43 ms·

Australian government and more specifically Rod sims, the chair of ACCC should get some counselling. Really good counselling. They clearly don't understand how

Australian government and more specifically Rod sims, the chair of ACCC should get some counselling. Really good counselling. They clearly don't understand how publishing works and have a biased understanding of who is benefitting from this relationship. However, the entire Australian media has been nothing but puppets controlled by murdoch. The one true less biased source is ABC which has been muddied by constant federal government censorship and budget cuts almost to a point where independent journalism and Australia cannot be spoken in one sentence. I hope they move forward with this code and I hope that both Google and FB remove news from their site so that newscorp can die quickly. It a shame they are doing this. Come next election I am voting against both SCOMO and the likes.

waheoo 6y ago
ABC are compromised, they only ever hard ball interview the opposition, which is completely fucking useless. (They're not in power) Just look at any liberal interview vs any Labor interview. Labor gets questions, liberal gets pleasentaries.
- waheoo 6y ago
  Don't know why being downvoted. This is as if fox news was govt funded.
hnick 6y ago
And the ABC/SBS will not benefit from payments if this goes through. Nor will independents. Only the largest for-profit companies will. The gap ever widens. I guess the level of science and technological literacy in our government here proves we are truly a representative democracy.
- ryan-allen 6y ago
  Would that mean that ABC/SBS news would feature on FB/Google and the large companies would not?
  - hnick 6y ago
    I don't think that would be legal. "Digital platforms must participate in the code if the Treasurer makes a determination specifying that the code would apply to them. The Government has announced that the code would initially apply only to Facebook and Google." This means they can't pick and choose. They are either a news platform or not. That's why FB is warning us they'd get out of the news game entirely. https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/draft-news-media-bargaining-code https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/draft-...
    - ryan-allen 6y ago
      Thanks for the info, given how Facebook and Google were used for spreading propaganda by various state actors in the recent past, if people were unable to get their news through these platforms, maybe that would be a good thing? I read this book [0] recently, and I was astounded by how widespread it is around the world. The Duerte chapters are an eye opener. [0] https://www.amazon.com.au/This-Not-Propaganda-Adventures-Against/dp/1541762118 https://www.amazon.com.au/This-Not-Propaganda-Adventures-Aga...
      - hnick 6y ago
        It could be, but as an incidental side effect I don't think it's a great outcome. The law as suggested is confusing and uncertain and that will have a chilling effect on sharing 'news' while the crazies sharing opinions might not be so shy. Day 1 for example, it supposedly won't effect Reddit. But if FB/Goog pull out, Reddit will be the next target really quickly. Repeat for anything relevant until it hits something that hurts.
        shortweb3 6y ago
        Can someone explain why this is beneficial to Murdoch or other organisations? Right now if I perform a search for say ‘coronavirus vaccine Australia’ two government sites come up and 10 news sites. If I then click on a news site they can advertise to me and in the case of the guardian ask for donations in the case of Murdoch ask for subscriptions. If they are removed then how my only choice is to go direct to the site of choice. Especially for Murdoch sites that are hard paywalled I don’t get the benefit?
umvi 6y ago
Why wouldn't the Australian government just make another law making it illegal for Facebook to block sharing of news on Facebook. If you throw enough laws at something, surely you'll get the desired outcome eventually (wealth redistribution from Facebook => struggling newspapers)?
- dicomdan 6y ago
  It's not unlikely that Facebook will pull out of Australia for such follow up law, and US will retaliate against Australia economically for driving Facebook out.
  - Polylactic_acid 6y ago
    Unlikely because newscorp controls the government in both Australia and the US
    - vermilingua 6y ago
      It doesn’t control either government, but they have the kind of symbiotic relationship that makes favours indistinguishable from control.
  - gizmonty 6y ago
    Oh how wonderful it would be if Facebook were to pull out of Australia.
  - akst 6y ago
    The bar would have to be incredibly low for the US to retaliate against Australia over this specifically, seeing as Australia is an incredibly strategic pattern to the US in the Asia pacific region, especially with China being a far greater existential threat to the US economy verses Facebook leaving the Australian market. Edit: Keep in mind we're talking hypotheticals, Facebook only said it would stop sharing news articles. The most extreme thing that will end up happening will be a US diplomat reaching out to Australia on behalf of Facebook.
pfundstein 6y ago
> the entire Australian media has been nothing but puppets controlled by murdoch You're going a bit heavy on hyperbole there. There's a decent amount of non-murdoch news; ABC, SBS, The Age, Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, The Conversation, etc.
- smcleod 6y ago
  Yeah they exist and most of them are good (certainly a lot better at least) but it's not what the mainstream majority of "Aussies" read and they don't have the advertising power or control of the Murdoch press here.
- paxys 6y ago
  Most of them are specifically excluded from this legislation.
  - pfundstein 6y ago
    Yeah, I know. I'm not trying to defend it or "News" Corp.
- vermilingua 6y ago
  FWIW, the ABC and SBS both depend on government funding, and so are far from independent; before even factoring in the Murdoch-Liberal Party relationship.
- stephen_g 6y ago
  It's actually getting worse and worse. The Age and the Herald, having been sold to Nine are much lower quality than they once were. The Government is putting more and more pressure on the ABC, with constant (effective) funding cuts, and both direct editorial interference or indirect (i.e. threatening more funding cuts because of journalists publishing articles they don't like). With the ABC, this has been going on for years - in 2013, they withheld a detailed analysis of the flaws of the Liberal's NBN plan (which has been proven accurate) by Nick Ross before the election because of pushback from "the Turnbull camp", and then eventually he was made redundant because of pressure from the Government. Last year, emails were leaked of the chairman saying they needed to "get rid of Emma Alberici and Andrew Probyn because the Government hates them and they put our funding at risk" - for Alberici because she wrote some articles that got a lot of traction while the Government was trying to push big company tax cuts, pointing out that tax cuts haven't historically correlated with increased economic growth or employment growth (this is true). Last month, Emma Alberici was made redundant...
jakecopp 6y ago
I encourage everyone to have a read of the actual draft legislation along with hearing Facebook's reaction to new regulations being imposed on them. The actual legislation sounds well thought out to me: https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/news-media-bargaining-code/draft-legislation https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/news-m... The FAQs: https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/DPB%20-%20Draft%20news%20media%20and%20digital%20platforms%20mandatory%20bargaining%20code%20Q%26As.pdf https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/DPB%20-%20Draft%20news%... See also the ACCC response to Google's open letter, which contained misinformation: https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/response-to-google-open-letter https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/response-to-google-ope...
- johnnyYen 6y ago
  The ACCC response if disingenuous. It fails to mention the requirement that Google and FB must give news entities 28 days of any changes to their ranking algorithm. I mean WTF. It's the most brain dead piece of legislation you could imagine.
  - stephen_g 6y ago
    I think it actually misrepresents Google's statements too - the ACCC response makes it sound like Google are saying they would be required to charge for their services, but Google actually said that the code might make it no longer worthwhile for them to provide their services for free in Australia. It would have been fair to say that part of Google's statement is probably an exaggeration, but the ACCC instead muddies the waters by rebutting something Google didn't actually say...
- codys 6y ago
  The legislation is, honestly, difficult enough to parse that linking it with a non-specific comment ("sounds well thought out") just turns into a tar pit. I can't tell if you have specific agreements or disagreements, and the only approach available to discuss is to basically summarize it or link to it again. On the ACCC response: it implies google made statements they did not, and seems to willfully ignore the reality of supporting the cost of a free service. Do you have specific things you think this does or doesn't do? In the future it helps to start with those.
aussieguy1234 6y ago
Without Google News or news on FB, people will probably go for free news sources like abc, SBS, the guardian etc rather than the conservative media like The Australian and Daily Telegraph which by and large charges subscription fees for content. Counter productive to what the conservative govt probably hoped to achieve politically
- hnzix 6y ago
  This could actually de-weaponize FB. I quit FB when it degenerated into people arguing over news articles. Maybe now they’ll be less angry and discuss broader topics.
  - prawn 6y ago
    IMO, they won't. FB will remain weaponised, but the news sources willing to play ball (often more extreme sources) will hold sway and increase influence.

waheoo 6y ago

ABC are compromised, they only ever hard ball interview the opposition, which is completely fucking useless. (They're not in power) Just look at any liberal interview vs any Labor interview. Labor gets questions, liberal gets pleasentaries.

waheoo 6y ago
Don't know why being downvoted. This is as if fox news was govt funded.

hnick 6y ago

And the ABC/SBS will not benefit from payments if this goes through. Nor will independents. Only the largest for-profit companies will. The gap ever widens. I guess the level of science and technological literacy in our government here proves we are truly a representative democracy.

ryan-allen 6y ago
Would that mean that ABC/SBS news would feature on FB/Google and the large companies would not?
- hnick 6y ago
  I don't think that would be legal. "Digital platforms must participate in the code if the Treasurer makes a determination specifying that the code would apply to them. The Government has announced that the code would initially apply only to Facebook and Google." This means they can't pick and choose. They are either a news platform or not. That's why FB is warning us they'd get out of the news game entirely. https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/draft-news-media-bargaining-code https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/draft-...
  - ryan-allen 6y ago
    Thanks for the info, given how Facebook and Google were used for spreading propaganda by various state actors in the recent past, if people were unable to get their news through these platforms, maybe that would be a good thing? I read this book [0] recently, and I was astounded by how widespread it is around the world. The Duerte chapters are an eye opener. [0] https://www.amazon.com.au/This-Not-Propaganda-Adventures-Against/dp/1541762118 https://www.amazon.com.au/This-Not-Propaganda-Adventures-Aga...
    - hnick 6y ago
      It could be, but as an incidental side effect I don't think it's a great outcome. The law as suggested is confusing and uncertain and that will have a chilling effect on sharing 'news' while the crazies sharing opinions might not be so shy. Day 1 for example, it supposedly won't effect Reddit. But if FB/Goog pull out, Reddit will be the next target really quickly. Repeat for anything relevant until it hits something that hurts.
      - shortweb3 6y ago
        Can someone explain why this is beneficial to Murdoch or other organisations? Right now if I perform a search for say ‘coronavirus vaccine Australia’ two government sites come up and 10 news sites. If I then click on a news site they can advertise to me and in the case of the guardian ask for donations in the case of Murdoch ask for subscriptions. If they are removed then how my only choice is to go direct to the site of choice. Especially for Murdoch sites that are hard paywalled I don’t get the benefit?

umvi 6y ago

Why wouldn't the Australian government just make another law making it illegal for Facebook to block sharing of news on Facebook. If you throw enough laws at something, surely you'll get the desired outcome eventually (wealth redistribution from Facebook => struggling newspapers)?

dicomdan 6y ago
It's not unlikely that Facebook will pull out of Australia for such follow up law, and US will retaliate against Australia economically for driving Facebook out.
- Polylactic_acid 6y ago
  Unlikely because newscorp controls the government in both Australia and the US
  - vermilingua 6y ago
    It doesn’t control either government, but they have the kind of symbiotic relationship that makes favours indistinguishable from control.
- gizmonty 6y ago
  Oh how wonderful it would be if Facebook were to pull out of Australia.
- akst 6y ago
  The bar would have to be incredibly low for the US to retaliate against Australia over this specifically, seeing as Australia is an incredibly strategic pattern to the US in the Asia pacific region, especially with China being a far greater existential threat to the US economy verses Facebook leaving the Australian market. Edit: Keep in mind we're talking hypotheticals, Facebook only said it would stop sharing news articles. The most extreme thing that will end up happening will be a US diplomat reaching out to Australia on behalf of Facebook.

pfundstein 6y ago

> the entire Australian media has been nothing but puppets controlled by murdoch You're going a bit heavy on hyperbole there. There's a decent amount of non-murdoch news; ABC, SBS, The Age, Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, The Conversation, etc.

smcleod 6y ago
Yeah they exist and most of them are good (certainly a lot better at least) but it's not what the mainstream majority of "Aussies" read and they don't have the advertising power or control of the Murdoch press here.
paxys 6y ago
Most of them are specifically excluded from this legislation.
- pfundstein 6y ago
  Yeah, I know. I'm not trying to defend it or "News" Corp.
vermilingua 6y ago
FWIW, the ABC and SBS both depend on government funding, and so are far from independent; before even factoring in the Murdoch-Liberal Party relationship.
stephen_g 6y ago
It's actually getting worse and worse. The Age and the Herald, having been sold to Nine are much lower quality than they once were. The Government is putting more and more pressure on the ABC, with constant (effective) funding cuts, and both direct editorial interference or indirect (i.e. threatening more funding cuts because of journalists publishing articles they don't like). With the ABC, this has been going on for years - in 2013, they withheld a detailed analysis of the flaws of the Liberal's NBN plan (which has been proven accurate) by Nick Ross before the election because of pushback from "the Turnbull camp", and then eventually he was made redundant because of pressure from the Government. Last year, emails were leaked of the chairman saying they needed to "get rid of Emma Alberici and Andrew Probyn because the Government hates them and they put our funding at risk" - for Alberici because she wrote some articles that got a lot of traction while the Government was trying to push big company tax cuts, pointing out that tax cuts haven't historically correlated with increased economic growth or employment growth (this is true). Last month, Emma Alberici was made redundant...

jakecopp 6y ago

I encourage everyone to have a read of the actual draft legislation along with hearing Facebook's reaction to new regulations being imposed on them. The actual legislation sounds well thought out to me: https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/news-media-bargaining-code/draft-legislation https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/news-m... The FAQs: https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/DPB%20-%20Draft%20news%20media%20and%20digital%20platforms%20mandatory%20bargaining%20code%20Q%26As.pdf https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/DPB%20-%20Draft%20news%... See also the ACCC response to Google's open letter, which contained misinformation: https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/response-to-google-open-letter https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/response-to-google-ope...

johnnyYen 6y ago
The ACCC response if disingenuous. It fails to mention the requirement that Google and FB must give news entities 28 days of any changes to their ranking algorithm. I mean WTF. It's the most brain dead piece of legislation you could imagine.
- stephen_g 6y ago
  I think it actually misrepresents Google's statements too - the ACCC response makes it sound like Google are saying they would be required to charge for their services, but Google actually said that the code might make it no longer worthwhile for them to provide their services for free in Australia. It would have been fair to say that part of Google's statement is probably an exaggeration, but the ACCC instead muddies the waters by rebutting something Google didn't actually say...
codys 6y ago
The legislation is, honestly, difficult enough to parse that linking it with a non-specific comment ("sounds well thought out") just turns into a tar pit. I can't tell if you have specific agreements or disagreements, and the only approach available to discuss is to basically summarize it or link to it again. On the ACCC response: it implies google made statements they did not, and seems to willfully ignore the reality of supporting the cost of a free service. Do you have specific things you think this does or doesn't do? In the future it helps to start with those.

aussieguy1234 6y ago

Without Google News or news on FB, people will probably go for free news sources like abc, SBS, the guardian etc rather than the conservative media like The Australian and Daily Telegraph which by and large charges subscription fees for content. Counter productive to what the conservative govt probably hoped to achieve politically

hnzix 6y ago
This could actually de-weaponize FB. I quit FB when it degenerated into people arguing over news articles. Maybe now they’ll be less angry and discuss broader topics.
- prawn 6y ago
  IMO, they won't. FB will remain weaponised, but the news sources willing to play ball (often more extreme sources) will hold sway and increase influence.