Social media, search engines, ethics and social politics

[JohnD]

An event is happening in Australia that may soon become an international cause. The government is bringing in legislation to force social media and search engines to pay for news items. Google has decided to negotiate with news outlets while Facebook has pulled all links and informed members that posts including links to news outlets will be blocked and repeated attempts will end in the member being blocked.
The internet has long been considered rogue, an ethereal wild west. It has always been difficult to bring about controls even in the basics like web addresses let alone ethics and morals considered fundamental in all other avenues of life.
My question is where do freedom of speech end and social and ethical responsibility take effect in regards to social media and search engines. And, considering these outlets charge heavily those wanting to conduct business on their sites, should they be paying for access to services that bring a large portion of business traffic to their site?
Of course, such legislation will ultimately affect sites like this one where such links are fundamental to the efficacy of arguments presented by interested parties. Is this something the site managers should be ready to accept or is there room for negotiation with legislators?

[charon]

News should be free. Comment is another matter.

[TheVat]

How is news really "blocked"just because it's not on a social media feed? Are Australians incapable of typing in a news URL and going directly to a website?? Is it only news if FB spoonfeeds it to you?

[JohnD]

How is news really "blocked"just because it's not on a social media feed? Are Australians incapable of typing in a news URL and going directly to a website?? Is it only news if FB spoonfeeds it to you?

You are correct and people can go to the news site for information however we reside in a lazy age where people seek immediate response without having to move, pretty much along the same lines as fast food. Personally, I'm highly selective and I'm sure there are plenty of others who are the same.
But is this the issue? Should news supply be limited to those who put in the effort to locate it? When the news was part of the print media, people had the newspaper delivered to their homes. Isn't FB a part of this new lifestyle?
I agree with the thought that news should be free, but if the news is free who pays for it? Who pays the journalists? If there are to be no more journalists how do we get the news? What news do we actually read?
The internet has presented us with a brave new world that we haven't quite figured out yet. Do we try to continue to support old-world industries or embrace the new? How do we become inclusive? Should sites such as FB be considered on a parallel to newspapers and magazines? Their content is inclusive of news, not only in what is posted by news media outlets but by what people post and repost.
I think it must be remembered that in general conversation if there is an event it will be discussed. The choice is between utilising facts obtained from a news media outlet or gossip (fake news).

[charon]

I agree with the thought that news should be free, but if the news is free who pays for it? Who pays the journalists? If there are to be no more journalists how do we get the news? What news do we actually read?

Well, quite. Free news probably isn't an option since it has to be organised and god forbid the state should monitor it. Huge institutions that publish newspapers are well known for their bias. On the other hand they also print the news as it comes.

I think we have to accept it's not all a conspiracy. There are responsible news agencies and there is responsible journalism.

But, of course, these days there's always the internet on which we can find news free. Assuming we have the internet and it's not being state-controlled.

[Serpent]

You are correct and people can go to the news site for information however we reside in a lazy age where people seek immediate response without having to move, pretty much along the same lines as fast food.

That's not free, either. Are your rights violated by having to pay someone else to pick, ship, pack, clean, cook and pre-chew your food?

Should news supply be limited to those who put in the effort to locate it?

Certainly would be wasted on people too lazy to flip a tv channel.

When the news was part of the print media, people had the newspaper delivered to their homes.

And they weren't free, either.

Isn't FB a part of this new lifestyle?

Not mine!!

I agree with the thought that news should be free,

Why? Government announcements, notifications and warnings are free, in that you've paid for it through taxation. If you want gossip, you can stand on a street corner and eavesdrop. Every other kind of information has to be discovered, compiled and transmitted by people who make a living at it and expect to get paid. You choose what to buy.

The internet has presented us with a brave new world that we haven't quite figured out yet. Do we try to continue to support old-world industries or embrace the new? How do we become inclusive? Should sites such as FB be considered on a parallel to newspapers and magazines? Their content is inclusive of news, not only in what is posted by news media outlets but by what people post and repost.
I think it must be remembered that in general conversation if there is an event it will be discussed. The choice is between utilising facts obtained from a news media outlet or gossip (fake news).

Exactly. Your choice.

[JohnD]

But, of course, these days there's always the internet on which we can find news free. Assuming we have the internet and it's not being state-controlled.

Is the internet 'free'? We can certainly say it's an available alternative but I don't think it's free. Today, of course, it's our main source of news outside of TV. I find TV highly edited in order to fit a format and newspapers are just not an option.

I think we have to accept it's not all a conspiracy. There are responsible news agencies and there is responsible journalism.

What is the definition of responsible journalism? Considering most news today comes with inclusive, biased, editorialization how can we tell? It may not be possible to control the quality of journalism so why not control its distribution in the hope of attaining better journalism? Wider distribution of news in a controlled manner would encourage more journalists to re-enter the workforce and reduce the monopoly of the majors.

[JohnD]

The newspaper industry and ultimately the news media started when journeymen traveled to every corner of the globe in order to produce local papers with local content. There were no giants. So, why not bring some of that back by encouraging independents with a place where they can publish and get paid. Search engines and social media outlets are an established environment where true journalism should be being encouraged to take a chance. We already have an example by the number of singers, dancers, and performers that have been discovered on U Tube. Why not journalists who have spent years studying their craft?