Louise Bernard edited by Wassila Belhacine
10:49 a.m., May 9, 2022
In 2021, Facebook blocked some pandemic or natural disaster information pages in Australia. According to the Wall Street Journal, this maneuver was intended to put pressure on the Australian government about a law to which Facebook was unfavorable. The American firm denies these accusations.
In Australia, Facebook is accused of blocking government information pages to oppose the passage of a law. This is a story reported by the “Wall Street Journal”. In February 2021, Australia is preparing to pass a law obliging Facebook to remunerate the media whose journalistic content appears on the social network.
A law not at all to the taste of Facebook which decides to block access to press articles. The social network also prevents access to government pages informing about covid-19 and natural disasters while Australia is in the middle of flood and pandemic season.
At the time, the American firm spoke of a false move and apologized, but the Wall Street Journal claims that these blockages were in fact deliberate.
Facebook denies these accusations and evokes a “technical error”
The American newspaper cites documents provided by several whistleblowers. They show that several Facebook employees attempted to escalate and resolve the issue. But without a fast enough reaction. On the contrary, the depublications continued. The Wall Street Journal says it was a way of lobbying the Australian government.
Five days after these blockages, the text of the law was also amended and relaxed in favor of Facebook, following an agreement between the social network and the government. Immediately after the agreement, the pages were accessible again. According to internal documents, this would have required a very small technical manipulation: changing only 3 lines of code.
Facebook reacted to the Wall Street Journal. The American firm denies these accusations and continues to speak of a “technical error”. “We have been working to resolve this issue. Any claim to the contrary would be categorically and clearly false.”
—
