Perhaps you don't understand? A news publisher posts an article on FB. If that publisher doesn't want their IP to be "stolen", then perhaps they should stop posting on FB. Did you know that News Corp has a firewall on all their web services but one. So even if you wanted to read an article you could not, and will be just presented with an invitation to subscribe.
Fairfax was opposed to the proposal, but after it became Nine it joined with News Corp. The proposal will result in the two major news platforms becoming a duopoly as ONLY the major publishers will receive income, but smaller ones will not. Currently Nine allows posts on FB linking to the AFR to bypass the AFR firewall. But if I don't have a subscription then direct access to the AFR is blocked. Nine CHOOSES to do this because it attracts readers to the AFR that otherwise not get there. Strangely many people seem to get their source of news via FB. Do you want to further entrench the power of the duopoly?
So if you want to support a further concentration of the news publishers in Australia then by all means support the proposal.
I, like seemingly both sides of the argument here, find little value in FB. Not that I have been very attentive to all the contributors but I haven't noticed anyone who has argued that they would miss FB.
