Meta’s sweeping news ban across Australia in early 2021, which saw the Facebook pages of non-profits and government entities also shut down, was a deliberate ploy by the tech giant’s top brass to gain leverage during heated negotiations over an impending media payment law.
The U.S.-based Whistleblower Aid revealed on May 5 that it had filed disclosures with the U.S. Department of Justice and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) on behalf of former Facebook employees.
The move was an attempt to secure favourable amendments to the impending News Media Bargaining Code, which would have compelled Facebook (and Google) to enter discussions with local media outlets to negotiate payment rates for content.
The tech giant had warned months earlier that it could be compelled to simply remove news sites in response to the law; however, when the ban was actioned, it happened with no prior notification and went over and above blocking news sites.
Facebook soon after said it would reverse the ban, but did not apologize or claim responsibility.
“They (Meta) used that power in a way that threatened public safety during fire season and in the midst of a global pandemic in order to coerce the Australian Parliament,” according to Libby Liu, CEO of Whistleblower Aid. “This wasn’t just an example of a corporate actor behaving recklessly; Facebook intentionally put lives at risk to protect its bottom line.”
Some organisations hit by the ban included the World Wildlife Foundation Australia, St Vincent’s Health, Suicide Prevention Australia, the Australian Medical Association, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, and Safe Steps Family Violence Response Center.
Further, Facebook has been accused of sidelining standard practice—which could have prevented the blocking of non-news-related pages—to trigger a “full rollout” of the ban within hours.
“Facebook did not develop or utilize lists of sensitive accounts that it should take care not to block for reasons of public health or safety and did not create any formal appeals process for sites that were improperly blocked,” the statement said.
“Facebook managers told lower-level staff not to make any written record of the ‘intent’ of the takedown,” it continued.
The leadership team, including founder Mark Zuckerberg, COO Sheryl Sandberg, and Campbell Brown, head of news partnerships, sent congratulatory messages to staff after the news ban.
“The thoughtfulness of the strategy, precision of execution, and ability to stay nimble as things evolved sets a new high standard,” according to an email from Sandberg.
“We were able to execute quickly and take a principled approach for our community around the world while achieving what might be the best possible outcome in Australia,” Zuckerberg said.
“We landed exactly where we wanted to—and that was only possible because this team was genius enough to pull it off in zero time,” Brown wrote.
However, Meta has refuted the claims in a statement on May 6 AEST.
“The documents in question clearly show that we intended to exempt Australian government pages from restrictions in an effort to minimise the impact of this misguided and harmful legislation,” a spokesperson said.
“When we were unable to do so as intended due to a technical error, we apologised and worked to correct it. Any suggestion to the contrary is categorically and obviously false.”
Rob Nicholls, associate professor in competition law at the University of New South Wales, at the time of the ban, said it was “inconceivable” one of the largest companies in the world could make such a significant mistake.
“It has gone about it in a way that suggests either technological ineptitude of the highest order or a deliberate decision to block government health information (in the middle of a pandemic), cancer charities, helplines, and domestic violence support services,” he added.
Nicholl’s also suspected Facebook’s Zuckerberg played a major part in the decision.
“The structure of Facebook, where Zuckerberg’s shareholding has significantly more voting weight than ordinary stockholders, is likely to mean that Zuckerberg’s views weigh more heavily than the decisions that would come from a traditional board structure motivated by directors’ fiduciary duties to shareholders,” he said.
Meanwhile, the News Media Bargaining Code was eventually passed into law with some amendments. However, the tech giants, Google and Facebook, have since entered into multi-million payment deals with several major media outlets in the country without the need for the payment law—setting a precedent for other nations to follow.
