3 ms·
It says they must negotiate, and crucially, that if they can't come to an agreement they must enter binding arbitration. Currently publishers can go to Facebook
by tempestn 6y ago
It says they must negotiate, and crucially, that if they can't come to an agreement they must enter binding arbitration. Currently publishers can go to Facebook and say, "Pay us for linking to our pages." And Facebook can say, "No, we don't derive benefit from links to your pages; we're not paying you for them." Under this law, the publisher could then force FB into binding arbitration where, presumably, their $0 offer wouldn't be accepted.
I suppose in theory FB could only block those news outlets that attempted to negotiate, but somehow I expect the government would take a dim view of that.
- themacguffinman 6y agoThe draft law explicitly prevents Facebook from blocking only news outlets that attempted to negotiate [1]: > The draft code would prohibit digital platforms discriminating against the news content of news media businesses on the basis of their participation in the code. This is crucial. A negotiation that you cannot genuinely back out from is not a negotiation at all, it is effectively extortion. If Facebook cannot back out of a negotiation with an individual news outlet, I think it will choose to back out of news altogether. If Facebook is being honest that news is not much of a commercial interest for them, this is the rational choice. [1] 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%...
- tempestn 6y agoAh, there you go; thanks for pointing that out.