6 ms·

Australia’s competition regulator, the ACCC, has estimated that Google and Facebook together earn some A$6 billion (US$4 billion) a year from advertising in the

Australia’s competition regulator, the ACCC, has estimated that Google and Facebook together earn some A$6 billion (US$4 billion) a year from advertising in the country. Leading news publishers have demanded the two companies pay at least 10% of that money each year to local news organizations. News organizations want ten percent of FB and Goog's advertising revenue? I guess I do too but this concept is facially absurd.

fxtentacle 6y ago
I don't find it too absurd if you consider that many older people go to Facebook to read the news. And by now, the young crowd is moving on, which means those older people are Facebooks main user base.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  So a company getting outcompeted wants the government to force its competiton to give it free money. And you don't think that's absurd?
  - asdfaoeu 6y ago
    Countries protect their domestic companies all the time.
    - Mirioron 6y ago
      Sure, but you generally don't want to be blatant about it. If the US decides to start swinging its weight around to protect Google/Facebook from this (or as retaliation) then Australia is most definitely going to come out on the losing side.
      - lenkite 6y ago
        This is happening in the US too. Google/Facebook should pay for the news they use: https://www.editorandpublisher.com/columns/shoptalk-google-facebook-should-pay-for-news-they-use/ https://www.editorandpublisher.com/columns/shoptalk-google-f...
      - fxtentacle 6y ago
        You mean how the DMCA grants US companies legal immunity for most copyright infringements if the content is posted by an "unrelated" user account instead of the official company account? FYI I work on catching image thieves in the US and we sadly see lots of cases where you feel that it should clearly be illegal that a company is using someone else's photo without permission, but oddly enough it turns out to be not legally pursuable.
  - lenkite 6y ago
    If they are re-publishing content created by news publishers on their platform, they can pay money for this. If they do not want to pay the price, they can simply stop showing news. People will go back to the original platform.
  - fxtentacle 6y ago
    These newspapers aren't getting outcompeted. They are having their content stolen. If Facebook would prevent people from posting links from these newspapers and instead show an error message that says that it isn't allowed because Facebook doesn't want to pay for it, how do you think people would react?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - twblalock 6y ago
      How is posting a link considered stealing content?
      - sjy 6y ago
        Some say that copyright infringement is stealing, and some say that the decline of the news media could be reversed by extending copyright to prohibit the unauthorised posting of links to, or snippets of, news content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_publishers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_...
        twblalock 6y ago
        Posting a link is not copyright infringement.
      - fxtentacle 6y ago
        The link is not the problem. The headline, text snippet, and image used in the box to illustrate the link, they are. Because let's be honest, most people only look at the image and read the headline. So for them, the preview on facebook is "good enough".
moksly 6y ago
From an American perspective, sure, but in a lot of countries we ask ourselves if letting these companies operate freely is a benefit for our society. I can see why moving money from Facebook to local news media would benefit Australia, and let’s not pretend we can’t force Google or Facebook to comply. Just look at what they are willing to do for China.
- toast0 6y ago
  Even if I try to imagine an Australian perspective, demanding Google and Facebook pay the newspapers 10% of revenue seems pretty bizarre. It would seem better to just charge a 10% tax on advertising, put that in the general fund, and then subsidise newspapers however you see fit, which may or may not amount to the same AUD but can more easily change over time.
  - rutthenut 6y ago
    Yes, would think surely this ought to be managed by a tax that keeps some of the money in-country, whether or not it gets shared with the press (which brings a lot of issues about subsidies, free speech and more). Wondering, do FB/Google pay any substantial corporate tax bills in Australia?
- creato 6y ago
  > Just look at what they are willing to do for China. ... What are they willing to do? Aren't they both banned in China?
- Arnt 6y ago
  Forcing compliance is simple: Just change the tax laws. So what would the law say? A tax 10% of advertising revenue on... what kind of advertising? All advertising? That sounds really simple, just increase the VAT by 10% for advertising products.
  - Arnt 6y ago
    Replying to myself because this reminds me of something in another country, decades ago. This other country had a tax rule that was intended to help news media, and one of the ministries had to decide what "news media" meant, in effect set terms for who benefited. This went well for a decade or more. Then, someone in that ministry wrote a memo that said (abbreviated and modernised): "Last week, <name> published a% clickbait, b% celebrity blahblah and other rubbish, and only c% factual news. We need to consider whether it is a news medium as required for the tax rule." I have a feeling that the Austrialian companies that want a part of Googles/Facebook's income do not want any sort of just or equal tax rule, and also do absolutely not want to be restricted to publishing mostly news.
tozeur 6y ago
It’s a massive money drain out of Australia. Look at how aggressively China protects its businesses by blocking Facebook etc from operating in its borders.
- twblalock 6y ago
  That's not why China bans Facebook. China bans Facebook because it has a policy of internet censorship and government control of information.
  - bildung 6y ago
    China would be perfectly capable of achieving that goal with Facebook in the country, just as with the domestic platforms.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - kome 6y ago
    oh sweet summer child...
  - triceratops 6y ago
    Why not both?
    - twblalock 6y ago
      Because that's an overdetermined explanation. Their primary motivation is control of information, and that by itself is the only reason they need to ban Facebook. It's also why they ban a number of other sites that don't compete with Chinese companies. Protecting Chinese social media companies from competition is at best a secondary motivation and it probably isn't even necessary -- Chinese internet users prefer Chinese social media for a variety of reasons, and I don't think Facebook is a significant competitive threat. Neither is Twitter. On the other hand, China allowed Google to operate even though it might have been a strong competitor to Baidu. Google was only blocked when it refused to comply with censorship policies -- again demonstrating that control over information is the government's main concern.

fxtentacle 6y ago

I don't find it too absurd if you consider that many older people go to Facebook to read the news. And by now, the young crowd is moving on, which means those older people are Facebooks main user base.

missedthecue 6y ago
So a company getting outcompeted wants the government to force its competiton to give it free money. And you don't think that's absurd?
- asdfaoeu 6y ago
  Countries protect their domestic companies all the time.
  - Mirioron 6y ago
    Sure, but you generally don't want to be blatant about it. If the US decides to start swinging its weight around to protect Google/Facebook from this (or as retaliation) then Australia is most definitely going to come out on the losing side.
    - lenkite 6y ago
      This is happening in the US too. Google/Facebook should pay for the news they use: https://www.editorandpublisher.com/columns/shoptalk-google-facebook-should-pay-for-news-they-use/ https://www.editorandpublisher.com/columns/shoptalk-google-f...
    - fxtentacle 6y ago
      You mean how the DMCA grants US companies legal immunity for most copyright infringements if the content is posted by an "unrelated" user account instead of the official company account? FYI I work on catching image thieves in the US and we sadly see lots of cases where you feel that it should clearly be illegal that a company is using someone else's photo without permission, but oddly enough it turns out to be not legally pursuable.
- lenkite 6y ago
  If they are re-publishing content created by news publishers on their platform, they can pay money for this. If they do not want to pay the price, they can simply stop showing news. People will go back to the original platform.
- fxtentacle 6y ago
  These newspapers aren't getting outcompeted. They are having their content stolen. If Facebook would prevent people from posting links from these newspapers and instead show an error message that says that it isn't allowed because Facebook doesn't want to pay for it, how do you think people would react?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - twblalock 6y ago
    How is posting a link considered stealing content?
    - sjy 6y ago
      Some say that copyright infringement is stealing, and some say that the decline of the news media could be reversed by extending copyright to prohibit the unauthorised posting of links to, or snippets of, news content: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_publishers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancillary_copyright_for_press_...
      - twblalock 6y ago
        Posting a link is not copyright infringement.
    - fxtentacle 6y ago
      The link is not the problem. The headline, text snippet, and image used in the box to illustrate the link, they are. Because let's be honest, most people only look at the image and read the headline. So for them, the preview on facebook is "good enough".

moksly 6y ago

From an American perspective, sure, but in a lot of countries we ask ourselves if letting these companies operate freely is a benefit for our society. I can see why moving money from Facebook to local news media would benefit Australia, and let’s not pretend we can’t force Google or Facebook to comply. Just look at what they are willing to do for China.

toast0 6y ago
Even if I try to imagine an Australian perspective, demanding Google and Facebook pay the newspapers 10% of revenue seems pretty bizarre. It would seem better to just charge a 10% tax on advertising, put that in the general fund, and then subsidise newspapers however you see fit, which may or may not amount to the same AUD but can more easily change over time.
- rutthenut 6y ago
  Yes, would think surely this ought to be managed by a tax that keeps some of the money in-country, whether or not it gets shared with the press (which brings a lot of issues about subsidies, free speech and more). Wondering, do FB/Google pay any substantial corporate tax bills in Australia?
creato 6y ago
> Just look at what they are willing to do for China. ... What are they willing to do? Aren't they both banned in China?
Arnt 6y ago
Forcing compliance is simple: Just change the tax laws. So what would the law say? A tax 10% of advertising revenue on... what kind of advertising? All advertising? That sounds really simple, just increase the VAT by 10% for advertising products.
- Arnt 6y ago
  Replying to myself because this reminds me of something in another country, decades ago. This other country had a tax rule that was intended to help news media, and one of the ministries had to decide what "news media" meant, in effect set terms for who benefited. This went well for a decade or more. Then, someone in that ministry wrote a memo that said (abbreviated and modernised): "Last week, <name> published a% clickbait, b% celebrity blahblah and other rubbish, and only c% factual news. We need to consider whether it is a news medium as required for the tax rule." I have a feeling that the Austrialian companies that want a part of Googles/Facebook's income do not want any sort of just or equal tax rule, and also do absolutely not want to be restricted to publishing mostly news.

tozeur 6y ago

It’s a massive money drain out of Australia. Look at how aggressively China protects its businesses by blocking Facebook etc from operating in its borders.

twblalock 6y ago
That's not why China bans Facebook. China bans Facebook because it has a policy of internet censorship and government control of information.
- bildung 6y ago
  China would be perfectly capable of achieving that goal with Facebook in the country, just as with the domestic platforms.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- kome 6y ago
  oh sweet summer child...
- triceratops 6y ago
  Why not both?
  - twblalock 6y ago
    Because that's an overdetermined explanation. Their primary motivation is control of information, and that by itself is the only reason they need to ban Facebook. It's also why they ban a number of other sites that don't compete with Chinese companies. Protecting Chinese social media companies from competition is at best a secondary motivation and it probably isn't even necessary -- Chinese internet users prefer Chinese social media for a variety of reasons, and I don't think Facebook is a significant competitive threat. Neither is Twitter. On the other hand, China allowed Google to operate even though it might have been a strong competitor to Baidu. Google was only blocked when it refused to comply with censorship policies -- again demonstrating that control over information is the government's main concern.