For one, this allows Facebook to extract more information about “users.” For two, this allows Facebook to pitch having more readers to advertisers. Facebook designs its site to keep “users” on the platform as long as possible. The ostensible user is not fully in control on Facebook. Here too, the term “domestication” is apt, albeit in a slightly different context than Mr. Who is Facebook’s user? Is it you, your relative, or your friend with a Facebook profile? Or is it the advertiser who uses the information you provide to sell products to you and other’s? What is Facebook’s product? Facebook’s product is information about its “users,” which it then sells to advertisers. For now, I cite to his article for a different reason – his use of the term “domestication.” Kumar’s thoughts on the domestication of users of big tech platforms are mostly on point, and I may discuss them in a future post.

He observed, correctly, that many dissatisfied users would remain with WhatsApp because leaving would mean “losing the ability to communicate with WhatsApp users.” On January 27, 2021, a gentleman by the name of Roman Kumar wrote a provocatively titled piece called “ WhatsApp and the domestication of users.” His piece was prompted by the Facebook-owned messaging app, WhatsApp, changing its privacy and data collection policies for the worse. Relying on Facebook for News and Information is Folly Setting aside the fact that Facebook pulled the rug from under a relatively small number of Facebook users in Australia, the idea of relying on Facebook as portal to news and essential information is concerning. While I would quibble with the Associated Press’s assertion that billions of people rely on Facebook for news and essential information, it is no doubt true that many people do. Those restrictions potentially deprived many Australians of basic information on Facebook about COVID-19 or the country’s fire season… The ban affected articles from large international news organization and small community newspapers or radio stations alike. Facebook’s news blackout swept up many of these… Firstly:īillions of people around the world rely on Facebook for essential information – not just news, but charity and government pages, emergency announcements, and other important channels. Two passages from the Associated Press article caught my attention.

The article explains the effect of the ban in practical terms: “Facebook’s move means people in Australia can no longer post links to news stories on Facebook.” Facebook initially also applied the ban to Australian government emergency pages, but reversed that aspect of the ban on the nineteenth. The Associated Press published this article about the after-effects of Facebook’s decision two days after the ban took effect. Associated Press: “Facebook makes a power move in Australia – and may regret it”īy Barbara Ortutay and Tali Arbel.

It is open to one of my recent New Leaf Journal articles to remind you that you can follow The New Leaf Journal via RSS.īelow, I will recommend one article relating to Facebook’s banning Australian news sharing from its platform. Screenshot of my current RSS feed reader – Akregator. After identifying serious problems that arise from relying on Facebook as a primary news source – I suggest RSS as the best alternative to Facebook for empowering active consumers of news and information. For today’s post, I will discuss the problems with relying on Facebook or any other big tech giant as a primary medium for news and information consumption.

Facebook shut down pages of Australian news sites and Government entities and prevented their content from being shared via Facebook by anyone around the world. In response to Australia’s plans to enact legislation requiring certain big tech companies to pay Australian news agencies for disseminating content, Facebook abruptly picked up its ball and proverbially went home. After a one-week hiatus for a Valentine’s special last week, I return with the tenth edition of our “Around the Web” series.

Quiterss xml feed