www.theguardian.com
Facebook apologises for flagging Plymouth Hoe as offensive term
Social media site mistakenly labels posts referring to the seafaring landmark in Devon as misogynistic
www.devonlive.com
www.theguardian.com
www.theguardian.com
I predict Zuckerberg will reconsider after he sees Google doing well having negotiated its deal.'Time to reactivate MySpace': the day Australia woke up to a Facebook news blackout
Facebook users flocked to Twitter to complain about the ban, which also struck community pages, health departments, charities and politicians
Even for a company that specialises in PR disasters, Facebook has excelled with its Australian blackout | Emily Bell
By turning off news sharing, Facebook has turned attention away from flawed government legislation and on to its own reckless opaque power
The way the Australian government worded their definition of a news source is ridiculously broad. Combine that with the news sources only amounting to 4% of Facebook's Australian income I doubt Zuckerberg will change his position.
For an alternative view
www.theguardian.com
www.thetimes.co.uk
It's a bunch of nonsense. Do you think Cris should have to pay Australian news organizations because you just posted those links above? I'm not talking about the Evernote links either. It's the same thing.For an alternative view
Facebook is gambling Australia can't live without it. Imagine if we prove it wrong | Lenore Taylor
With its ban on Australian news, Facebook has so far only succeeded in strengthening the government’s resolve
Also
Canada vows to follow Australia with new law after Facebook bans news
Canada vowed to make Facebook pay for its news content as the social media giant faced international condemnation for imposing a blackout on Australia.Facebook has been labelled a “schoolyard bully”
Evernote link because paywall
Have the Australian government asked Cris to pay anything? Are they likely to?
Breaking up Murdoch's Evil Empire of Lies should be included in any democracy's list of steps toward improving its strength. Murdoch's assaults nearly destroyed the United States; it will happen again here unless we do something about Murdoch. We broke up AT&T and Standard Oil; it needs doing for Murdoch (and Zuckerberg), too.
The start (of the nonsense), or just the continuation (by a western government in this case)?
Cross-site links are basically the whole point of the web. Links must remain free for the web to be useful, and this is just the start.
I'm rooting for the web.
Since I've never seen the point of Facebook, it doesn't really affect me -- I get my news from a variety of news sites and Twitter. Facebook's for a couple of friends and some writers and artists I follow.
I agree with you. This idea that the Australian government is pursuing is Jaron Lanier's baby. Lanier coined the term 'virtual reality', by the way, so people here should be a little familiar with his influence.
Cross-site links are basically the whole point of the web. Links must remain free for the web to be useful, and this is just the start.
The law does not only apply to Facebook.
Not yet.
It's trying to kill the Internet and replace it by the kind of digital telephone service that the Europeans wanted back in the '80s.
If that's the intent, it's clearly not going to work, so why worry?
The whole point of the web is sharing and if everything that might be news can't be shared that is terrible. You do know that includes anyone on Facebook that posts a link to a news story for their friends? Facebook is crappy and I won't be shedding any tears if they lose revenue over it. I also won't be shedding many tears if I can't read news links from people I follow on Facebook since those links are between few and nonexistent. They could very well try to extend their law to every little site basically putting all the sites like VVO in Australia out of existence and just make the internet essentially just a bunch of TV channels run by the Murdochs and friends.
