Facebook Blocks News Sharing in Australia, Triggering Outcry

A swift backlash followed Facebook’s announcement yesterday regarding its decision to prevent Australian users from sharing news content on its platform.

The tech company’s deliberately wide-ranging implementation of these restrictions impacted numerous pages that do not publish news, alongside news outlets themselves, demonstrating a preemptive move against upcoming legislation.

Legislative Context and Initial Reactions

Facebook’s action stems from ongoing debate in the Australian parliament concerning a proposed law. This law aims to compel both Facebook and Google to compensate publishers for linking to their news content.

The Australian media industry has actively advocated for this legislation, seeking payment from tech giants for the monetization of news content shared on their platforms, though the final draft is still under development.

Last month, Google also voiced opposition to the law, threatening to withdraw its search engine from Australia if amendments weren’t made. However, Facebook was the first to enact significant changes in response.

Widespread Impact and Public Response

Australian internet users reported widespread removal of content from Facebook pages overnight. Affected entities included hospitals, universities, unions, government departments, and even the Bureau of Meteorology.

In response to Facebook’s broad censorship, Australian parliamentarians condemned the tech giant, labeling it “an assault on a sovereign nation”.

The Australian Prime Minister stated that the government “would not be intimidated” by Facebook’s actions.

Facebook’s Justification and PR Strategy

Facebook acknowledged applying a broad definition of “news” to justify the restrictions. The company cited a lack of clarity in the law’s current wording as the reason for this approach.

It appears the collateral damage of silencing public information pages is, at least partially, a public relations tactic. This aims to highlight potential “consequences” of the legislation and encourage lawmakers to reconsider their position.

Facebook stated it would reinstate pages that were “inadvertently impacted”.

However, the company did not clarify whether it would proactively identify affected pages or require them to request reinstatement.

A Facebook spokesperson explained, “The actions we’re taking are focused on restricting publishers and people in Australia from sharing or viewing Australian and international news content. As the law does not provide clear guidance on the definition of news content, we have taken a broad definition in order to respect the law as drafted. However, we will reverse any Pages that are inadvertently impacted.”

Broader Implications and Criticism

The extent of the impact on non-news pages remains unclear.

Facebook’s actions have undoubtedly sparked a wider debate regarding Australia’s plan to require tech companies to pay for news, including payment for links to news articles – a concept similar to the EU’s recent copyright reforms.

However, the company’s abrupt move has also drawn criticism for prioritizing business interests over human rights. Blocking access to vital information from sources like hospitals and government departments during a pandemic has been particularly condemned.

Surveillance Capitalism and Epistemic Chaos, concepts explored by Shoshana Zuboff, resonate strongly with this situation. She recently wrote, “We turned to Facebook in search of information. Instead we found lethal strategies of epistemic chaos for profit.”

Power Dynamics and Potential Repercussions

Facebook’s overreach has highlighted its significant power as a social monopoly. This is likely to fuel calls for policymakers and antitrust regulators to address the dominance of big tech companies.

The company’s local lobbying efforts may ultimately backfire on a global scale, further damaging its reputation.

This situation may also prompt some Facebook users to explore the broader internet outside of the platform’s “walled garden”, allowing them to access public information without the need for logging in and sacrificing their privacy.

The speed with which Facebook implemented content restrictions when its financial interests were threatened is noteworthy.

A stark contrast exists between Facebook’s swift action against information pages in Australia and its comparatively slow response to tackling hate speech or misinformation. This suggests that content moderation on Facebook is consistently viewed through the lens of revenue growth.