As BigT says, the former.
There has never before been any form of IP in the fact that one has some IP.
If the link copies a headline it could possibly infringe copyright (I think doubtful under Aust. Law).
But if it only references a news article it would be absolutely new law to say that infringed some IP or other property right.
First Dog on the Moon’s take on this:
From my feed of the New York Times:
Facebook’s news blackout in Australia
Australians woke up on Thursday to a shock on Facebook: The news was gone. Rather than pay publishers for stories, a requirement under new legislation, the tech giant wiped the site of information.
But Australians soon discovered it wasn’t just news sites. Pages for state health departments, the meteorology bureau, politicians, nonprofits and more were wiped clean. More frightening was what remained: pages dedicated to aliens and U.F.O.s; one for a community group called “Say No to Vaccines”; and plenty of conspiracy theories.Facebook initially blamed the proposed law, expected to pass soon, and later promised to restore vital public service pages.
Divided views: Most Australians were outraged, but for different reasons. Some blame Facebook, saying the tech giant has too much market power; some fault the law, which they call too broad; and others say it might be for the best and may help small news publishers swallowed up by big tech.Analysis: “Australia is an unwitting test lab for what happens to Facebook, news organizations and the public when Facebook is a news desert,” says Shira Ovide, writer of our On Tech newsletter.
Seems to me, whatever the historical merits and limits of what constitutes property, that without the news content there’s not much commercial meat left on the bone of the FB business model, so when a US corporation consciously takes down health service sites during a pandemic whilst promoting conspiracy theories, some might well think FB has just shot it’s own electronic foot off. In front of a global crowd.
One of the sites I follow is particularly proprietorial about their headlines. I don’t understand it at all: I grew up in a time when newspapers used to issue broadsheets showing just the headlines, for display at retail outlets and by newsboys. But they really don’t like google displaying their headlines in search results.
I’m not in the business, and have no reason to assume that they are stupid, so I’m ready to believe that it isn’t /actually/ ridiculous, it just /seems/ ridiculous.
Listening to the radio coverage yesterday, the obvious idea is that if people want to put up factual content, they should pay for the privilege, or accept a quid pro quo. But FB hadn’t told anybody what exactly they were doing or why, and the experts were theorizing that perhaps what FB really objected to was the idea they might have to justify content (block ‘false news’ or recognize ‘incitement’), and they are testing the idea that they might just block content.
My Aussie friends decided to leave FB until such a time as news is restored. Retired diplomatic folks, much of their/our conversation has been about differences between countries. We will go back to email correspondence.
…And there was great rejoicing in Australia.
Now let’s get the rest of the world to piss off Zuckerberg. Maybe we can get him to take his toy and go home.
Facebook has long intended getting out of being a news source and had already made steps to throttle media information back in 2018 : Bringing People Closer Together. Presumably this is because it is cheaper and easier than trying to sort fake news from real news. Primarily because fake media is made to look just like real media.
And Australia is just the front runner in Facebook’s trial of “de-prioritising” (blocking) media feeds: Reducing Political Content in News Feed.
As the ACCC found in 2019: Australia Strips Google/Facebook to Their Underwear
Many news media businesses in Australia would likely lose significant revenue, with adverse impacts on their business, should they forego referrals from Facebook. The opposite is not the case for Facebook. Access to the news content of any one news media business is unlikely to have a material effect on Facebook or its users.
I guess Rupert didn’t see that.
Are you suggesting that Rupert was naive? I’d be willing to be that he’s not.
If nothing else The Chaser boys are fully exploiting the opportunity. 
It appears Canada may follow Australia’s example
well throw in the college message board element and thats what Facebook started out as and what many people want it to go back to …
If Facebook is forced to pay anytime a user posts a link to a news story then they must block such links to protect themselves. The alternative is paying for the millions of bot-posted links that will follow.
If I was running a news site the first thing I’d do is have all my staff post and repost as many links to my own site as possible, it’s free money.
Yup, Australian MSM in it’s death throws got greedy. Not surprised Facebook pulled the plug.
Also, get rid of Facebook.
Maybe a user who posts a link should pay Facebook for the privilege to do so. And then Facebook splits the revenue with the site linked to. /half-serious-half-sarcasm
So it’s not clear why FB blocked Amnesty International or the Heidelberg Historical Society.
Nor is it clear how “viewing” is the same as “sharing”
We were prepared to launch Facebook News in Australia and significantly increase our investments with local publishers, however, we were only prepared to do this with the right rules in place. This legislation sets a precedent where the government decides who enters into these news content agreements, and ultimately, how much the party that already receives value from the free service gets paid.
Changes to Sharing and Viewing News on Facebook in Australia - About Facebook (fb.com)
So it’s not about money: it’s about control. Who’s in charge: the unions, the government, or trans-national company management?
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
(Orwell)
Given the average age of facebook users, I predict a big advertising market in reverse mortgages, gold scams, and robot uprising insurance for the elderly.
Also, lots of services and products for pets.
Here’s an interesting article by a former Facebook executive:
Lying at the heart of Facebook’s abrupt ban on all Australian news is a global strategic gamble that will have a huge bearing not just on Mark Zuckerberg’s behemoth, but on the dynamic between Big Tech and democracy. … I suspect its bet is this: that by taking an aggressive hard line with a middle power, such as Australia, a tough message will be sent to the rest of the world to back off on regulation.
Cards are now on the table.
This is Facebook intentionally pulling one of the huge levers of power it has developed to deliberately influence the way free information functions and flows in a sovereign democracy. …
And this is where it may have overplayed its hand. By using its enormous power intentionally, Facebook may have made it impossible for the world to continue ignoring that it has that power.
“Free information”
There was no suggestion that it was pay per link