Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Zuckerberg Doesn't Care About Publishers; Media Firms That Don't Work With Us Will End Up 'In Hospice': Facebook Executive (theguardian.com)

Posted by msmash on from the how-Facebook-sees-itself dept.

Olivia Solon, writing for The Guardian: A senior Facebook executive told Australian media companies that if they didn't cooperate with the social network, their businesses would die. According to a report by The Australian, Campbell Brown, Facebook's head of news partnerships, told a group of more than 20 broadcasters and publishers that she wanted to help media companies develop sustainable business models through the platform. "We will help you revitalise journalism ... in a few years the reverse looks like I'll be holding your hands with your dying business like in a hospice," she said, in comments corroborated by five people who attended the meeting in Sydney on Tuesday.

The Australian also reported that Brown said that Facebook's chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, "doesn't care about publishers but is giving me a lot of leeway and concessions to make these changes," although both Facebook and Brown vehemently deny this comment was made, referring to a transcript they have from the meeting. Facebook would not release the transcript from the meeting.

49 of 93 comments (clear)

  1. Pride comes before the fall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If such remarks don't indicate that Facebook is a cancer on humanity, I don't know what will !

    1. Re:Pride comes before the fall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      CEO reveals its meaning: Chief Egotistical Officer.
      Zuck's attitude sucks. People have been building up businesses for decades, but somehow his FacePuke can stomp all over that and have "rights" and exe34rcise power over them. Just skip putting their silly logo and silly code in your webpages, exclude and isolate the Zuck.
      It is time many countries stood together and just banned and blocked FB. And other giants that don't pay taxes but exploit the populace.

    2. Re:Pride comes before the fall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or, as my grandfather put it, only cowards threaten others; those confident in themselves don't need to.

    3. Re:Pride comes before the fall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If such remarks don't indicate that Facebook is a cancer on humanity, I don't know what will !

      C'mon. This reads like a mob shakedown targeting a specific group. Nothing more.

      The true cancer is the disease of ignorance and stupidity that feeds shit like Facebook. Blaming the platform is like a fat person blaming the fork.

    4. Re:Pride comes before the fall. by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Many would argue NOTHING of value will be lost. In fact I will argue that. Our society produces entirely to much media. It does so because of artificial market tampering thru long copyrights and hidden subsides. What other industry besides perhaps bio-med enjoys the level of cooperation from law enforcement and regulators protecting its intellectual property; or even actual property for that matter?

      We live in a society that produces far greater entertainment media and news media than anyone can consume. We have even for the most part left the realm where one person can be starved for content on a preferred genre or subject.

      I think we could even argue that the fact we are not all reading the same books and discussing the same events anymore is harming the social fabric, and retarding the analysis and advance of ideas - rather than facilitating it. The diversity of ideas is now so large there are simply to many to discuss and the truth is most of them are stupid.

      I am not sure facebook is the answer by any means but capitalism isn't being chaotic here its potentially purging a mixture of dinosaurs and "clickbait-spewing" crapola we have no need of and might be best compared to an algae bloom. I mass of toxic crap we should all rejoice in dying off and it only exists because we tampered with markets in the first place.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    5. Re:Pride comes before the fall. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Cowards threaten. People confident in their ability just announce their plans.

      On the surface, it seems similar, but in fact, a threat might not be executed.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:Pride comes before the fall. by Big+Bipper · · Score: 1

      We may not all read the same books, but increasingly due in part to media consolidation but also to Facebook ( and other giants ) we only have access to the news, information, and opinions of which Facebook approves. There is no requirement that Facebook be fair or unbiased. Anything that Zuck doesn't like, or whose competitors pay him more, doesn't get access. If all the cars you ( are allowed ) to see are red then pretty soon you will think that cars can only come in red.

      --
      You live and learn, or you don't learn much.
  2. Not exactly vehemently by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They haven't even convinced me that they've denied saying it. It sounds more like they're arguing about the wording, or if the comment was intended to be anonymous.

    1. Re:Not exactly vehemently by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      I think the real issue here is the russian flag stuffed up his ass

      thats no flag...

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
    2. Re:Not exactly vehemently by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Personally, I am reminded of 8 year olds, desperately trying to hide a glaring lie. Kind of funny observing their stressed sincerity.

  3. Our media is already dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The only reason much of our media is currently functioning, is because Rupert Murdoch keeps it as his propaganda arm. "The Australian" - one of our largest newspapers currently runs a loss of $80 million a year. Meanwhile his other news papers constantly switch from full pages covers: "Australia NEEDS (this candidate)" to the next day, literally photoshopping the oposing candidate into a Nazi.

    1. Re:Our media is already dead by youngone · · Score: 2

      Between Murdoch and the equally odious Packers Australian media has always been a seething shitstorm of propaganda.
      If they didn't own the newspapers nobody would have ever written a nice word about any of them.

    2. Re: Our media is already dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      At first I wondered why the Green Bay Packers (football team, USA) owned newspapers in Australia.

    3. Re:Our media is already dead by hai_Priesty · · Score: 1

      (...) currently runs a loss of $80 million a year. Meanwhile his other news papers constantly switch from full pages covers: "Australia NEEDS (this candidate)" to the next day, literally photoshopping the oposing candidate into a Nazi.

      Reading what you said as someone who knows little about the Australian media and literary scene, my first deduction is not that newspaper cannot make money as an industry. Rather, if above statement isn't an exaggeration then it may just mean that number of people who would pay to receive Propaganda is low. Personally, if someone in the mall is trying to shove me a "newspaper" with covers of political candidates photoshopped as Hitler with other low-brow attack slogans, you can't beg me to take your rag home for free, let alone pay you willingly for that.

      Just people few wants to pay to receive Rupert Murdoch's advertisement doesn't mean there's no demand for offline media.

    4. Re:Our media is already dead by Ocker3 · · Score: 1

      The follow-on question from "Why is The Australian losing so much money every year" is "Why is Murdoch willing to run a business at a loss?" The answers is probably "So he can maintain his hold on Australian public opinion and push people to vote for candidates he likes." And once you know something about Murdoch and what he's said and done, perhaps that should worry the fuck out of you.

  4. Grr... by rnturn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The leaches at FB should be the ones in a hospice.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
    1. Re:Grr... by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      A palliative care hospice.

  5. Gov't mandate may be needed by Spy+Handler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I like libertarian ideas as much as the next guy, but this seems to be one of those cases where gov't mandating open access may be needed.

    A comparable situation I believe was when then the gov't mandated that phone carriers allow customers to take their phone numbers with them when they switched to a different company. This was because consumers found it extremely difficult to switch while the greedy phone company was holding their phone number hostage. And I think it worked out well, it's one of those instances where a consumer protection law worked in the public interest.

    Facebook is evil and greedy and a detriment to the public good, I think most people will agree. It would be a good idea to develop open standards and protocols for social networks so that anyone on one social networking platform can exchange posts and info with people on any other social network. And pass a consumer protection law requiring that all social networks follow this rule. It would not be any more draconian or authoritarian than requiring all automobile manufacturers to comply with current (and arbitrary) crash safety and smog guidelines.

    1. Re:Gov't mandate may be needed by DogDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Facebook is nothing like the phone company. There are a ton of alternatives to Facebook (including no social media at all). Facebook is just an entertainment/data mining web site. It's not important.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:Gov't mandate may be needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Facebook is important because people have made it so. I agree that the site is of no value and that everything it offers can be done better by other means, but the fact that so many people use it has put Facebook in a very powerful position to control information flow. This makes it a danger to our society and therefore intervention is necessary.

      Unfortunately, I don't think governments would handle that intervention well. The EU's solution to monopolistic technology firms is to issue huge fines, which does nothing to solve the problem. It would be better to split the companies up into smaller entities and have them compete against each other, but such a solution generates no revenue for the EU and is therefore unappealing to them.

      Ultimately, the problem with Facebook is that the stupid people who use it need protecting from their own stupidity, but the people who are supposed to protect them are the equally stupid people in government, which basically ensures that no solution will ever be reached. Welcome to the idiocracy.

    3. Re:Gov't mandate may be needed by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 3

      I ran a Chrome extension ("Social Book Post Manager") that used the FB Activity Log to uncomment, unpost, unlike everything I've ever done on FB. (I've downloaded all the data first.) I've made my FB account effectively stateless -- all that is left is my contact list without losing any of the benefits of FB.

      I'll admit I don't know what exactly that accomplishes but it feels like I have taken leverage away from FB. They can't hold me hostage through my data since it's gone. I don't care if I lose my account, I can recreate my contact list from a new account if I need to. The deleted data is probably not accessible to 3rd parties, and I will look for a way to autogenerate tons of posts that I'll delete in the same way. A script that uploads photos of generic faces and tags me in them, then deletes everything would be next.

      So maybe I can use the service without being the product. And if everyone does it and that kills the service -- good riddance.

    4. Re:Gov't mandate may be needed by bobstreo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I ran a Chrome extension ("Social Book Post Manager") that used the FB Activity Log to uncomment, unpost, unlike everything I've ever done on FB. (I've downloaded all the data first.) I've made my FB account effectively stateless -- all that is left is my contact list without losing any of the benefits of FB.

      I'll admit I don't know what exactly that accomplishes but it feels like I have taken leverage away from FB. They can't hold me hostage through my data since it's gone. I don't care if I lose my account, I can recreate my contact list from a new account if I need to. The deleted data is probably not accessible to 3rd parties, and I will look for a way to autogenerate tons of posts that I'll delete in the same way. A script that uploads photos of generic faces and tags me in them, then deletes everything would be next.

      So maybe I can use the service without being the product. And if everyone does it and that kills the service -- good riddance.

      You're doing it wrong. You should be uploading TB of images and videos of unidentifiable road surfaces, strangers in the street, streams and floors. (with the EXIF data scrubbed.)

    5. Re:Gov't mandate may be needed by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Facebook is nothing like the phone company. There are a ton of alternatives to Facebook (including no social media at all). Facebook is just an entertainment/data mining web site. It's not important.

      The first part of what you say is true. But to deny it's important seems at odds with reality. It's one of the richest and most influential companies in the world right now. It's important alright, arguable for stupid reasons, but important nonetheless.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:Gov't mandate may be needed by novakyu · · Score: 1

      Um, try actually uploading a video and re-downloading the highest quality available of the same video. If you uploaded one terabyte of video, you are lucky to get 100-GB back. Facebook applies a very lossy (I assume) compression to whatever you upload (video and photo), and the upload/download process is throttled to boot.

      I am all for wasting Facebook's resources, but just as telemarketers' phones are filtered for whistles and sudden loud noises, Facebook has taken basic steps to protect itself.

    7. Re:Gov't mandate may be needed by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It's not important.

      It's as important as society makes it. When there are people whose only contact information you know is via Facebook it's important. When there's events that only advertise over Facebook it's important. When there are items for sale only on Facebook it's important.

      For me, Facebook is quite important, not posting my information on it, but rather the ability to browse it.

    8. Re:Gov't mandate may be needed by geekmux · · Score: 1

      "It's not important."

      Oh, so they regularly call CEOs of not-so-important companies to sit for days of Congressional testimony?

      Believe me I wish Fuckbook didn't have the Vulcan Idiot Grip hold on the ignorant masses, but it does. Hell, that fucking platform was the epicenter of political conspiracy for the last election. Says a lot when you're competing against Russia on that kind of shit.

    9. Re:Gov't mandate may be needed by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Agreed - except the Facebook managers didn't get the memo. They think they're the centre of everyone's world and so if you're not part of that, you're on the way downwards.

      Ultimately, they're playing a bluff game here. They're talking tough because what they say might be true (or mostly/partly true, at least in the minds of the people they're talking to). What they really want is "design in" so that they can slow down their own descent into obscurity. Clever on their part, although a bit too easy to see through. It remains to be seen how the publishers deal with it - from their point of view, getting FB exposure may be a valuable source of revenue, but getting tied into FB could be their undoing.

    10. Re:Gov't mandate may be needed by The1stImmortal · · Score: 1

      Look, Facebook shouldn't have to make special concessions for the traditional news and media INDUSTRIES. However, they should be treating all comers equally. So they shouldn't have to care about driving traffic back to news sites or worrying about syndication etc. But they should have to allow everyone the same access, be it a corner store or Murdoch's News Corporation. Whether it's Alex Jones or Barack Obama.

  6. Shut 'em down by divide+overflow · · Score: 1

    Time to release a recording of the remarks. Then dump their stock and shun their platform. May the last one to leave Facebook shut the servers down.

    1. Re:Shut 'em down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I buy Facebook stocks. Because, I know how stupid people are.

  7. Gee, you want to pick a fight with the media? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3

    How many investigative stories chronicling all the privacy invading shit Facebook does will Facebook withstand. Cause it would be trivial to have a month-long news cycle "discovering" and announcing new policies.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  8. Re:...is FB wrong, though? by AHuxley · · Score: 3

    People still have the freedom to read a newspaper review, watch a movie review on TV, the internet.
    The only review that will be allowed on social media will be the positive once approve by the studio and the actors.
    Write the "wrong" review on social media and expect a ban, shadow ban? Reported?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  9. Headlines by TimMD909 · · Score: 2

    The headline writing ability reminds me of the newscaster from Harrison Bergeron.

  10. Re: ...is FB wrong, though? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    MSM is dying because it isn't objective, it's political propaganda. Fuck it, let them wither on the vine! They'll soon turn to dust and blow in the winds of obscurity.

  11. Re:What a bitch by youngone · · Score: 1

    She's doing us a huge favour. Personally, I hope Facebook takes all of Rupert Murdoch's money away, and leaves him living in a cardboard box.
    Facebook is awful, but has absolutely nothing on Rupert Murdoch.
    That Packer arsehole is nearly as bad.

  12. Adapt or die. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    I'll bet Henry Ford and the Dodge Brothers really wept some tears for buggy whip manufacturers.

    Did anyone actually think that Zuckerberg gave two flying shits about publishers to begin with? Why would they be shocked to learn he doesn't?

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  13. Sherman Act by sdinfoserv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If such comments don't indicate the need to evoke the Anti-monopoly Sherman Act against a strong arm bullying Corporation, then our legislators are bought and pwned by the Oligarchs. oops.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  14. Facebook as the model?? by markdavis · · Score: 3, Funny

    I have no love of the "big media"/"mainstream media", most of which is horribly slanted, all of which is sensationalist and becoming more absurd each year.

    But Facebook, of all organizations, being the one to throw crud at the "mainstream" media, claiming THEIR business model is obsolete and should die.... and that Facebook as the answers..... well, that has to be the funniest thing I have heard in many months.

    If Facebook is the alternative to the mainstream big media, then heaven help us all.

  15. Only Proper Response by Scarletdown · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The only right response from all the Australian media companies should be a collective and unanimous PISS OFF to both Zuck and Facebook; and sentence Fuckerman to The Boot.

    Or is Piss off too British? Bugger off? Fuck off? Someuntranslatablemumblyword off? :D

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
    1. Re:Only Proper Response by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Why are you on Murdoch's side?

    2. Re:Only Proper Response by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      Frankly, they are all cordially invited to fuck off. But in this case, Fuckerberg needed addressing, since if he would pull that shit on a hugh jass organization like that, he would have no qualms adopting such a policy for any organization or business; large or small, that needs an Internet presence to compete.

      That is why in this case; he in particular needs to not only fuck off, but piss off, bugger off, and any other rude off you can think of.

      Ah, the fuck with it. Those others can do all three as well. :D

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
  16. Re:World without FB by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

    But MySpace would grow back to fill in the void.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  17. Re:World without FB by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    /sarcasm You mean like in 2002? :-)

    (OK, technically reddit didnâ(TM)t exit until ~2007 but you get the point.)

  18. With great power... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Comes great temptation.

    If Zuck is censoring content, he has some standard, some set of rules, even if they are his instantaneous reaction to the content. Doesn't really matter what those standards or rules are, they exists, and that is enough.

    And that puts Facebook in the position of taking responsibility for the content they permit to be published. How contentious content is found and brought to the attention of the censors is a reasonable question, but ultimately it doesn't matter either. Facebook took on responsibility for the content, all of it, and doing them the small favor of helping them spot contentious content only recognizes their assumed role, and furthers it.

    So, now a publisher, they have some minimal responsibility for the content they publish. May they wear that mantle like a millstone. Or, preferably, get out of the censorship business.

    Or, more reasonably, recognizes it is not practical to pretend you're fair when, plainly, you're not. Your future competitors will thank you for continuing to be biased and unfair, if you can't help yourself.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  19. Re:The new mobsters by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Nice business you have there. Shame if anything bad happened to it...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  20. Re: The future isn't Facebook by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    MyWhatnow?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  21. Re:Facebook needs to die like the old media empire by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    The only people who give a fuck are people with an agenda.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  22. Facebook needs them more by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

    Facebook your time has come. People, young people, are moving away. You have become a fossil and relic, Geocities of the early 21st century.

    Given your security breaches, selling people's private information, and vector for disseminating what people call "fake news" it is amazing you haven't bee shutdown.

  23. Nationalize Facebook already... by ElitistWhiner · · Score: 1

    Disclaimer: I know people in Facebook. They are friends of mine. I like those people. Facebook is no friend. Facebook is behaving like the new Fifth Reich.

    Can someone just step up, pull back the curtain and the Wizard?

    SteveJobs was right about many things. He saw Facebook as a service within an architectural framework. He envisioned it run by adults not an addictive standalone look-book and gaming platform. It has so perverted the utility, function and purpose of the service that it's just embarrassing; before it gets criminal can someone take away the crazy Wizard.

    Nationalize it for what it really is - CIA dashboard to the masses.