3 ms·
Could do like the UK does with the BBC and fund it via ordinary taxes. It seems like a relatively simple solution.
by asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
Could do like the UK does with the BBC and fund it via ordinary taxes. It seems like a relatively simple solution.
- throwaway45349 6y agoExcept for the Defund the BBC movement that's going on right now... I'm skeptical any government funded broadcaster is sustainable when it just turns into a propaganda outlet for the establishment.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoI'm not super familiar with UK politics but it looks like this movement raised something like 45k british pounds on gofundme? Seems pretty fringe. I guess the BBC will remain funded.
- throwaway45349 6y agoThe actual org is small, but it's caused thousands to pull their license fee, which is no small sum of money for the Beeb. It's not like they're rolling in profit.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoThere are around 65 million UK residents. Even if thousands pull their license fee it's not gonna move the needle that much. And if it did move the needle, I suspect the government would address the issue by enforcing the license fee more aggressively, or by doing the sensible thing and funding the BBC via the general fund.
- throwaway45349 6y agoThey can't legally enforce it because the BBC guy has no special power to inspect your telly set and it's not technically a tax (as long as you don't consume BBC content). They also include YouTube/iPlayer consumption of BBC so it's unenforceable on a technical level too. They've tried to scare people into compliance since the 50s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van
- rossjudson 6y agoThat makes me, as a non-UK resident, rather sad. BBC programming (at least what makes it to North America) is really very good.
- clouddrover 6y agoThe ABC is government funded: https://www.abc.net.au/ https://www.abc.net.au/ And SBS is partially government funded: https://www.sbs.com.au https://www.sbs.com.au But it's not enough to have just two news organisations.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoIf the number of organizations is the concern, the government could fund a larger number of organizations. This doesn't seem fatal to the option I proposed.
- clouddrover 6y agoOr the government could just make Google pay for what it uses. It's simpler and more direct.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoHaha, no it is not. Taxing a specific organization for a specific policy purpose is much more complicated than paying for that policy purpose out of the general fund and paying for it with general taxation. To see the truth of my claim, consider what's going to happen if Google declines to "use" the Australian news media after this law is passed. I doubt any serious person believes this will be helpful to the news media's bottom line. So you'll have an even more serious problem for news media revenue, and also the search engine most people use will be doing a worse job of helping people get the information they're looking for. All because the government chose a complex policy solution to a simple policy problem. (At least, the problem as stated is simple. I suspect the actual problem the government is trying to solve is a little different than what is publicly claimed.)
- clouddrover 6y agoOf course it is. Industry specific regulation exists for all industries. This is nothing new. Why do you believe that everyone else must pay Google's costs? Why do you think Google shouldn't pay its own way? It's a bizarre position to take.