Facebook's Australian News Ban Did Demonstrate The Evil Of Zero Rating

Furnished content.


People have been very angry at me for pointing out that Facebook's decision to ban links to news down under actually made sense -- even though Facebook has now cut a deal to return the links. The move was in response to an incredibly poorly thought out law to force Facebook and Google to pay giant news organizations, just because those news organizations couldn't figure out how to innovate online. One key point: I said that even if Facebook is the worst representative of the "open web," this move is the right one for the open web. That's because the alternative is much worse. Since the Australian law would force Google and Facebook to pay for the crime of linking to news, it would set up the incredibly anti-open web concept that you could be forced to pay to link.Again, as we've already explained, this is idiotic. The links give websites free web traffic. Most news organizations, including those down in Australia, employ SEO and social media managers to try to get more links and more traffic from these websites because the links themselves are valuable. And thus, this entire bill is bizarre. It's saying that not only do you have to give us valuable traffic for free... you also have to pay us. I still can't think of any reasonable analog, the situation is so insane.But -- some people argue back -- Facebook is no champion of the open web. Indeed. I've never argued otherwise. It's not. But this move was important to protect the open internet (and it's now disappointing that the company has caved). But, of course, this move also has demonstrated why Facebook has, historically, been a danger to the open web as well. And that's because when it blocked access to news links in Australia, it also did the same for many Pacific islands. And while we've mocked Australians who don't seem to realize they can just go to the websites of news organizations, for some of these Pacific islands, that's not actually the case. Because of Facebook's other attacks on the open web.For years, we've pointed out the evil that is Facebook's "Free Basics" program. This is a form of "zero rating," in which Facebook would subsidize (or even make free) access in remote parts of the world... but only to Facebook. Facebook, of course, framed this as a way of "connecting the poor" and helping to get affordable internet access to places that didn't have it. But that's not true. It only gave them access to Facebook. As many people have pointed out over the years, if Facebook really wanted to subsidize internet access in these parts of the world, it should have have subsidized real access to the wider internet, not just Facebook.So, now, these two things have collided in the South Pacific. Facebook's anti-open internet policies with zero rating, and Facebook's pro-open internet decision to not link if it requires payment. And those who bought into the false prophet of Free Basics, are now suffering:

Across the Pacific, thousands of people are on pre-paid data phone plans which include cheap access to Facebook. Those on limited incomes can get news through the social network, but cannot go to original source websites without using more data, and spending more money.The region's largest telco provider, Digicel, with a presence in Fiji, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu, offers affordable mobile data plans with free or cheap access to Facebook.In Australia, news from Pacific sites also appeared to be blocked, a significant impediment for diaspora communities and seasonal workers.

Articles reposted from Australian news sources are often used in the Pacific to rebut misinformation being spread on Facebook, Watson and Howarth said.One very popular page in PNG seems to attract more than its fair share of long-longs [an ill-informed person in pidgin] opposing vaccination as the Covid pandemic quietly spreads daily, Howarth said.

0 comments, click here to add the first

Google Disbands Stadia Game Developers And Signals Potential For More Trouble Ahead

Furnished content.


It's no secret that in the year and a half since Google launched its video game streaming platform, Stadia, things haven't gone particularly well. Game developers were wary at the onset that Google, as it has with projects like this in the past, might simply one day shut the whole thing down if it thinks the venture is a loser. The launch of Stadia itself was mostly met with meager interest, due to scant games available on the platform. Even then, the rollout was a mix of chaos and glitch, critiques of its promise for true 4k game streaming, very low adoption rates, and some at the company appearing to want to go to war with game-streamers.And now, there are signals that the trouble is worsening. Google recently announced, completely without warning, that it was shuttering its in-house Stadia game development studio.

According to the report, developers at the studio were "shocked" by the sudden shutdown, since, only a week earlier, Stadia's leading executive, game industry veteran Phil Harrison, told the group "[SG&E] has made great progress building a diverse and talented team and establishing a strong lineup of Stadia exclusive games." The one-week flip-flop was "part of an apparent pattern of Stadia leadership not being honest and upfront with the company's developers," according to Kotaku, adding that many developers "upended their lives and careers to join the team."The report says Stadia's developers found out about the studio closure at "almost the same time as everyone else." Stadia's developers had to wait three days before Harrison was available for a Q&A conference call, which the report describes as "contentious." The most chilling line in the report details Harrison's response to a question asking why the Studio was "making great progress" one week and then fired the next: "When asked what changed from the week prior, Harrison admitted nothing had and told those on the call, 'We knew.'"

Google doesn't publicly share how well (or poorly) Stadia is doing, but that blog post mentions that Google is looking for "the best path to building Stadia into a long-term, sustainable business," strongly hinting that Stadia is not currently a sustainable business. The post details what sounds like a pretty strong change in strategy, pivoting from the direct-to-consumer "game console" business and more toward being a technology provider for gaming companies.If Stadia was ever going to be successful, it seems like that should have happened over the last several months. The pandemic is making gaming more popular than ever, and everyone else's sales are up across the board. Stadia was also one of the best systems to play the long-awaited Cyberpunk 2077 on, especially given that the other best options were next-gen consoles that were perpetually sold out. If Google isn't seeing success now, it's hard to imagine a better opportunity for the service.

0 comments, click here to add the first