Facebook's Fatal Flex at Australia

What's up with Facebook? From that on-off war with Apple to the WhatsApp exodus, Facebook are making news for a variety of very poor reasons these days. And then there was this thing with Australia - yes, the country - just two weeks back.

It seems that this started when the Australian Government introduced a new bit of legislation that would compel Facebook (or other companies, such as Google) to pay news media outlets every time someone used their platform to share a link to a news article. Granted, this doesn't exactly sound fair to Facebook, but this isn't what I'm here for today. What I want to talk about is how Facebook reacted.

Google attempted a bit of bluster about removing themselves from Australia, but after Microsoft - rather opportunistically, I might add - backed Australia up, with the threat of being replaced by Microsoft's own search engine, Google decided to play ball.

No more Facebook for Australia?

Facebook, on the other hand, decided that they would no longer show any more news sources from Australia if that meant they would have to pay. From a business point of view, this is entirely legitimate, but quite understandably, some quarters saw this as an attempt at intimidation.

And then Facebook flexed their muscles. They blocked all news with Australian IP addresses from showing on their platform. Unfortunately, in the process, they also accidentally blocked emergency services and public information, and the backlash was immediate.

Where Facebook went wrong

As far as I can see, Mark Zuckerberg has always been about profits rather than power. Facebook is not really interested in promoting any sort of political idealogy or influencing people; rather, they're far more interested in making money and dominating the market. However, due to the nature and ubiquity of Social Media, they are in a power of position and they bear watching.

And many eyes have been watching them for a while. Nations wary that the platform might enable insurrectionists. Help spread misinformation, or even just inconvenient information. Ultimately, wary of the sheer influence and power of such a tech platform.

Pulling Australian media content was one thing. But it was very clumsily implemented, resulting in unintended consequences. Now those wary of Facebook's power are not only concerned with Facebook's power and willingness to use it, but also with Facebook's incompetence. Power is far more dangerous in the hands of those ill-equipped to handle it. It's like having a sleek powerful racecar... driven by an intoxicated child.

Is the FB racecar
driven by a child?

With that heavy-handed move, regardless of the eventual outcome with Australia, Facebook essentially made the target on their back a lot bigger and more prominent. Good going, Zuckerberg. Subtlety definitely isn't your strong suit.

In a nutshell

The term "speak softly and carry a big stick" comes to mind. Of course, one may argue, with the size of Facebook's stick, why should they have to speak softly? Because they can't take on the combined might of all the nations opposed to being held ransom by Facebook's power. It will be a long and costly battle, with little reward for victory. Unless you're some kind of V-For-Vendetta anti-Government nutjob where sticking it to the authorities is the reward, dying on this particular hill accomplishes pretty much nothing of actual value. Facebook is a business entity, and its primary and overriding directive is to remain profitable.

As a business, consumer trust can be a huge issue. Already Facebook faces challenges in the form of data breaches, privacy concerns and more. Add this latest mishap to the mix and you can see why that stunt really didn't help their case at all.

This looks inauspicious for Facebook!
T___T