The issue is the monopolistic nature of tech today. Facebook, Google, and a select few others, have more bargaining power than the media publications that wish to be on their platforms. They can basically say to any media organization, “If you don’t like it, tough, you’re banned.” This can apply to how they strip ads in the case of Google’s AMP, or how Facebook chooses to display their articles in a feed. The draft legislation would allow collective bargaining. Multiple news companies could come to the table to make an agreement with Facebook. This would alter the balance. Now Facebook can’t tell them to go to Twitter if they don’t like it, because they’d be losing a large chunk of the content, rather than just one small publisher.
Facebook doesn’t want to level the playing field. They want to keep their position as the ultimate power in media distribution. So they’ve announced that if the draft legislation goes through, they’ll simply prevent any news from being published on Facebook.
The Draft Code
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) released the draft news media bargaining code here. To summarize, organizations that primarily produce news and uphold journalistic standards (factual information, minimal bias, correcting errors, verifiable sources, etc), can organize to collectively bargain with Google and Facebook over inclusion on their platforms. This entails compensation for news articles shared on their platforms, especially those whose content is provided without adequate compensation, such as Google’s ad-stripping AMP pages.
The rule is in the draft stage now, and only specifically calls out Facebook and Google for now. However, it would eventually include aggregation platforms, such as social networks, search engines, or news apps.
The eventual outcome of this is obvious: Facebook would have to cave to collective bargaining and provide compensation to news outlets for their stories on Facebook. It already does this for some larger outlets, but smaller outlets, who Facebook considers less important, do not get their share. This law would change that.
Facebook’s Response
“Assuming this draft code becomes law, we will reluctantly stop allowing publishers and people in Australia from sharing local and international news on Facebook and Instagram. This is not our first choice – it is our last. But it is the only way to protect against an outcome that defies logic and will hurt, not help, the long-term vibrancy of Australia’s news and media sector.”
- From Facebook’s Response
Facebook put their foot, down, stating that they would have no other choice but to prevent any publisher or user from sharing news stories on Facebook. But… why? They speak as though this is a grievous choice, but is collective bargaining really a threat to Facebook?
Not according to Facebook.
“The ACCC presumes that Facebook benefits most in its relationship with publishers, when in fact the reverse is true. News represents a fraction of what people see in their News Feed and is not a significant source of revenue for us. Still, we recognize that news provides a vitally important role in society and democracy, which is why we offer free tools and training to help media companies reach an audience many times larger than they have previously.”
- From Facebook’s response (emphasis added)
Facebook tried to downplay the importance of news on their platform, but this is a silly stance to take. Pew surveys show that about 43% of Americans get their news through the site. In Australia, 39% consider Facebook a source of news, while 49% use Facebook for news about COVID-19. News is a core reason for many people who use Facebook.
Still, if news is as unimportant to Facebook as they claim, why react with the nuclear option? Why go right to mutually assured destruction if news isn’t vital to Facebook’s survival? Clearly there’s a lot of money involved.
ACCC Moves Forward
“The draft media bargaining code aims to ensure Australian news businesses, including independent, community and regional media, can get a seat at the table for fair negotiations with Facebook and Google.”
“Facebook already pays some media for news content. The code simply aims to bring fairness and transparency to Facebook and Google’s relationships with Australian news media businesses.”
- ACCC Chair Rod Sims
Facebook already pays larger publishers and those it feels as though it needs for their platform. This simply would allow smaller publishers to join in on those negotiations. The draft order helps keep Facebook’s monopoly from turning into a media monopoly, where the only news people see are from Facebook’s preferred sources.
The ACCC seems to be moving forward. The real question is whether or not Facebook will actually cut off their nose to spite their face, or if they’ll learn to play nice and negotiate with news publishers. My guess is the latter.