4 ms·

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Australia is tiny in the grand scheme of things but the average revenue per user is huge, there's still a lot of

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Australia is tiny in the grand scheme of things but the average revenue per user is huge, there's still a lot of money on the table here, along with the domino effect. The government will face huge amount of pressure and be forced to backflip within days if they actually go through with it, but perhaps that is what they want, to set up this narrative that these entities have far more power than any democratically elected government, which for the most part I think is entirely correct, these companies can make or break many governments on Earth. And while I support them in what they are doing, in the back of my mind all I can think is that Rupert Murdoch probably pulled some strings to make this happen for his own benefit and it's corrupt all the way down.

mrep 6y ago
From the article, it sounds like google will stop putting news websites in their search results altogether and still provide search results for other websites. I doubt they will have much effect on them because I doubt they make much money on news related searches. I've never seen an ad on the news tab. Also from the article, Facebook has also already said that if the law goes through, they will stop Australians from posting news in their news feed.
liaukovv 6y ago
If any australian politician is even semi-competent they will have no trouble presenting it as google trying to strong-arm the nation
- stephen_g 6y ago
  It might surprise a lot of people from other countries just how few competent politicians there are in the governing party. But the News Ltd and Nine/Fairfax duopoly run a kind of protection racket which helps them retain power, and it'll be the papers that come up with the talking points (they lobbied for the attempted double-dip "media bargaining code" in the first place).
- squiggleblaz 6y ago
  I think there will be some difficulty about that, since a lot of people in Australia already know that News Ltd owns a majority share in the Liberal party (the balance being owned by the coal industry). Therefore, a lot of people will see this as Google sharing their interests insofar as harming News helps them. Also, liberalism has been sufficiently successful in Australia that the argument "new business should not be compelled to serve interests of old business" will have some currency. Whether these two sectors will be enough to win an election fought on this argument (widely expected in the second half of this year) remains to be seen.
  - seunosewa 6y ago
    The notion that corporations are actually allowed to own parties in Australia seems shocking. You mean they are top donors, right?
    - manicdee 6y ago
      The Liberal Party of Australia runs/is run by a think tank called "Institute of Public Affairs" which is in turn run by a bunch of rich people who take marching orders from Murdoch. It doesn't become much more transparent than, say, senior members of the Liberal Party government travelling to the USA to visit Rupert but not any US politicians or diplomats. News Corp may not own the title deeds for any property, but they have all the receipts for money paid and souls bought.
    - stephen_g 6y ago
      Yeah, not literal shares. It’s more that a lot of the staffers working for the conservative party (confusingly called the Liberal Party) come from the News Ltd media and mining companies, and a lot of executives of mining/resource companies and journalists and executives at the Nine/Fairfax and News Ltd. duopoly are ex-politicians, political staffers, etc. - lots of revolving doors between them. For example, the current PM’s chief of staff came straight from Rio Tinto, previous PM Tony Abbot’s chief of staff (Peta Credlin) now has a show on Sky News, as does ex-PM Turnbull’s (Chris Kenny, from when Turnbull was opposition leader), who also writes for The Australian newspaper. On the other side of the duopoly, the chairman of Nine/Fairfax is an ex-Liberal Party treasurer (basically the most powerful cabinet minister apart from the PM), and they held fundraising events for the party at their studios during the last election. So the media run positive stories about the Government, and downplay or fail to run stories about, for example, serious allegations of corruption against multiple cabinet ministers of the Government, while policy proposals from the opposition are scrutinised far more closely and savagely than actual policy from the actual Government, and often rubbished. The media runs character assassinations against opposition party leaders and MPs and puff pieces about the Government ministers, the PM’s wife and her fashion choices, etc. - it’s pretty shameless. Then there are links between Government, the media and big business (again, mostly mining here) through a bunch of think tanks like the IPA (extreme far-right), the Sydney Institute, etc. As long as environmental protections are kept weak enough for the miners, and tax cuts keep being promised for the wealthy, none of them rock the boat.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > presenting it as google trying to strong-arm the nation Sounds like they'd be complying with the law, not trying to strong-arm anyone.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  Being able to present something a certain way and it actually being that way are two different things. The nation is considering a law that says, if you link to news you have to pay X. Google is trying to figure out if the money they make from linking to news Y is greater than X. If Y < X, why would they continue linking to news? It's not a strong arm tactic, just a simple cost-benefit move. And it's not a demonstration of market power either. The proposed regulation only applies to companies already deemed to have market power, so only such companies are considering reacting to the regulation this way. But if the law applied universally, you would obviously see the exact same calculation happen at companies that don't have market power. Most would come to the same conclusion as Google seems to have done: it's not worth it to link to news under these terms.
BLKNSLVR 6y ago
> corrupt all the way down I'm sure I read somewhere, possibly also on Crikey, that News Corp practically wrote the legislation for the Australian Government, and that some amendments were necessary so that the state-funded ABC would not be excluded from the deal. I'll try to find reference to that. Edit, stinging Crikey article here[1] Edit two, here's an article mentioning including state broadcasters in the code[2] Stratechery did an in-depth breakdown of elements of the legislation[0] [0]https://stratechery.com/2020/australias-news-media-bargaining-code-breaking-down-the-code-australias-fake-news/ https://stratechery.com/2020/australias-news-media-bargainin... [1]https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/08/28/google-facebook-accc-changes/ https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/08/28/google-facebook-accc-ch... [2]https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/nov/25/google-and-facebook-news-payments-to-include-abc-and-sbs-after-change-to-draft-code https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/nov/25/google-and-fac...
- creata 6y ago
  Wow, I wonder why Crikey's tone on this legislation changed so much between August 2020 and now.
  - BLKNSLVR 6y ago
    Different journalists. Bernard Keane is a firebrand. I find that a good sign that Crikey doesn't get too editorially involved in the journalism.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > News Corp practically wrote the legislation for the Australian Government That makes sense. It fits in with News Corps long war on news aggregating tech firms (Google, largely) and their several failed attempts to lead alternative services controlled by the traditional publishing industry (with themselves in the steering seat.) So, having failed to compete, they’ve just decided to lobby government to put its finger on the scale to impose a plan as nonviable as their own prior commercial ventures: if they can’t succeed in the news aggregating portal business, they’ll make news aggregation and search a business in which success is brutally punished with terms that make the business completely nonviable.
gonzo41 6y ago
Rupert Murdoch is really old. I don't think he's that involved any more. But yes he's created a self sustaining corruption engine. It'd be very interesting to see google drop Australia. Watch us all start using duckduckgo. It'd be great if they did it. It's an election year and It'd be nice to see such a foolish move by our lazy government.
- waheoo 6y ago
  > I don't think he's that involved any more. Where in the hell did you pull this nonsense from? Also would like to see Google do it. Good riddance imo. It will rock the nation but will spur interior innovation which we sorely need seeing as housing and the mining booms are over.
- stephen_g 6y ago
  From what I’ve read, apparently Rupert Murdoch still informs editors what direction to take on certain issues. But a lot of editors don’t need direct instruction all the time - I recall an interview - must have been an ex-editor of one of his papers who said they very quickly get into a pattern of thinking where their first thought on a story is “how would Rupert want this reported?”. So while he probably wasn’t directly involved, I’m sure he had very strong input on what direction the people leading the lobbying effort should take. But even if he wasn’t, I’ve also heard the son who still works there (the one who didn’t quit in disgust over the organisation’s editorial direction) is just as bad...

mrep 6y ago

From the article, it sounds like google will stop putting news websites in their search results altogether and still provide search results for other websites. I doubt they will have much effect on them because I doubt they make much money on news related searches. I've never seen an ad on the news tab. Also from the article, Facebook has also already said that if the law goes through, they will stop Australians from posting news in their news feed.

liaukovv 6y ago

If any australian politician is even semi-competent they will have no trouble presenting it as google trying to strong-arm the nation

stephen_g 6y ago
It might surprise a lot of people from other countries just how few competent politicians there are in the governing party. But the News Ltd and Nine/Fairfax duopoly run a kind of protection racket which helps them retain power, and it'll be the papers that come up with the talking points (they lobbied for the attempted double-dip "media bargaining code" in the first place).
squiggleblaz 6y ago
I think there will be some difficulty about that, since a lot of people in Australia already know that News Ltd owns a majority share in the Liberal party (the balance being owned by the coal industry). Therefore, a lot of people will see this as Google sharing their interests insofar as harming News helps them. Also, liberalism has been sufficiently successful in Australia that the argument "new business should not be compelled to serve interests of old business" will have some currency. Whether these two sectors will be enough to win an election fought on this argument (widely expected in the second half of this year) remains to be seen.
- seunosewa 6y ago
  The notion that corporations are actually allowed to own parties in Australia seems shocking. You mean they are top donors, right?
  - manicdee 6y ago
    The Liberal Party of Australia runs/is run by a think tank called "Institute of Public Affairs" which is in turn run by a bunch of rich people who take marching orders from Murdoch. It doesn't become much more transparent than, say, senior members of the Liberal Party government travelling to the USA to visit Rupert but not any US politicians or diplomats. News Corp may not own the title deeds for any property, but they have all the receipts for money paid and souls bought.
  - stephen_g 6y ago
    Yeah, not literal shares. It’s more that a lot of the staffers working for the conservative party (confusingly called the Liberal Party) come from the News Ltd media and mining companies, and a lot of executives of mining/resource companies and journalists and executives at the Nine/Fairfax and News Ltd. duopoly are ex-politicians, political staffers, etc. - lots of revolving doors between them. For example, the current PM’s chief of staff came straight from Rio Tinto, previous PM Tony Abbot’s chief of staff (Peta Credlin) now has a show on Sky News, as does ex-PM Turnbull’s (Chris Kenny, from when Turnbull was opposition leader), who also writes for The Australian newspaper. On the other side of the duopoly, the chairman of Nine/Fairfax is an ex-Liberal Party treasurer (basically the most powerful cabinet minister apart from the PM), and they held fundraising events for the party at their studios during the last election. So the media run positive stories about the Government, and downplay or fail to run stories about, for example, serious allegations of corruption against multiple cabinet ministers of the Government, while policy proposals from the opposition are scrutinised far more closely and savagely than actual policy from the actual Government, and often rubbished. The media runs character assassinations against opposition party leaders and MPs and puff pieces about the Government ministers, the PM’s wife and her fashion choices, etc. - it’s pretty shameless. Then there are links between Government, the media and big business (again, mostly mining here) through a bunch of think tanks like the IPA (extreme far-right), the Sydney Institute, etc. As long as environmental protections are kept weak enough for the miners, and tax cuts keep being promised for the wealthy, none of them rock the boat.
chrisseaton 6y ago
> presenting it as google trying to strong-arm the nation Sounds like they'd be complying with the law, not trying to strong-arm anyone.
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
Being able to present something a certain way and it actually being that way are two different things. The nation is considering a law that says, if you link to news you have to pay X. Google is trying to figure out if the money they make from linking to news Y is greater than X. If Y < X, why would they continue linking to news? It's not a strong arm tactic, just a simple cost-benefit move. And it's not a demonstration of market power either. The proposed regulation only applies to companies already deemed to have market power, so only such companies are considering reacting to the regulation this way. But if the law applied universally, you would obviously see the exact same calculation happen at companies that don't have market power. Most would come to the same conclusion as Google seems to have done: it's not worth it to link to news under these terms.

BLKNSLVR 6y ago

> corrupt all the way down I'm sure I read somewhere, possibly also on Crikey, that News Corp practically wrote the legislation for the Australian Government, and that some amendments were necessary so that the state-funded ABC would not be excluded from the deal. I'll try to find reference to that. Edit, stinging Crikey article here[1] Edit two, here's an article mentioning including state broadcasters in the code[2] Stratechery did an in-depth breakdown of elements of the legislation[0] [0]https://stratechery.com/2020/australias-news-media-bargaining-code-breaking-down-the-code-australias-fake-news/ https://stratechery.com/2020/australias-news-media-bargainin... [1]https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/08/28/google-facebook-accc-changes/ https://www.crikey.com.au/2020/08/28/google-facebook-accc-ch... [2]https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/nov/25/google-and-facebook-news-payments-to-include-abc-and-sbs-after-change-to-draft-code https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/nov/25/google-and-fac...

creata 6y ago
Wow, I wonder why Crikey's tone on this legislation changed so much between August 2020 and now.
- BLKNSLVR 6y ago
  Different journalists. Bernard Keane is a firebrand. I find that a good sign that Crikey doesn't get too editorially involved in the journalism.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> News Corp practically wrote the legislation for the Australian Government That makes sense. It fits in with News Corps long war on news aggregating tech firms (Google, largely) and their several failed attempts to lead alternative services controlled by the traditional publishing industry (with themselves in the steering seat.) So, having failed to compete, they’ve just decided to lobby government to put its finger on the scale to impose a plan as nonviable as their own prior commercial ventures: if they can’t succeed in the news aggregating portal business, they’ll make news aggregation and search a business in which success is brutally punished with terms that make the business completely nonviable.

gonzo41 6y ago

Rupert Murdoch is really old. I don't think he's that involved any more. But yes he's created a self sustaining corruption engine. It'd be very interesting to see google drop Australia. Watch us all start using duckduckgo. It'd be great if they did it. It's an election year and It'd be nice to see such a foolish move by our lazy government.

waheoo 6y ago
> I don't think he's that involved any more. Where in the hell did you pull this nonsense from? Also would like to see Google do it. Good riddance imo. It will rock the nation but will spur interior innovation which we sorely need seeing as housing and the mining booms are over.
stephen_g 6y ago
From what I’ve read, apparently Rupert Murdoch still informs editors what direction to take on certain issues. But a lot of editors don’t need direct instruction all the time - I recall an interview - must have been an ex-editor of one of his papers who said they very quickly get into a pattern of thinking where their first thought on a story is “how would Rupert want this reported?”. So while he probably wasn’t directly involved, I’m sure he had very strong input on what direction the people leading the lobbying effort should take. But even if he wasn’t, I’ve also heard the son who still works there (the one who didn’t quit in disgust over the organisation’s editorial direction) is just as bad...