x27;ve finally figured out how to do this anticompetitively
Milkman128大约 4 年前
Facebook and news is an oxymoron
abraae大约 4 年前
So Facebook&#x27;s revenues are approx $80b, and they&#x27;re going to pay $1b over 3 years, for all of the real news content they rely on to drive traffic on their platform.<p>0.4% of revenue sounds way too cheap for that. If FB lost legitimate content, they&#x27;d have to make do with just their bubble-fuelling crackpot user-generated fake news, and that would surely drive away many of the less rabid FB users. They need legitimate news, badly.
评论 #26258972 未加载