4 ms·

It's incredible how the ACCC has the nerve to say Facebook response amounts to Facebook holding Australian's to ransom! Never mind the draft law as it sits is

by grecy 6y ago

It's incredible how the ACCC has the nerve to say Facebook response amounts to Facebook holding Australian's to ransom! Never mind the draft law as it sits is literally designed to take money from Facebook and Google and put it directly into News Corp. pockets. This is not about the government collecting tax dollars for the good of Australia, this is the government collecting tax dollars for the good of Rupert Murdoch. Incredibly because of the tight control he has over the media he can ensure his version of the truth gets repeated over and over until a very large number of Australians will simply believe it as truth. Fake news is alive and well in Australia thanks to one company owning an enormous chunk of all media.

droopyEyelids 6y ago
I'm curious what percent of advertising revenue has moved from journalistic corporations over to Google and Facebook. I think the places that used to employ journalists to gather news served a role in our society that Facebook and Google have not stepped into. It COULD make sense for a government that saw value in that industry to prop it up. The same way it makes sense for the USA to keep at least one or two foundries operational.
- BobbyJo 6y ago
  Couldn't agree more. I like capitalism as much as the next guy, but I recognize that incentives for individuals and corporations can easily get misaligned from the public good. I think the wealth transfer from journalists to ad providers is a perfect example. Nobody can argue that the journalistic reliance on ad revenue as a result of having to compete with cheap, free, garbage-information-factories hasn't completely ruined the news industry, which is a vital component of a functioning democracy.
- tomcam 6y ago
  Don’t forget Craigslist, which essentially wiped out the very lucrative classifieds market.
- paxys 6y ago
  Framing the conversation as Google and Facebook directly taking revenue from newspapers isn't at all accurate, and just fuels public anger and laws like the one we are discussing. The core problem is that people aren't buying newspapers and magazines anymore, instead getting their news online. Since there is no barrier to entry for online journalism, the space is dominated by low-effort clickbait and fake/sensationalist news. People prefer to consume all this for free instead of paying a reputable source. Now, completely independent of all this, Facebook and Google have set up massive communities of users online and have perfected the art of monetizing them via ads. Regulating both these companies or removing them from the equation entirely (as they are planning to do themselves) does nothing to solve the news problem above.
- mdifrgechd 6y ago
  It's really odd to me that the above was down-moderated. I don't agree with it either but it seems a very valid perspective. What am I missing?
tpmx 6y ago
Well this is a bit funny/sad. After reading your post I browsed through yesterday's thread on the same topic, from the top and down. Finally found something I agreed with after going through acres of text. Turns out you wrote it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24338431 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24338431
justsee 6y ago
Exactly. It's a perfect example of crony capitalism. A political party in a symbiotic relationship with Murdoch (whose press outlets operate as the communications wing of the Coalition) eagerly pushes a rent-seeking law and claims it's about supporting journalism. This is the same political party that does everything it can to defund public interest journalism (via the ABC and SBS), regularly gives indefensible grants to Murdoch, and has created a climate where police raids on journalists is the new normal. The code deliberately excludes smaller publishers and the public broadcasters from any of this rent-seeking, and the ACCC in recent years has allowed significant media consolidation: allowing Murdoch to buy up most regional papers, and allowing Nine to buy Fairfax (Nine held a political fundraiser for that political party immediately after the election). The state of journalism in Australia is dire, even compared to US and UK standards, and that's largely to do with intentional political acts. Facebook and Google are in the right here.

by grecy 6y ago

droopyEyelids 6y ago

I'm curious what percent of advertising revenue has moved from journalistic corporations over to Google and Facebook. I think the places that used to employ journalists to gather news served a role in our society that Facebook and Google have not stepped into. It COULD make sense for a government that saw value in that industry to prop it up. The same way it makes sense for the USA to keep at least one or two foundries operational.

BobbyJo 6y ago
Couldn't agree more. I like capitalism as much as the next guy, but I recognize that incentives for individuals and corporations can easily get misaligned from the public good. I think the wealth transfer from journalists to ad providers is a perfect example. Nobody can argue that the journalistic reliance on ad revenue as a result of having to compete with cheap, free, garbage-information-factories hasn't completely ruined the news industry, which is a vital component of a functioning democracy.
tomcam 6y ago
Don’t forget Craigslist, which essentially wiped out the very lucrative classifieds market.
paxys 6y ago
Framing the conversation as Google and Facebook directly taking revenue from newspapers isn't at all accurate, and just fuels public anger and laws like the one we are discussing. The core problem is that people aren't buying newspapers and magazines anymore, instead getting their news online. Since there is no barrier to entry for online journalism, the space is dominated by low-effort clickbait and fake/sensationalist news. People prefer to consume all this for free instead of paying a reputable source. Now, completely independent of all this, Facebook and Google have set up massive communities of users online and have perfected the art of monetizing them via ads. Regulating both these companies or removing them from the equation entirely (as they are planning to do themselves) does nothing to solve the news problem above.
mdifrgechd 6y ago
It's really odd to me that the above was down-moderated. I don't agree with it either but it seems a very valid perspective. What am I missing?

tpmx 6y ago

Well this is a bit funny/sad. After reading your post I browsed through yesterday's thread on the same topic, from the top and down. Finally found something I agreed with after going through acres of text. Turns out you wrote it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24338431 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24338431

justsee 6y ago

Exactly. It's a perfect example of crony capitalism. A political party in a symbiotic relationship with Murdoch (whose press outlets operate as the communications wing of the Coalition) eagerly pushes a rent-seeking law and claims it's about supporting journalism. This is the same political party that does everything it can to defund public interest journalism (via the ABC and SBS), regularly gives indefensible grants to Murdoch, and has created a climate where police raids on journalists is the new normal. The code deliberately excludes smaller publishers and the public broadcasters from any of this rent-seeking, and the ACCC in recent years has allowed significant media consolidation: allowing Murdoch to buy up most regional papers, and allowing Nine to buy Fairfax (Nine held a political fundraiser for that political party immediately after the election). The state of journalism in Australia is dire, even compared to US and UK standards, and that's largely to do with intentional political acts. Facebook and Google are in the right here.