If you're outraged that "Facebook did this in the middle of a pandemic", why not be at least as outraged at the government for trying to pass such a law "in the middle of a pandemic"?
Australia: We're going to draft a law that requires Facebook to do X or Y.
Facebook: If those are the options. we're going to do Y.
Australia: You're bluffing, you'd never dare to do Y. We're going to pass that law soon, and we're sure you'll do X instead.
Facebook: Ok, we'll start doing Y right now.
Australia: Outrageous! How dare you try to strongarm a democracy by doing Y.
>And the drafters of that law very intentionally made the definition of news content as vague and broad as possible, to maximize the damage and thus minimize the odds of Facebook actually doing it.
Did you get that narrative straight from FB's PR department?
No, FB obeyed the law. The legislation of what constitutes a "news organisation" is opaque. The legislation said pay for links or don't show them. FB complied with the law and elected not to show them. I cannot see the problem here - FB obeyed the law.
IT’S THE SUN WOT WON IT
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_The_Sun_Wot_Won_It
We are merely spectators watching the giants fight it out, ironically, by following news media’s coverage of events.
Facebook didn't bat an eye before blocking the pages of food banks and emergency service providers in the middle of a pandemic for an entire county, all in service of avoiding a drop in their advertising revenue [1]. That should tell you a lot.
You might not like the proposed laws but Facebook's reckless conduct is indefensible.
If you compare this to Facebook's history in Myanmar, you will find that they have no issue with subsidising the spread of their platform while it is being used to incite a literal genocide [2]. But they draw the line and take swift action when their profits are endangered.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-australia-news-ban-... [2] https://www.wired.com/story/how-facebooks-rise-fueled-chaos-...