> > Facebook's News Blockade in Australia Shows How Tech Giants Are Swallowing > the Web > The internet in 2021 is not the same open public sphere that Tim Berners-Lee > envisioned. > By Jennifer Grygiel, > Associate Professor, Syracuse University, > The Conversation > FEBRUARY 25, 2021 06:00 PM ET > https://www.nextgov.com/ideas/2021/02/facebooks-news-blockade-australia-shows-how-tech-giants-are-swallowing-web/172292/ > > <https://www.nextgov.com/ideas/2021/02/facebooks-news-blockade-australia-shows-how-tech-giants-are-swallowing-web/172292/> > > When Facebook disabled Australians’ access to news articles 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 created in 1989 by > Sir Tim Berners-Lee. > > Though the social media giant has said it will return to the negotiating > table and restore news for now, the company has shown its hand – and how it > is continuing to reshape the web. > > As a social media scholar, I see clearly that the internet in 2021 is not the > same open public sphere that Berners-Lee envisioned. Rather, it is a > constellation of powerful corporate platforms that have come to dominate how > people use the internet, what information they get and who is able to profit > from it. > > Paying for News > > The Australian government’s legislative efforts aim to support the news > industry by helping to broker a deal whereby Facebook would pay Australian > news organizations for content posted on its platform by users. Right now, > Facebook isn’t required to pay for news in any way, and the company objected > to this new potential cost of business. > > Berners-Lee warned the Australian government the proposed law could undermine > free linking, which he called a “fundamental principle of the web.” > Facebook’s own statement of self-defense 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, effectively become the web. > > Back in the 1980s, Berners-Lee envisioned the web as a network of > community-minded academic researchers sharing their knowledge quickly and > conveniently 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. > > 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 designed to > capture and dominate users’ attention – and turn it into money. > > Keeping Users on the Site > > When a user posts a link on Facebook, it’s not just a hyperlink as > Berners-Lee envisioned. It’s much more advanced, displaying information from > the linked page, including, for news stories, a headline, a main image 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, hurting news organizations’ revenues. > > 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. > > 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 hard time making money off their work. > > Possible Ways Forward > > Story Continues Below Sponsor Message > > > The situation in Australia is a significant opportunity to examine how much > power Facebook has over the ways people can seek information online. > > News media may decide to bid farewell to Facebook, which provides about > one-fifth of traffic to media sites in Australia, and not necessarily much > revenue in other parts of the world. They might seek other options for > digital distribution of their content. But in the near term they may need > financial help from somewhere if they have become too dependent on Facebook. > > Or news organizations could negotiate with Facebook directly in deals and > avoid restrictive laws, as the proposed legislation is not even final yet. > > News publishers could also ask regulators to help them gain more control over > how news content is presented on platforms to increase link referral traffic, > 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 doesn’t mean it’s helpful in all situations or good. But > then again, a basic old-timey solution may not work for those trapped in the > “attention economy. > > 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. > > Jennifer Grygiel is an assistant professor of communications (social media) > and magazine, news and digital journalism at Syracuse University. > > The ConversationThis article is republished from The Conversation under a > Creative Commons license. Read the original article. > >
-- Iw mailing list [email protected] http://sticklist.org/mailman/listinfo/iw_sticklist.org
