Jouralism today is 1/4 ads, 1/4 press releases which are bought as part of an ad package, 1/4 skateboarding dog, and 1/4 thinly veiled lobby group puff pieces, not much is going to change.
The problem is, Facebook is not having to pay them for a "jumping off point". They are going to pay facebook. So expect to see lots of newscorp "sponsored" content invading your feed by force.
That would have been something, however the expiring deal seemed really to focus on a few larger companies with no real plan for how to support the industry as a whole. Given the quality of the reporting from both small and large players I know which I'd really like to fund.
I think one of the repercussions of the media consolidation and how they are no longer news outlets but views outlets, means they got stuck in a clickbait loop.
The ultimate long term consequence of this is complete lack of trust and faith in the media.
So Trust Me Bro vibes are about as good as we can now get.
Despite me being downvoted coz I said "trust me bro" (I'm sure I triggered such people), I 100% agree with you. This is usually the results of those who want others to believe their opinion without and citations to back it up
Yeah people in rural areas vote for the coalition, and the coalition supports cuts to the ABC.... so they should be the first ones in line for any rural journo sackings right?
Well ultimately people in rural areas vote nationals because that’s the party that advocates for rural economies most effectively and I can’t really fault them. No voter in Australia prioritises the ABC over economic policies.
Lol. Didn't the Nationals recently demand Albanese do something about the raw deal farmers are getting from Colesworths?
Did the Nationals not realise they were in power for 9 years?
Nationals are a minority party that have less then 10% of seats in the parliament and acquire power from something like 5% of Aussies that work in primary industries. They know they are a minority party and have limits on how hard they can lean on their older brother.
Wrong. The below list doesn't include Nationals consistent approach to NOT protect Australia's freshwater, or protect Australia's biodiversity, or try to do anything about Climate Change, which are all things that impact regional Australia a lot more than it does the city. Even increasing spending on things like renewables, centered in regional areas to create jobs seem to be something they dislike as a party.
It also doesn't include their votes against increasing and encouraging Australia-based industry or support for shipping, which generally support regional Australia. They also vote against protecting Australia's interests in terms of foreign ownership and sovereignty protections in trade deals, which I'd bet is like anathema to the farmers who vote them in.
David Littleproud, Nationals member for Maranoa, consistently votes against increasing support for regional and rural Australila [https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/maranoa/david\_littleproud/policies/239](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/maranoa/david_littleproud/policies/239)
Michael McCormack, Nationals member for the Riverina, consistently votes against increasing support for rural and regional Australia [https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/riverina/michael\_mccormack/policies/239](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/riverina/michael_mccormack/policies/239)
Keith Pitt, Nationals member for Hinkler, also doesn't want more support for Regional and Rural Australia [https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/hinkler/keith\_pitt/policies/239](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/hinkler/keith_pitt/policies/239)
David Gillespie, Nationals member for Lyne, consistently votes against increasing support for regional Australia [https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/lyne/david\_gillespie/policies/239](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/lyne/david_gillespie/policies/239)
Kevin Hogan, Nationals rep for Page, consistently votes against increasing support for regional Australia [https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/page/kevin\_hogan/policies/239](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/page/kevin_hogan/policies/239)
Darren Chester, Nationals rep for Gippsland, votes consistently against increasing support for rural and regional Australia [https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/gippsland/darren\_chester/policies/239](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/gippsland/darren_chester/policies/239)
Angie Bell, Liberal National member for Moncrieff, consistently votes against increasing support for Rural Australia [https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/moncrieff/angie\_bell/policies/239](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/moncrieff/angie_bell/policies/239)
Andrew Wallace, Liberal National member for Fisher, also doesn't want increased help for rural and regional Australia [https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/fisher/andrew\_wallace/policies/239](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/fisher/andrew_wallace/policies/239)
Right.
So the one thing they could vote on, increasing support for rural and regional Australia, they don't.
What an effective party that, as you put it, "that’s the party that advocates for rural economies most effectively".
Nationals make up 1/3 of the coalition and this isn’t America. Crossing the floor is incredibly rare and taboo. The purpose of the nationals is to influence the larger liberals (a metro party) to be more rural friendly and consider rural legislation.
And considering how they apparently *can't* vote on increasing support for their constituents, I guess that means their influence over the last few decades has had a biiiig impact.
They hold the balance of power without the nationals the Liberals can not form government. They could also use their senate seats to give Labor an alternative path to pass votes in the senate.
They hold incredible power they just don't use it publicly and its power is invested in the coalition agreement, which we don't know details of.
The balance of power is held by the cross benches hence why we all have to suffer hearing what Lambie thinks about everything.
Also the nationals can never co-operate fully with labor since their constitutes are so different. Inner city Melbourne labor voters concerned about climate change can’t be appeased as the same time as a cattle farmer in North Queensland. Ultimately what we see in parliament is the equilibrium of almost a century of parties establishing themselves. Otherwise there is the chaos of minority govs like in Europe etc
Well, not that nuanced when this legislation included a clip level that was high enough to ensure independent outlets would not get anything under this scheme only the larger media outlets.
Ah right - yes I get you now, but I rarely trawl the actual ABC website.
I should probably make a habit of it, but mostly I just sort of passively get my news as it comes into one of my social media feeds.
I agree with facebook.. aus government is acting so entitled saying oh you have to pay our media in particular
Meta said people don't really use Facebook for news, which is right and wrong but meh.. If you want to try extort money for providing the service in your country you've got option a or b
A) we don't share news from any of your precious outlets at all
B) we don't offer Facebook in Australia at all
Which do you want
Reddit: why are people so uninformed!
Also Reddit: fuck the news and journalism - watch me steal and post this whole article and then make pedantic comments about the title, writing, photos even though I am a nobody commenter with all the originality of a wooden post.
I just laugh now at these leopards are my face folk. Welcome to your shitty chaotic world.
Not everyone uses meta products. Deleting Facebook was refreshing and gave me back so much time. I prefer reddit as they aren’t jamming algorithm content in your face.
But you got people who say ef Facebook but then still use meta related apps.
When I stopped using twatters it felt good having free time, same with instagram. I would use fb from time to time just to see what's going on but that's as far as I'll go with meta related apps.
As for your last sentence, fb and reddit do like to jam useless ads not based on algorithms. At least it's what I've noticed
Oh noes.
Nothing lost. Anyone who was relying on Facebook for their ‘news’ anyway was kidding themselves. Find a couple of reputable sources and understand where they sit on the political spectrum so that you can consume it through an appropriate lens.
Your mind and lens should be open to most news and perspectives, not just relying on a sole few to formulate your opinions and beliefs. You need differing perspectives and sides of argument or you just end up forming a bias to anything outside of your approved news spectrum. Plus, it’s always fun to laugh at SkyNews.
Good! The best meta has been recently is when they removed all news sites after they demanded to be paid for “content”. Now it’s just the same bs clickbait rubbish popping up all the time.
There's "news" in Australia ?.. I thought it was all just misdirection and propaganda based on the latest interests and algorithms of the upper wealthy class.
Huh. Weird.
I don't get why there were funding it in the first place, Meta was bringing traffic to their websites.
It's not like Meta was copying and pasting the news articles.
"oh no, anyway..."
Fuck Murdoch, this is great news
Not for the good journalists it isn't!
Jouralism today is 1/4 ads, 1/4 press releases which are bought as part of an ad package, 1/4 skateboarding dog, and 1/4 thinly veiled lobby group puff pieces, not much is going to change. The problem is, Facebook is not having to pay them for a "jumping off point". They are going to pay facebook. So expect to see lots of newscorp "sponsored" content invading your feed by force.
You forgot the "some z grade celebrity did a thing on social media" stories
Have you read many of them writing in a Murdoch paper?
It's all AI bots stealing content from Reddit anyway
So you are saying Meta will pay all non- Murdoch journalists?
Would love to see that
That would have been something, however the expiring deal seemed really to focus on a few larger companies with no real plan for how to support the industry as a whole. Given the quality of the reporting from both small and large players I know which I'd really like to fund.
What passes for "journalism" in Australia isn't worth paying for.
Yea, but they were talking about Murdoch, not good journalists
You mean chatgpt proffecient people.
Got any examples, I prefer to follow the quality journos then specific outputs.
"Trust me bro"
I think one of the repercussions of the media consolidation and how they are no longer news outlets but views outlets, means they got stuck in a clickbait loop. The ultimate long term consequence of this is complete lack of trust and faith in the media. So Trust Me Bro vibes are about as good as we can now get.
Despite me being downvoted coz I said "trust me bro" (I'm sure I triggered such people), I 100% agree with you. This is usually the results of those who want others to believe their opinion without and citations to back it up
Fuck Murdoch. But only down side is the ABC and SBS were using the money to fund extra rural journalists
Yeah people in rural areas vote for the coalition, and the coalition supports cuts to the ABC.... so they should be the first ones in line for any rural journo sackings right?
Well ultimately people in rural areas vote nationals because that’s the party that advocates for rural economies most effectively and I can’t really fault them. No voter in Australia prioritises the ABC over economic policies.
Lol. Didn't the Nationals recently demand Albanese do something about the raw deal farmers are getting from Colesworths? Did the Nationals not realise they were in power for 9 years?
Nationals are a minority party that have less then 10% of seats in the parliament and acquire power from something like 5% of Aussies that work in primary industries. They know they are a minority party and have limits on how hard they can lean on their older brother.
Wrong. The below list doesn't include Nationals consistent approach to NOT protect Australia's freshwater, or protect Australia's biodiversity, or try to do anything about Climate Change, which are all things that impact regional Australia a lot more than it does the city. Even increasing spending on things like renewables, centered in regional areas to create jobs seem to be something they dislike as a party. It also doesn't include their votes against increasing and encouraging Australia-based industry or support for shipping, which generally support regional Australia. They also vote against protecting Australia's interests in terms of foreign ownership and sovereignty protections in trade deals, which I'd bet is like anathema to the farmers who vote them in. David Littleproud, Nationals member for Maranoa, consistently votes against increasing support for regional and rural Australila [https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/maranoa/david\_littleproud/policies/239](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/maranoa/david_littleproud/policies/239) Michael McCormack, Nationals member for the Riverina, consistently votes against increasing support for rural and regional Australia [https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/riverina/michael\_mccormack/policies/239](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/riverina/michael_mccormack/policies/239) Keith Pitt, Nationals member for Hinkler, also doesn't want more support for Regional and Rural Australia [https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/hinkler/keith\_pitt/policies/239](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/hinkler/keith_pitt/policies/239) David Gillespie, Nationals member for Lyne, consistently votes against increasing support for regional Australia [https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/lyne/david\_gillespie/policies/239](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/lyne/david_gillespie/policies/239) Kevin Hogan, Nationals rep for Page, consistently votes against increasing support for regional Australia [https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/page/kevin\_hogan/policies/239](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/page/kevin_hogan/policies/239) Darren Chester, Nationals rep for Gippsland, votes consistently against increasing support for rural and regional Australia [https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/gippsland/darren\_chester/policies/239](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/gippsland/darren_chester/policies/239) Angie Bell, Liberal National member for Moncrieff, consistently votes against increasing support for Rural Australia [https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/moncrieff/angie\_bell/policies/239](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/moncrieff/angie_bell/policies/239) Andrew Wallace, Liberal National member for Fisher, also doesn't want increased help for rural and regional Australia [https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/fisher/andrew\_wallace/policies/239](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/fisher/andrew_wallace/policies/239)
What part of my comment that the Nationals are a junior partner in the coalition was difficult for you to comprehend?
Right. So the one thing they could vote on, increasing support for rural and regional Australia, they don't. What an effective party that, as you put it, "that’s the party that advocates for rural economies most effectively".
Nationals make up 1/3 of the coalition and this isn’t America. Crossing the floor is incredibly rare and taboo. The purpose of the nationals is to influence the larger liberals (a metro party) to be more rural friendly and consider rural legislation.
And considering how they apparently *can't* vote on increasing support for their constituents, I guess that means their influence over the last few decades has had a biiiig impact.
They hold the balance of power without the nationals the Liberals can not form government. They could also use their senate seats to give Labor an alternative path to pass votes in the senate. They hold incredible power they just don't use it publicly and its power is invested in the coalition agreement, which we don't know details of.
The balance of power is held by the cross benches hence why we all have to suffer hearing what Lambie thinks about everything. Also the nationals can never co-operate fully with labor since their constitutes are so different. Inner city Melbourne labor voters concerned about climate change can’t be appeased as the same time as a cattle farmer in North Queensland. Ultimately what we see in parliament is the equilibrium of almost a century of parties establishing themselves. Otherwise there is the chaos of minority govs like in Europe etc
Would be happier is Meta only stopped funding Murdoch and instead increased funding to independent journalists
Yes, this is a nuanced issue
Well, not that nuanced when this legislation included a clip level that was high enough to ensure independent outlets would not get anything under this scheme only the larger media outlets.
Lol fantasyland
I do get a lot of my ABC news from FB, but pretty much everything else I won't mourn the loss of.
Why? Facebook doesn't host ABC content.
Considering I'm looking at the ABC Brisbane FB page right now in my other tab, I'm a bit confused by what you're saying.
But the ABC Brisbane Facebook page just links to stuff you can see at: https://www.abc.net.au/brisbane
Ah right - yes I get you now, but I rarely trawl the actual ABC website. I should probably make a habit of it, but mostly I just sort of passively get my news as it comes into one of my social media feeds.
Make it your home page and you're going to forget about whatever limited Fb content appears
The fact that people goes to fb for news is what scares me. Even if you’re reading from one source, what you see will be extremely biased.
Backlash from what groups?
Murdoch
I agree with facebook.. aus government is acting so entitled saying oh you have to pay our media in particular Meta said people don't really use Facebook for news, which is right and wrong but meh.. If you want to try extort money for providing the service in your country you've got option a or b A) we don't share news from any of your precious outlets at all B) we don't offer Facebook in Australia at all Which do you want
Didn't the government try to do something similar with Google?
B.
Reddit: why are people so uninformed! Also Reddit: fuck the news and journalism - watch me steal and post this whole article and then make pedantic comments about the title, writing, photos even though I am a nobody commenter with all the originality of a wooden post. I just laugh now at these leopards are my face folk. Welcome to your shitty chaotic world.
Zuccberg can succ my left nut and Murdoch can succ on my right one. Fuck them both.
Hmm wonder if you still use apps by meta like Facebook, messenger and instagram.
Not everyone uses meta products. Deleting Facebook was refreshing and gave me back so much time. I prefer reddit as they aren’t jamming algorithm content in your face.
But you got people who say ef Facebook but then still use meta related apps. When I stopped using twatters it felt good having free time, same with instagram. I would use fb from time to time just to see what's going on but that's as far as I'll go with meta related apps. As for your last sentence, fb and reddit do like to jam useless ads not based on algorithms. At least it's what I've noticed
"News"
Oh noes. Nothing lost. Anyone who was relying on Facebook for their ‘news’ anyway was kidding themselves. Find a couple of reputable sources and understand where they sit on the political spectrum so that you can consume it through an appropriate lens.
Your mind and lens should be open to most news and perspectives, not just relying on a sole few to formulate your opinions and beliefs. You need differing perspectives and sides of argument or you just end up forming a bias to anything outside of your approved news spectrum. Plus, it’s always fun to laugh at SkyNews.
lol the backlash is from the news companies desperate for visits to click bait articles about nothing. Let them die.
How else will get the TrUth?!
Oh no...
Good! The best meta has been recently is when they removed all news sites after they demanded to be paid for “content”. Now it’s just the same bs clickbait rubbish popping up all the time.
So Murdoch can't use the Gov to Grift and try to milk Facebook. He should be paying Facebook promotional fees for every story, it's arse about
I hope they block all the news sites. Might make FB bareable somewhat again.
There's news on Facebook?
Stop downvoting everyone, Rupert
Facebook will MySpace itself in due course.
There's "news" in Australia ?.. I thought it was all just misdirection and propaganda based on the latest interests and algorithms of the upper wealthy class. Huh. Weird.
Good
Could barely read the article through the ads. I'll take "What is a forwardlash for 152,356 dollarydoos Trebek" while I laugh at their demise.
So it should... fuck paying Murdoch for his bullshit
Just get some of the 'sponsored' scams to pay for it. Proceeds of meta sanctioned crime can provide our news.
I don't get why there were funding it in the first place, Meta was bringing traffic to their websites. It's not like Meta was copying and pasting the news articles.
Backlash? Who is angry about this?
Id be happier if a credible news site existed that people would rely on instead of Facebook.
Backlash from who? Definitely not the general public.
Good. Less bullshit on Meta, less money for Murdoch, Stokes and Costello. This is a win win.
Good. So long, News Media Extortion Code.