5 ms·

As an Australian I have no doubt the policy is misguided, but the fact that these American companies are being so loud about it makes me wonder if the governmen

As an Australian I have no doubt the policy is misguided, but the fact that these American companies are being so loud about it makes me wonder if the government is actually on the right track. In general I would say whatever corporations want is not in my best interest, so whatever they don't want, might be.

threeseed 6y ago
It's because of the precedent effect. Countries very much look to each other for policy guidance because nothing is better than having facts on the ground in deciding whether a policy works or not. We've seen it especially recently with COVID-19 responses. Facebook/Google need to make sure that policies like this aren't enacted because whilst Australia is tiny, the US and the EU aren't and will adopt a similar policy if it works. And then suddenly it snowballs into something you can't stop.
darkwizard42 6y ago
That feels like a pretty bad take on how to review changes. You might get better mileage by looking at the context each time. In this case its pretty clear that the Australian goverment is acting on behalf of specific vested news companies and NOT for the consumer... It seems dangerous to have this kind of government-on-the-right-track reaction when the corporation cheering it on is in the business of fossil fuels, factory farming, or opiod manufacturing just because a different corporation yells loudly about it.
- catmanjan 6y ago
  Fair enough, I simply don't trust any corporation to act in my interest - if there was a trusted third party lobbying for FB/Google's position I may have another look Of course I would like to see the government go further and upset News Corp as well, but upsetting these two seems like a good first step
  - yibg 6y ago
    FB doesn't have to have your best interests in mind for their actions to make sense. You also don't need to trust them to agree or disagree with them.
ACow_Adonis 6y ago
which corporations though? Facebook and Google (against) , or news corp(for)?
nmlnn 6y ago
Which corporations though? News Corp. wants one thing, Facebook the other. It's like having to decide which type of terminal cancer you'd prefer to get.
- catmanjan 6y ago
  Using your analogy, I would say Australia currently has Facebook, Google and News Corp cancer Better to treat one now than none...
stephen_g 6y ago
When the main driving force is lobbying from an American multinational that pays no tax in Australia but controls 70% of our news (News Corp), and ABC, SBS and small independent news sources are specifically excluded... No, they're not on the right track. I mean, that's even before you consider that there isn't really any logical consistency to the claims that Google and Facebook are making huge profits directly from Australian news content. It's just a ludicrous false assumption...
- catmanjan 6y ago
  Were it not for the parens, your first paragraph could have been talking about any of the players Why is it a false assumption? The users are the product, and the user want news
  - stephen_g 6y ago
    Tax evasion is a separate matter - I agree we do need to work on that, not just for Google and Facebook but all multinationals (resource companies like Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Woodside etc. leave Google in the dust in that respect). With the assumption - at the moment, these publishers the ability to not be indexed using robots.txt, sitemap.xml etc.. If Google and Facebook were making huge profits directly from Australian news content, they could pretty easily organise to all boycott them. If the assumption behind this law was true, then that would be extremely effective because of the money apparently at stake. Or if the news sources just felt they were being unfairly used, they could just cut them off on principal. But they haven't done either. Why not? Secondly, Facebook couldn't credibly come out with a threat like this. Why would they cut off what News Corp and Nine tell us is apparently a huge revenue stream? But as we know, they're not really making huge profits directly from news, and not even much indirectly, so Facebook can threaten this.
    - judge2020 6y ago
      The only thing Facebook risks by banning all news for Australian users is engagement - that is, if the site doesn't instantly become better without the largely grim narratives put out by News Corp and most all modern news stations.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
brokenmachine 6y ago
Do you feel that what the government wants is in your best interest? I'm Australian and I don't.
- catmanjan 6y ago
  No, but I feel it could, I don't think any corporation ever could
  - brokenmachine 6y ago
    But a corporation's interests might line up with yours, just like a government. Superficially, it is profitable for a corporation to make their customers happy so they will want to buy/use their product. Not everything is a monopoly. Personally, I feel like our government is only concerned with staying in power - historically that's been whoever Murdoch favours - and that's why we get garbage like this.

threeseed 6y ago

It's because of the precedent effect. Countries very much look to each other for policy guidance because nothing is better than having facts on the ground in deciding whether a policy works or not. We've seen it especially recently with COVID-19 responses. Facebook/Google need to make sure that policies like this aren't enacted because whilst Australia is tiny, the US and the EU aren't and will adopt a similar policy if it works. And then suddenly it snowballs into something you can't stop.

darkwizard42 6y ago

That feels like a pretty bad take on how to review changes. You might get better mileage by looking at the context each time. In this case its pretty clear that the Australian goverment is acting on behalf of specific vested news companies and NOT for the consumer... It seems dangerous to have this kind of government-on-the-right-track reaction when the corporation cheering it on is in the business of fossil fuels, factory farming, or opiod manufacturing just because a different corporation yells loudly about it.

catmanjan 6y ago
Fair enough, I simply don't trust any corporation to act in my interest - if there was a trusted third party lobbying for FB/Google's position I may have another look Of course I would like to see the government go further and upset News Corp as well, but upsetting these two seems like a good first step
- yibg 6y ago
  FB doesn't have to have your best interests in mind for their actions to make sense. You also don't need to trust them to agree or disagree with them.

ACow_Adonis 6y ago

which corporations though? Facebook and Google (against) , or news corp(for)?

nmlnn 6y ago

Which corporations though? News Corp. wants one thing, Facebook the other. It's like having to decide which type of terminal cancer you'd prefer to get.

catmanjan 6y ago
Using your analogy, I would say Australia currently has Facebook, Google and News Corp cancer Better to treat one now than none...

stephen_g 6y ago

When the main driving force is lobbying from an American multinational that pays no tax in Australia but controls 70% of our news (News Corp), and ABC, SBS and small independent news sources are specifically excluded... No, they're not on the right track. I mean, that's even before you consider that there isn't really any logical consistency to the claims that Google and Facebook are making huge profits directly from Australian news content. It's just a ludicrous false assumption...

catmanjan 6y ago
Were it not for the parens, your first paragraph could have been talking about any of the players Why is it a false assumption? The users are the product, and the user want news
- stephen_g 6y ago
  Tax evasion is a separate matter - I agree we do need to work on that, not just for Google and Facebook but all multinationals (resource companies like Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Woodside etc. leave Google in the dust in that respect). With the assumption - at the moment, these publishers the ability to not be indexed using robots.txt, sitemap.xml etc.. If Google and Facebook were making huge profits directly from Australian news content, they could pretty easily organise to all boycott them. If the assumption behind this law was true, then that would be extremely effective because of the money apparently at stake. Or if the news sources just felt they were being unfairly used, they could just cut them off on principal. But they haven't done either. Why not? Secondly, Facebook couldn't credibly come out with a threat like this. Why would they cut off what News Corp and Nine tell us is apparently a huge revenue stream? But as we know, they're not really making huge profits directly from news, and not even much indirectly, so Facebook can threaten this.
  - judge2020 6y ago
    The only thing Facebook risks by banning all news for Australian users is engagement - that is, if the site doesn't instantly become better without the largely grim narratives put out by News Corp and most all modern news stations.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

brokenmachine 6y ago

Do you feel that what the government wants is in your best interest? I'm Australian and I don't.

catmanjan 6y ago
No, but I feel it could, I don't think any corporation ever could
- brokenmachine 6y ago
  But a corporation's interests might line up with yours, just like a government. Superficially, it is profitable for a corporation to make their customers happy so they will want to buy/use their product. Not everything is a monopoly. Personally, I feel like our government is only concerned with staying in power - historically that's been whoever Murdoch favours - and that's why we get garbage like this.