tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca-fr/topics/facebook-news-ban-100348/articlesFacebook news ban – La Conversation2024-03-01T07:07:04Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2248572024-03-01T07:07:04Z2024-03-01T07:07:04ZFacebook won’t keep paying Australian media outlets for their content. Are we about to get another news ban?<p>Facebook’s parent company, Meta, <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2024/02/update-on-facebook-news-us-australia/">has announced</a> it will stop paying for news content in Australia when the current deals it has expire. Meta will also cease news aggregation on the site.</p>
<p>Three years ago, the company signed deals with Australian news outlets after the government introduced laws requiring tech companies to pay for the news on their platforms. The law only comes into effect if no commercial deal is struck.</p>
<p>Meta has now decided that the cost of providing news in Australia is too high. Its reason for the change is to “better align our investments to our products and services people value the most”. That is, it saves money. </p>
<p>So what does this mean for news on Facebook? What can users expect to find on the platform?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-news-is-fading-from-sight-on-big-social-media-platforms-where-does-that-leave-journalism-218522">The news is fading from sight on big social media platforms – where does that leave journalism?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>An unsurprising manoeuvre</h2>
<p>This decision was largely predictable, as it’s consistent with Meta’s actions in the UK, France, and Germany in December 2023. The same “deprecation” will occur simultaneously in the US. </p>
<p>Meta’s rationale is that news is “a small part of the Facebook experience for the vast majority of people” and is not a reason for the use of the platform as it “makes up less than 3% of what people around the world see in their Facebook feed”. It does not comment on the percentage in Australia.</p>
<p>Meta says “this does not impact our commitment to connecting people to reliable information on our platforms”. However, this “reliable information” is a reference to fact-checking in the context of misinformation. </p>
<p>Meta does not see a link between reliable information and Australian news. It has not addressed the issue of the sustainability of news journalism in Australia.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/facebooks-news-blockade-in-australia-shows-how-tech-giants-are-swallowing-the-web-155832">Facebook's news blockade in Australia shows how tech giants are swallowing the web</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>So what will Facebook look like?</h2>
<p>Facebook says that it will simply remove the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/business/help/417376132287321?id=204021664031159">dedicated tab</a> on the site for news content. </p>
<p>For many users, this will not have an effect. However, for those who use Facebook as a news aggregator, access to links to news publishers will disappear. </p>
<p>Facebook users will need to go to the Facebook page of their favourite news publishers in order to be able to keep up with events. This means having to “follow” all of the news publishers with which Facebook currently has a commercial agreement.</p>
<p>Unlike the approach in 2021, Facebook is not going to <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-18/facebook-to-restrict-sharing-or-viewing-news-in-australia/13166208">shut down</a> all of the pages that its systems thought were “media pages” (including emergency services and helplines such as 1-800-RESPECT). </p>
<p>Instead, Meta is encouraging news publishers to buy the tech giant’s services to increase their own traffic. </p>
<p>However, this means Meta expects that the flow of funds will be from news publishers to Meta, rather than the other way around.</p>
<h2>What does this mean for news?</h2>
<p>There is already a concern that social media is replacing legacy news sources.</p>
<p>Meta has consistently argues that news is not a driver of its business. In <a href="https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Facebooks-response-to-Australias-proposed-News-Media-and-Digital-Platforms-Mandatory-Bargaining-Code.pdf">submissions to government</a>, it has sought to differentiate Meta and Google. In fact, news publishers often report having their <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-news-is-fading-from-sight-on-big-social-media-platforms-where-does-that-leave-journalism-218522">content buried</a> by algorithms over which they have no control. </p>
<p>Meta contends that news is so unimportant that it would rather not have news options than pay news publishers for content. </p>
<p>The Facebook news ban of 2021 was largely in response to the government’s <a href="https://www.acma.gov.au/news-media-bargaining-code">News Media Bargaining Code</a> – an arrangement in which news organisations could negotiate with big tech companies over payment and inclusion of their content on digital platforms. </p>
<p>In contrast, Google has previously been willing to enter into commercial deals or to launch news aggregator services rather than having a code imposed on it. </p>
<p>It is not clear whether Google will change its view in Australia as a result of the Meta decision. The News Media Bargaining Code has the potential to apply to both businesses. However, Google relies more on news content than Meta. </p>
<h2>Can the government do anything?</h2>
<p>The relevant ministers, Stephen Jones and Michelle Rowland, have already <a href="https://minister.infrastructure.gov.au/rowland/media-release/metas-news-content-announcement">referred to</a> the decision as a “dereliction of its commitment to the sustainability of Australian news media.” </p>
<p>As a practical matter, the News Media Bargaining Code is only triggered if there is no commercial deal in play. The current commercial deals with news outlets are <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-01/meta-won-t-renew-deal-with-australian-news-media/103533874">due to expire</a> in a few months. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/this-weeks-changes-are-a-win-for-facebook-google-and-the-government-but-what-was-lost-along-the-way-155865">This week's changes are a win for Facebook, Google and the government — but what was lost along the way?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Meta has said that it “will not offer new Facebook products specifically for news publishers in the future”. It will let the existing commercial agreements lapse in in Australia, France, and Germany as they already have in the UK and the US.</p>
<p>The treasurer is now faced with a tough decision. He can “designate” Meta under the code and force it to the bargaining table, or he can agree that news is not a driver of Facebook use. This decision will need to take into account the issue of news journalism sustainability. </p>
<p>However, it also risks a repeat of the 2021 shut down in Australia and a similar one in <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-67755133">Canada</a> last year.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/224857/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rob Nicholls received funding from the Australian Research Council. He has previously received funding from Google (at the University of New South Wales). </span></em></p>The news page on Facebook will go, and with it, the flow of money to some Australian media outlets. But will the news content disappear too?Rob Nicholls, Visiting Fellow, University of Technology SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1826732022-05-10T04:13:39Z2022-05-10T04:13:39ZStuff-up or conspiracy? Whistleblowers claim Facebook deliberately let important non-news pages go down in news blackout<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/462154/original/file-20220510-14-89py3q.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=64%2C69%2C3030%2C2083&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>On Friday, the Wall Street Journal published information from Facebook whistleblowers, alleging Facebook (which is owned by Meta) deliberately caused havoc in Australia last year <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-deliberately-caused-havoc-in-australia-to-influence-new-law-whistleblowers-say-11651768302">to influence the News Media Bargaining Code</a> before it was passed as law. </p>
<p>During Facebook’s news blackout in February 2021, thousands of non-news pages were also blocked – including important emergency, health, charity and government pages.</p>
<p>Meta has continued to argue the takedown of not-for-profit and government pages was a technical error. It remains to be seen whether the whistleblower revelations will lead to Facebook being taken to court.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-conversations-submission-to-the-australian-senate-inquiry-into-the-news-media-bargaining-code-153532">The Conversation's submission to the Australian Senate Inquiry into the News Media Bargaining Code</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>The effects of Facebook’s “error”</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-a-world-first-australia-plans-to-force-facebook-and-google-to-pay-for-news-but-abc-and-sbs-miss-out-143740">News Media Bargaining Code</a> was first published in July 2020, with a goal to have Facebook and Google pay Australian news publishers for the content they provide to the platforms. </p>
<p>It was passed by the House of Representatives (Australia’s lower house) on February 17 2021. That same day, Facebook retaliated by issuing a <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2021/02/changes-to-sharing-and-viewing-news-on-facebook-in-australia/">statement</a> saying it would remove access to news media business pages on its platform – a threat it had first made in August 2020.</p>
<p>It was arguably a reasonable threat of capital strike by a foreign direct investor, in respect to new regulation it regarded as “harmful” – and which it believed fundamentally “misunderstands the relationship between [its] platform and publishers who use it to share news content”.</p>
<p>However, the range of pages blocked was extensive. </p>
<p>Facebook has a label called the “News Page Index” which can be applied to its pages. News media pages, such as those of the ABC and SBS, are included in the index. All Australian pages on this index were taken down during Facebook’s news blackout. </p>
<p>But Facebook also blocked access to other pages, such as the page of the satirical website <a href="https://www.betootaadvocate.com">The Betoota Advocate</a>. The broadness of Facebook’s approach was also evidenced by the blocking of its own corporate page. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/feb/18/time-to-reactivate-myspace-the-day-australia-woke-up-to-a-facebook-news-blackout">most major harm</a>, however, came from blocks to not-for-profit pages, including cancer charities, the Bureau of Meteorology and a variety of state health department pages – at a time when they were delivering crucial information about COVID-19 and vaccines.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1362185003635863553"}"></div></p>
<h2>Whistleblowers emerge</h2>
<p>The whistleblower material published by the Wall Street Journal, which was also filed to the US Department of Justice and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), includes several email chains that show Facebook decided to implement its blocking threat through a broad strategy. </p>
<p>The argument for its broad approach was based on an anti-avoidance clause in the News Media Bargaining Code. The effect of the clause was to ensure Facebook didn’t attempt to avoid the rules of the code by simply substituting Australian news with international news for Australian users. In other words, it would have to be all or nothing.</p>
<p>As a consequence, Facebook did not use its News Page Index. It instead classified a domain as “news” if “60% [or] more of a domain’s content shared on Facebook is classified as news”. One product manager wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Hey everyone – the [proposed Australian law] we are responding to is extremely broad, so guidance from the policy and legal team has been to be over-inclusive and refine as we get more information.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The blocking approach was algorithmic and based on these rules. There were some exceptions, that included not blocking “.gov” – but no such exclusion for “.gov.au”. The effect of this was the taking down of many charity and government pages. </p>
<p>The whistleblower material makes it clear a number of Facebook employees offered solutions to the perceived overreach. This included one employee proposal that Facebook should “proactively find all the affected pages and restore them”. However, the documents show these calls were ignored. </p>
<p>According to the Wall Street Journal:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The whistleblower documents show Facebook did attempt to exclude government and education pages. But people familiar with Facebook’s response said some of these lists malfunctioned at rollout, while other whitelists didn’t cover enough pages to avoid widespread improper blocking.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Amendments following the blackout</h2>
<p>Following Facebook’s news blackout, there were last-minute amendments to the draft legislation before it was passed through the Senate.</p>
<p>The main change was that the News Media Bargaining Code would only apply to Facebook if deals were not struck with a range of key news businesses (which so far has not included SBS or <a href="https://twitter.com/ConversationEDU/status/1440562209206128653?s=20&t=FsviAWBLX7mKumr80Qiwzg">The Conversation</a>). </p>
<p>It’s not clear whether the amendment was as a result of Facebook’s actions, or if it would have been introduced in the Senate anyway. In either case, Facebook said it was “<a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2021/02/changes-to-sharing-and-viewing-news-on-facebook-in-australia/">satisfied</a>” with the outcome, and ended its news blackout.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/this-weeks-changes-are-a-win-for-facebook-google-and-the-government-but-what-was-lost-along-the-way-155865">This week's changes are a win for Facebook, Google and the government — but what was lost along the way?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Facebook denies the accusations</h2>
<p>The definitions of “core news content” and “news source” in the News Media Bargaining Code were reasonably narrow. So Facebook’s decision to block pages so broadly seems problematic – especially from the perspective of reputational risk. </p>
<p>But as soon as that risk crystallised, Facebook denied intent to cause any harm. A Meta spokesperson said the removal of non-news pages was a “mistake” and “any suggestion to the contrary is categorically and obviously false”. Referring to the whistleblower documents, the spokesperson said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The documents in question clearly show that we intended to exempt Australian government pages from restrictions in an effort to minimise the impact of this misguided and harmful legislation. When we were unable to do so as intended due to a technical error, we apologised and worked to correct it. </p>
</blockquote>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/publishers-take-on-facebook-and-google-for-failing-to-pay-up-under-the-news-media-bargaining-code-179838">Publishers take on Facebook and Google for failing to pay up under the News Media Bargaining Code</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Possible legal action</h2>
<p>In the immediate aftermath of Facebook’s broad news takedown, former ACCC chair Allan Fels <a href="https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/facebook-could-face-lawsuits-for-unconscionable-conduct-over-nonnews-wipe-out/news-story/b312cef33b8e2261e8b5743f9bf87ca6">suggested</a> there could be a series of class actions against Facebook.</p>
<p>His basis was that Facebook’s action was unconscionable under the <a href="http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca2010265/toc-sch2.html">Australian Consumer Law</a>. We have not seen these actions taken.</p>
<p>It’s not clear whether the whistleblower material changes the likelihood of legal action against Facebook. If legal action is taken, it’s more likely to be a civil case taken by an organisation that has been harmed, rather than a criminal case.</p>
<p>On the other hand, one reading of the material is Facebook did indeed overreach out of caution, and then reduced the scope of its blocking over a short period. </p>
<p>Facebook suffered reputational harm as a result of its actions and apologised. However, if it engaged in similar actions in other countries, the balance between its actions being a stuff up, versus conspiracy, changes. </p>
<p>The Wall Street Journal described Facebook’s approach as an “overly broad and sloppy process”. Such a process isn’t good practice, but done once, it’s unlikely to be criminal. On the other hand, repeating it would create a completely different set of potential liabilities and causes of action.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Disclosure: Facebook has refused to negotiate a deal with The Conversation under the News Media Bargaining Code. In response, The Conversation has called for Facebook to be “designated” by the Treasurer under the Code. This means Facebook would be forced to pay for content published by The Conversation on its platform.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/182673/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rob Nicholls is a member of the UNSW Allens Hub for Technology, Law and Innovation from which he receives research funding. He is also the faculty lead for the UNSW Institute for Cyber Security (IFCYBER), which provides support. UNSW has received an untied gift from Facebook, which is used to fund some of Rob's research.</span></em></p>A Meta spokesperson told The Conversation non-news pages had been taken down by mistake. Whistleblower allegations contradict this.Rob Nicholls, Associate professor in regulation and governance, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1558322021-02-25T13:28:27Z2021-02-25T13:28:27ZFacebook’s news blockade in Australia shows how tech giants are swallowing the web<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385936/original/file-20210223-16-6oqmbd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C23%2C5221%2C3548&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Facebook's decision to shut off sharing of Australian news made headlines across the nation.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/AustraliaDigitalPlatforms/5508e6ba66f44b319f785aa5c4a37cdc/photo">AP Photo/Rick Rycroft</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>When Facebook <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/technology/facebook-google-australia-news.html">disabled Australians’ access to news articles</a> on its platform, and blocked sharing of articles from Australian news organizations, the company moved a step closer to killing the World Wide Web – the hyperlink-based system of freely connecting online sites <a href="https://webfoundation.org/about/vision/history-of-the-web/">created in 1989 by Sir Tim Berners-Lee</a>. </p>
<p>Though the social media giant has <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56165015">said it will return to the negotiating table and restore news for now</a>, the company has shown its hand – and how it is continuing to reshape the web.</p>
<p>As a <a href="https://newhouse.syr.edu/faculty-staff/jennifer-grygiel">social media scholar</a>, I see clearly that the internet in 2021 is <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/23/tech/splinternet-tech-regulation-facebook/index.html">not the same open public sphere</a> that Berners-Lee envisioned. Rather, it is a constellation of powerful <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/twitter-s-jack-dorsey-created-walled-internet-garden-then-he-ncna1102421">corporate platforms</a> that have come to dominate how people use the internet, what information they get and who is able to profit from it. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385941/original/file-20210223-22-1nz0e0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Tim Berners-Lee" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385941/original/file-20210223-22-1nz0e0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385941/original/file-20210223-22-1nz0e0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385941/original/file-20210223-22-1nz0e0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385941/original/file-20210223-22-1nz0e0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385941/original/file-20210223-22-1nz0e0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385941/original/file-20210223-22-1nz0e0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385941/original/file-20210223-22-1nz0e0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tim Berners Lee, the man who in 1989 invented the hyperlink-interconnected World Wide Web.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sir_Tim_Berners-Lee.jpg">Paul Clarke via Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Paying for news</h2>
<p>The Australian government’s legislative efforts aim to support the news industry by helping to broker a deal whereby <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd048">Facebook would pay Australian news organizations for content</a> posted on its platform by users. Right now, Facebook isn’t required to pay for news in any way, and the company objected to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/22/technology/facebook-australia-news.html">this new potential cost of business</a>.</p>
<p>Berners-Lee warned the Australian government the proposed law could undermine free linking, which he called a “<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/20/australias-proposed-media-code-could-break-the-world-wide-web-says-the-man-who-invented-it">fundamental principle of the web</a>.” <a href="https://about.fb.com/news/2021/02/the-real-story-of-what-happened-with-news-on-facebook-in-australia/">Facebook’s own statement of self-defense</a> focused on Berners-Lee’s argument, saying Facebook provides value to news organizations by linking to them. But their statements show that neither has acknowledged that Facebook has, for many people, <a href="https://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-idea-theyre-using-the-internet/">effectively become the web</a>.</p>
<p>Back in the 1980s, Berners-Lee envisioned the web as a network of community-minded academic researchers <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/20/australias-proposed-media-code-could-break-the-world-wide-web-says-the-man-who-invented-it">sharing their knowledge quickly and conveniently</a> across the world. The main mechanism for this was the hyperlink – text that, when clicked on, led readers to something they were interested in, or to supporting material on the actual source’s website. This meant information was freely exchanged, with attribution. The priority was helping users find the material they wanted, wherever it was online.</p>
<p>Berners-Lee’s design serves the reader, but not everyone was as public-spirited: Companies like Facebook have been moving away from this principle since the web’s founding. These corporate platforms are <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/16522354.2018.1527521?journalCode=romb20">designed to capture and dominate users’ attention</a> – and turn it into money.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385965/original/file-20210223-14-1xpqsr5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A Facebook news post" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385965/original/file-20210223-14-1xpqsr5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385965/original/file-20210223-14-1xpqsr5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385965/original/file-20210223-14-1xpqsr5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385965/original/file-20210223-14-1xpqsr5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385965/original/file-20210223-14-1xpqsr5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385965/original/file-20210223-14-1xpqsr5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385965/original/file-20210223-14-1xpqsr5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Facebook post often includes key news content – not just a link.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.facebook.com/theguardian/posts/10159994274116323">The Conversation screenshot of the Guardian's Facebook page</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Keeping users on the site</h2>
<p>When a user posts a link on Facebook, it’s not just a hyperlink as Berners-Lee envisioned. It’s much more advanced, <a href="https://medium.com/slack-developer-blog/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-unfurling-but-were-afraid-to-ask-or-how-to-make-your-e64b4bb9254">displaying information from the linked page</a>, including, for news stories, a <a href="https://developers.facebook.com/docs/sharing/webmasters/">headline, a main image</a> and sometimes a summary of the news users might see if they clicked the link. In this way, users can get a lot of the information without ever leaving Facebook, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/16522354.2018.1527521">hurting news organizations’ revenues</a>.</p>
<p>On Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, users’ options are even more restricted. People can post photos and text, but cannot directly share links to other websites. The only active links in a post are internal, for tagging others on Instagram and hashtags.</p>
<p>In my view, both cases show that Facebook doesn’t really want an interconnected web: It wants to keep its users on its own platforms. Facebook displays valuable information, but if people don’t click through, or there is nothing to effectively click on, then those who actually created the content will continue to have a <a href="https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/social/facebook-to-lift-news-ban-for-australian-users-and-publishers/news-story/e3567b796fbe642418d8b220b101988d">hard time making money off their work</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385938/original/file-20210223-13-dymn3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="An Australian media company's Facebook page had no articles on Feb. 18." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385938/original/file-20210223-13-dymn3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385938/original/file-20210223-13-dymn3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385938/original/file-20210223-13-dymn3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385938/original/file-20210223-13-dymn3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385938/original/file-20210223-13-dymn3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385938/original/file-20210223-13-dymn3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385938/original/file-20210223-13-dymn3z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Facebook page for the Australian Broadcasting Corp. had no articles visible to users on Feb. 18.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/AustraliaDigitalPlatforms/9e18b7dbc60c4f75979b5a7af5da380b/photo">AP Photo/Rick Rycroft</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Possible ways forward</h2>
<p>The situation in Australia is a significant opportunity to examine how much power Facebook has over the ways people can seek information online.</p>
<p>News media may decide to bid farewell to Facebook, which provides <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-02-19/facebook-referral-traffic-down-news-ban-morrison-frydenberg/13171568">about one-fifth of traffic to media sites</a> in Australia, and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/16522354.2018.1527521">not necessarily much revenue</a> in other parts of the world. They might <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2021/2/19/22291406/abc-news-app-top-charts-facebook-ban-australia">seek other options for digital distribution of their content</a>. But in the near term they may need financial help from somewhere if they have become too dependent on Facebook.</p>
<p>Or news organizations could negotiate with Facebook directly in deals and avoid restrictive laws, as the proposed legislation is not even final yet. </p>
<p>News publishers could also ask regulators to help them gain more control over how news content is presented on platforms to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/16522354.2018.1527521">increase link referral traffic</a>, which is key to generating revenue. A return to simpler hyperlinks – and adding them to Instagram – could help more users click through on news stories while preserving the principles of the web. Just because advanced technology exists <a href="https://theconversation.com/livestreamed-massacre-means-its-time-to-shut-down-facebook-live-113830">doesn’t mean it’s helpful in all situations or good</a>. But then again, a basic old-timey solution may not work for those trapped in the “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/16522354.2018.1527521">attention economy</a>.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: The Conversation U.S. is an independent media nonprofit, one of eight news organizations around the world that share a common mission, brand and publishing platform. The Conversation Australia has publicly lobbied in support of the Australian government’s proposal.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/155832/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Grygiel owns a small number of shares in the following social media companies: Facebook, Google, Twitter, Alibaba, LinkedIn, YY, Snap, Amazon, and Netflix. Grygiel also owns nominal amounts of the following cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin, Litecoin and Ethereum.</span></em></p>The internet of 2021 is not the open public sphere that early visionaries had imagined.Jennifer Grygiel, Assistant Professor of Communications (Social Media) & Magazine, News and Digital Journalism, Syracuse UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1531192021-02-22T13:46:23Z2021-02-22T13:46:23ZFacebook’s free speech myth is dead – and regulators should take notice<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385404/original/file-20210221-19-18q8ra9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=13%2C0%2C4479%2C2775&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.alamy.com/facebook-logo-seen-on-the-smartphone-and-blurred-australian-flag-on-the-background-screen-concept-stafford-united-kingdom-february-18-2021-image405794748.html?pv=1&stamp=2&imageid=8C906DAB-C458-4A6D-90AB-AD9DBE690C0C&p=1396470&n=0&orientation=0&pn=1&searchtype=0&IsFromSearch=1&srch=foo%3dbar%26st%3d0%26pn%3d1%26ps%3d100%26sortby%3d2%26resultview%3dsortbyPopular%26npgs%3d0%26qt%3dfacebook%2520australia%26qt_raw%3dfacebook%2520australia%26lic%3d3%26mr%3d0%26pr%3d0%26ot%3d0%26creative%3d%26ag%3d0%26hc%3d0%26pc%3d%26blackwhite%3d%26cutout%3d%26tbar%3d1%26et%3d0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3d0%26loc%3d0%26imgt%3d0%26dtfr%3d%26dtto%3d%26size%3d0xFF%26archive%3d1%26groupid%3d%26pseudoid%3d%26a%3d%26cdid%3d%26cdsrt%3d%26name%3d%26qn%3d%26apalib%3d%26apalic%3d%26lightbox%3d%26gname%3d%26gtype%3d%26xstx%3d0%26simid%3d%26saveQry%3d%26editorial%3d%26nu%3d%26t%3d%26edoptin%3d%26customgeoip%3dGB%26cap%3d1%26cbstore%3d1%26vd%3d0%26lb%3d%26fi%3d2%26edrf%3d0%26ispremium%3d1%26flip%3d0%26pl%3d">mundissima/Alamy Stock Photo</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Facebook’s recent decision to <a href="https://apnews.com/article/facebook-blocks-australia-news-access-fed95e78e8bf30f167eb1a2d893ac89c">block its Australian users</a> from sharing or viewing news content provoked a worldwide backlash and accusations of hubris and bullying. Although the company has now reversed its decision following an agreement with the Australian government, the row has exposed the fragility of Facebook’s founding myth: that Mark Zuckerberg’s brainchild is a force for good, providing a public space for people to connect, converse and cooperate.</p>
<p>An inclusive public space in the good times, Facebook has yet again proved willing to eject and exclude in the bad times – as a private firm ultimately has the right to do. Facebook seems to be a bastion of free speech up to and until the moment its revenue is endangered. At that point, as in the case of the Australian news ban, it defaults to a private space.</p>
<p><a href="https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10603/9549">My recent paper</a> explores social media’s spatial hybridity, arguing that we must stop seeing companies like Facebook as public spaces and “platforms” for free speech. Equally, given their ubiquity and dominance, we shouldn’t see them solely as private spaces, either. Instead, these companies should be defined as “corpo-civic” spaces – a mixture of the two – and regulated as such: by internal guidelines as well as external laws.</p>
<p>Facebook’s disagreement with the Australian government was over a <a href="https://www.crn.com.au/news/accc-warns-google-facebook-laws-are-just-the-start-559690">new set of laws</a> drawn up there to counter big tech’s monopoly power. The law in question responds to news companies’ complaints that they are losing advertising revenue to dominant content-sharing platforms such as Facebook and Google. <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r6652_ems_2fe103c0-0f60-480b-b878-1c8e96cf51d2/upload_pdf/JC000725.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf">The law</a> compels Facebook to agree a fee with news companies in an effort to reimburse them for the advertising revenue they lose to Facebook.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385401/original/file-20210221-19-xbv39x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A graph showing how Facebook have a growing share of display advertising in Australia" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385401/original/file-20210221-19-xbv39x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385401/original/file-20210221-19-xbv39x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385401/original/file-20210221-19-xbv39x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385401/original/file-20210221-19-xbv39x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=311&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385401/original/file-20210221-19-xbv39x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385401/original/file-20210221-19-xbv39x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385401/original/file-20210221-19-xbv39x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Facebook’s growing share of display advertising revenue in Australia is one reason for the new law.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/ACCC%20Digital%20Platforms%20Service%20Inquiry%20-%20September%202020%20interim%20report.pdf">ACC Digital Platforms Services Inquiry: Interim report, September 2020</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Despite threatening to withdraw from Australia, Google eventually chose to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/technology/facebook-google-australia-news.html">agree to those fees</a>. Facebook didn’t follow suit. Instead, as if by the flick of a switch, the company turned off the news in Australia. Caught in the crossfire and also finding themselves blocked on Facebook were <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/18/facebook-blocked-charity-and-state-health-pages-in-australia-news-ban.html">charities and government organisations</a>, as well as <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/19/facebooks-australia-ban-threatens-to-leave-pacific-without-key-news-source">Pacific communities</a> outside of Australian jurisdiction. </p>
<p>The news block has played poorly for Facebook. Having claimed impotence in the face of growing disinformation for years, Facebook’s new-found iron fist <a href="https://www.wired.co.uk/article/facebook-australia-rupert-murdoch">has raised eyebrows</a>. But this apparent inconsistency can be explained – though perhaps not justified – when we see Facebook as a public space with private interests.</p>
<p>Social media firms aren’t the only organisations straddled between the private and the public. Shopping centres are a common example in the offline world. So are some apparently public spaces like New York’s Zuccotti Park where, in 2011, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/blog/2011/nov/25/occupy-wall-street-eviction-inevitable">Occupy Wall Street protesters</a> found themselves evicted both by police and by the park’s private owners, Brookfield Properties.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A busy shopping centre with many people walking around, some blurred" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385531/original/file-20210222-17-tmyhqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/385531/original/file-20210222-17-tmyhqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385531/original/file-20210222-17-tmyhqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385531/original/file-20210222-17-tmyhqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385531/original/file-20210222-17-tmyhqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385531/original/file-20210222-17-tmyhqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/385531/original/file-20210222-17-tmyhqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Shopping centres are a common example of spaces that are both public and private.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/shopping-198234164">estherpoon/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Social media platforms operate similarly. Just as a shopping centre relies on footfall, Facebook profits from active users on its platform. For Facebook, this profit is generated <a href="https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/what-facebooks-revenue-breakdown-2019-03-28-0">almost entirely</a> via the revenue provided by online advertising. </p>
<p>It shouldn’t surprise us that, when confronted with a law that could force Facebook to part with an unspecified amount of its revenue, the company showed resistance – even if that deprived Australian users of news content and a <a href="https://privacyinternational.org/long-read/2852/protecting-civic-spaces">civic space to share and discuss it</a>. </p>
<h2>Nazis and nipples</h2>
<p>Facebook’s brief Australian news block is the latest example of a social media company falling short of its own principles. Governed by “community standards” that are <a href="https://www.justsecurity.org/70035/the-republic-of-facebook/">effectively in-platform laws</a>, platforms such as Facebook have a history of enforcing their rules on an ad-hoc basis. For years, researchers have <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461444809342738?journalCode=nmsa">argued</a> that this system is inadequate, inconsistent and open to abuse.</p>
<p>Most glaring is social media’s inconsistent enforcement of its own community standards. Facebook and Instagram’s moderation has previously targeted <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14680777.2020.1783805?journalCode=rfms20">women’s nipples</a> and has <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-50222380">forced sex workers offline</a>, while self-professed Nazis were only forced from Facebook after their participation in the US Capitol riots on January 6 2021.</p>
<p>During the run-up to the US election in 2020, Mark Zuckerberg actually <a href="https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-facebook-aspen-zuckerberg-regulation-20190626-story.html">invited regulation from the government</a>, which seemed to be an admission that Facebook had grown beyond its ability to regulate itself. Yet, as we’ve seen with events in Australia, the corporate half of these online civic spaces baulks at any external regulation that might be bad for business.</p>
<h2>Corpo-civic spaces</h2>
<p>So how should we regulate these hybrid spaces with competing and sometimes contradictory interests? My recent paper turns to “<a href="https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803103943995">third space theory</a>” for answers. Third space theory has been used to understand spatially ambiguous places, like when people’s homes become their workplaces, or when people feel a tension between their <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/40647476">ancestral and adopted homes</a>.</p>
<p>When applied to ambiguous spaces between the “corporate” and the “civic”, third space theory can help us better understand the unique regulatory challenges associated with social media companies. Facebook, for instance, is neither a wholly corporate nor a wholly civic space: it’s a corpo-civic one.</p>
<p>A corpo-civic governance approach would recognise that to heavily penalise and restrict social media companies would be to risk dismantling valuable civic spaces. At the same time, to see Facebook solely as a platform for free speech gives it licence to place maximising profits above ethics and human rights. </p>
<p>Instead, a corpo-civic governance model could apply international human rights standards to content moderation, putting the protection of people above the protection of profits. This is not dissimilar from the standards we expect of shopping centres, which may have their own private security policies but which must nevertheless abide by state law. </p>
<p>Because social media platforms are global and not local like shopping centres, it will be important for the laws that govern them to be transnational. Facebook may have briefly blocked the news for Australians, but it wouldn’t make the same decision for hundreds of millions of users across several different countries.</p>
<p>Australia might be “<a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/09/australia-google-regulation-internet-big-tech-silicon-valley-media/">Ground Zero</a>” for laws aimed at reining in big tech, but it’s certainly not the only country drafting them. Having those state regulators work together on transnational policies will be crucial. In the meantime, events in Australia are a warning for tech companies and state regulators alike about social media’s hybrid nature, and the tension between people and profits that emerge from corpo-civic spaces.</p>
<p><em>This article was updated on February 23 2021 after Facebook agreed a compromise with the Australian government to reverse the news block.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/153119/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Carolina Are does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Facebook’s choice of profits over the people is difficult to reconcile with its commitment to free speech.Carolina Are, Researcher and visiting lecturer, City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1555582021-02-18T05:37:30Z2021-02-18T05:37:30ZFacebook’s news is gone. Here’s where to turn for trusted information<p>Information is everywhere, right? Well, here in Australia, we now have one less source of news information at our fingertips. </p>
<p>Today, Facebook <a href="https://theconversation.com/facebook-has-pulled-the-trigger-on-news-content-and-possibly-shot-itself-in-the-foot-155547">banned Australian users</a> from posting news links, and sharing or viewing Australian and international news content. This will have a far-reaching impact on many organisations and groups. </p>
<p>For the public – people of all ages, demographic backgrounds and political persuasions – this represents a dramatic and powerful imposition of control over how we find, share and critique information in our daily lives. How will we cope with this shift?</p>
<p>Facebook, like other social media platforms, offers a useful way to engage with family, friends and colleagues. We share recipes online, we send weather reports to relatives in other countries, we watch videos of our nephews’ first steps. And we share the news of the day. </p>
<p>Another <a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-another-lockdown-in-victoria-hurts-but-it-might-be-our-only-way-to-avert-a-third-wave-155212">COVID lockdown in Melbourne</a>? I share news stories with family in Canada so they know I’m safe. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/pro-trump-rioters-storm-u-s-capitol-as-his-election-tantrum-leads-to-violence-149142">US Capitol under siege</a>? Australians tracked the tumultuous events in Washington, many of them via trusted news outlets posting content on Facebook. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/facebook-has-pulled-the-trigger-on-news-content-and-possibly-shot-itself-in-the-foot-155547">Facebook has pulled the trigger on news content — and possibly shot itself in the foot</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The challenge is compounded by Facebook’s heavy-handed definition of a “news organisation”, which has also seen it restrict access to many other (non-news) organisations, temporarily in some cases. Earlier today, users found pages missing for the Bureau of Meteorology, non-profit organisations such as 1800Respect, politicians, community groups and others. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384940/original/file-20210218-20-1p7yma3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Screenshot of 1800Respect Facebook post" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384940/original/file-20210218-20-1p7yma3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384940/original/file-20210218-20-1p7yma3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=578&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384940/original/file-20210218-20-1p7yma3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=578&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384940/original/file-20210218-20-1p7yma3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=578&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384940/original/file-20210218-20-1p7yma3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=727&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384940/original/file-20210218-20-1p7yma3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=727&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384940/original/file-20210218-20-1p7yma3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=727&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">1800Respect was caught up in the ban but has since been reinstated.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Many of the affected pages have since been restored, and Facebook does have an appeal process, but it’s unclear whether members of the public can engage in recommending sites be reinstated, rather than the site’s administrators themselves. It’s not clear now long it will take to bring all of the unduly affected sites back online.</p>
<h2>Social media shapes our lives</h2>
<p>In our book <a href="https://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/archived/products/books/notable/page.htm%3Fid%3D9781785609688">Looking for Information</a>, my colleague Donald O. Case and I documented the importance of social media and news sources in shaping people’s daily lives. In my research, I explore how people find, share, make sense of, and critique information – not just from news media, but from all corners of their lives. </p>
<p>I have conducted research with children, university students, hospital patients, farmers, and many other people who rely on trusted sources to make daily decisions. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/banning-news-links-just-days-before-australias-covid-vaccine-rollout-facebook-thats-just-dangerous-155550">Banning news links just days before Australia's COVID vaccine rollout? Facebook, that’s just dangerous</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Although the news media represent a key resource for most people, it’s the information shared by close contacts, debated by friends, family and trusted public figures, and used or applied by people we trust, that matters the most. </p>
<p>What’s more, people are very adaptable when it comes to finding the information they need. The adage “where there’s a will, there’s a way” certainly holds true here.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384952/original/file-20210218-28-1rgh970.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Screengrab of blocked BBC Facebook search results" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384952/original/file-20210218-28-1rgh970.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384952/original/file-20210218-28-1rgh970.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384952/original/file-20210218-28-1rgh970.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384952/original/file-20210218-28-1rgh970.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=435&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384952/original/file-20210218-28-1rgh970.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384952/original/file-20210218-28-1rgh970.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384952/original/file-20210218-28-1rgh970.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=547&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">International news outlets such as the BBC are also off-limits for Australian Facebook users.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Here are some straightforward ways to fill the gap left by Facebook’s restrictions:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Australian news organisations’ websites, apps and print subscriptions</p></li>
<li><p>non-Australian news organisations’ apps and websites</p></li>
<li><p>other social media platforms, such as Twitter, that feature Australian news.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>There are also some craftier strategies you can use to get around the restrictions, including:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>scrolling through content on international organisations’ Facebook pages (such as <a href="https://www.facebook.com/nytimes">www.facebook.com/nytimes</a>) while not logged into your account</p></li>
<li><p>accessing Facebook subpages (such as <a href="https://www.facebook.com/nytimesscience">www.facebook.com/nytimesscience</a>) while logged into your account; these appear not to be affected by the ban in the same way as the organisations’ main Facebook pages</p></li>
<li><p>taking photos and screenshots of sources to share on Facebook, instead of direct links</p></li>
<li><p>asking friends, family and others overseas to send articles via email or messaging services.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>These examples demonstrate a few ways Facebook users will adapt and change in this new landscape. The worst outcome would be if people simply stop reading the news. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-is-it-so-hard-to-stop-covid-19-misinformation-spreading-on-social-media-134396">Why is it so hard to stop COVID-19 misinformation spreading on social media?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Our research (for example with <a href="https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3097286.3097293">Australian farmers using social media</a>) shows people will use the path of least resistance in looking for information. This means they might just scroll through what’s in front of them online, without realising what’s no longer there. </p>
<p>Although some readers will be very savvy and know how best to navigate the news without Facebook’s help, others need support. We can use this as an opportunity to educate and support those around us, so people continue to get the information they need, when they need it, and in a way that allows them to continue to engage across their social networks of trusted contacts.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/155558/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lisa M. Given receives funding from the Australian Research Council</span></em></p>From screenshots, to rival social platforms, to the old-school method of visiting a newspaper’s homepage, there are plenty of ways to get your news fix without clicking on Facebook.Lisa M. Given, Dean, Research and Development, Swinburne University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.