There’s a lot of corporate bleating about Meta (Facebook’s parent company) ending a deal to pay for ‘news’ content it’s supposedly publishing on its platform.

First up, I’m no fan of Zuckerberg, a habitual plagiarist who stole the entire concept of Facebook from the Winklevoss twins in his Harvard days when they engaged Zuckerberg to continue coding their social ‘Harvard Connect’ website. Emails exposed by the twins when they sued Zuckerberg show that for several months Zuckerberg lied to, and deceived, the twins into believing he was working on their social connection project, when in fact he was copying and stealing their concept.

Even the name ‘Facebook’ was nicked by Zuckerberg. When students enrolled at Harvard they supplied a photo and list of their interests (i.e. chess, tennis, computer programming, cars etc…). This was compiled into a printed directory with all student’s faces (hence the ‘face book’). Their dorm and contact details were listed so other students could connect socially.

Anyways, the twins sued Zuckerberg and settled with a wad of cash and ‘complimentary’ Facebook shares. They are now billionaires.

Since then Zuckerberg has stolen IP from multiple platforms including Snapchat, Twitter (now X), TikTok and others. Zuckerberg has never had an original idea. He is the world’s most successful intellectual thief. I wouldn’t trust the lying, deceitful prick as far as I could throw him.

Saying that, Zuckerberg owes news publishers nothing. If anything, news publishers should be paying Meta/Facebook.

Secondly, Facebook doesn’t “publish” news.

Publishers chose to create free Facebook pages (just as you and I do) to promote their content with direct (free) links (i.e. free traffic) to their online publications which they monetise.

If the news publishers don’t want the free traffic from Facebook, they can delete their page (which they won’t because they are dependent on Facebook just as an addict is addicted to meth).

Nothing will change.

The news organisations will continue to post the free links in Facebook to their websites because publishers need Facebook more than Facebook needs the publishers.

The only change is Facebook will no longer pay publishers for the free traffic to their website, which the publishers enact on their free FB page, courtesy of Facebook.

Why should Facebook pay for news they don’t publish or for the free traffic they provide to news publications?

Facebook doesn’t owe any business, person, organisation etc., anything for using its platform for free.

Finally, who is regularly stealing from who?

There’s hardly a story published on a news publisher’s website which doesn’t ‘steal’ content from Facebook.

As recently as the story of murdered boyfriends, Jessie Baird and Luke Davies, images and content published on Facebook is ‘stolen’ and re-published without seeking consent from those who originally uploaded the images or from Facebook. Links to X (formerly Twitter) and other social media platforms are continually published without consent from the original creators (a breach of copyright laws) by news publishers. 

Facebook would be justified to invoice news publishers for all the free traffic and free content provided by its platform.

Seems like a lot of corporate socialism at play…wanting free money for getting free traffic and free content.

Remember one thing – when you create a free page on Facebook, it’s on their terms. You are not the customer. You are not their business partner.

You are the product, to be sold to advertisers.

Don’t like it?

Get off their platform.

SUGGESTED ARTICLES