Facebook faces a global backlash over its bid to bully Australia
Elected officials and media publishers in the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and the United States on Thursday rejected Facebook’s actions, suggesting they were anti-competitive and underscored the need for one Regulatory crack.
This is one of the dumbest, but deeply disturbing corporate steps of our lifetimes,” jurist Julian Knight, who chairs the Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport Committee in Britain’s parliament, told Broad Sky News.
In a statement shared with CNN Business, Knight said UK legalists would use pending legislation aimed at regulating social media companies to promote “reliable news sources” such as Facebook.
“This action – this punk boy action – that [Facebook has] He said that in Australia I will ignite the desire to go ahead among legislators from all over the world. ”
David Sicileen, a Democratic Congressman from Rhode Island who chaired the House Entrepreneur Subcommittee, echoed that sentiment. He added that “if it is not already clear,” Facebook’s actions in Australia show that the company is “not compatible with democracy.”
The publishers seized the opportunity to fire shots on the platform, which dominates Google as well as the digital advertising business. In Germany, the Federation of German Newspaper Publishers (BDZV) called on governments to restrict Facebook’s influence.
“It’s high time that governments around the world limit the market power of gatekeeper platforms,” said BDMV general manager Dietmar Wolfe. “The fact that a platform only closes pages to create political pressure is where the problem with American network monopolies lies on the Internet,” Wolff said.
The backlash on Wednesday decided by Facebook to prevent Australians from finding or sharing news from local and international outlets on its platform, intensifying the fight with the government over a new law that would allow tech companies news for content posted to them. Will force publishers to pay. Platform. Sharing news links with Australian publishers is also prohibited outside the country.
Nielsen said, “I think it’s quite problematic that Facebook took this one-sided decision without warning or transition, but it’s a privately-held company and they’re doing what they believe Is in their selfishness. ”
Britain’s News Media Association president Henry Fure Walker said Facebook’s actions suggest that regulators need to coordinate globally between tech giants and news publishers to “create a truly level playing field.”
CEO of Newsquest, Britain’s largest local newspaper publisher, said that Facebook is “a classic example of monopoly power threatening the schoolyard, trying to defend its dominant position.”
Both Facebook and Google have launched news payment programs in recent years, as authorities around the world consider new laws to uphold them. For example, Facebook created Facebook News, a part of the app featuring curated news where selected publishers are paid to participate.
Google has entered into agreements with more than 500 publications worldwide since launching the news showcase, a product that gives publishers control over how their content is presented on the platform. News Corp said in a statement that it would contribute content to its publication’s news showcase, including the Wall Street Journal and The Times, in exchange for a “significant payment” from Google.
But that doesn’t mean the fight with Big Tech is over. News Corp CEO Robert Thomson said earlier this month that “new terms of business” would be introduced “in Australia but the debate is now widespread around the world.”
“There is no serious digital regulator anywhere in the world that is not investigating the vagueness of algorithms, the integrity of personal data, the social value of professional journalism, and the faceless digital advertising market,” he said.
Professor Charlie Beckett, director of POLICE, a media think tank at the London School of Economics, said the danger with the arrangement between tech companies and big publishers is that they come at the expense of smaller organizations that do not have a clot of dialogue.