3 ms·

Aside from the spirit / intent of this law, the way it is written is extremely poor / downright dangerous. Whether or not this law applies to your business onli

by jjcm 6y ago

Aside from the spirit / intent of this law, the way it is written is extremely poor / downright dangerous. Whether or not this law applies to your business online is not based on a set of metrics/rules/requirements, it's based on whether or not the Treasurer[0] of Australia decides it is: https://i.imgur.com/7RSqXDJ.png https://i.imgur.com/7RSqXDJ.png As a company owner you can wake up one day to find that your company is now listed as an official designated digital platform corporation in the Federal Register of Legislation[1] and your finances have completely changed. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasurer_of_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasurer_of_Australia [1] https://www.legislation.gov.au/Browse/Results/ByRegDate/LegislativeInstruments/Asmade/201/0/0/Principal https://www.legislation.gov.au/Browse/Results/ByRegDate/Legi...

pfundstein 6y ago
The whole thing looks like a desperate money grab. The primary purpose of a search engine is to provide links to content related to the user's search. This gives the content providers visibility. From my understanding this law requires that the search engine pay for listing some media companies as relevant search results. The law also makes it illegal to simply not list those media companies as relevant results. This strikes me as utterly ludicrous.
nieve 6y ago
It does look pretty awful: "Although the Treasurer, in making the determination, must consider whether there is ‘a significant bargaining imbalance between Australian news providers and the group comprised of the corporation and all of its related bodies corporate’ the determination is not invalid for failure to consider this (s 52C(3))." So there is only one factor they're required to consider for that portion, but they can choose to ignore it without apparent consequences. You can tell this was written specifically as a blatant money grab, something more legitimate would have factors beyond "because we say so" even if only to provide cover.

by jjcm 6y ago

pfundstein 6y ago

The whole thing looks like a desperate money grab. The primary purpose of a search engine is to provide links to content related to the user's search. This gives the content providers visibility. From my understanding this law requires that the search engine pay for listing some media companies as relevant search results. The law also makes it illegal to simply not list those media companies as relevant results. This strikes me as utterly ludicrous.

nieve 6y ago

It does look pretty awful: "Although the Treasurer, in making the determination, must consider whether there is ‘a significant bargaining imbalance between Australian news providers and the group comprised of the corporation and all of its related bodies corporate’ the determination is not invalid for failure to consider this (s 52C(3))." So there is only one factor they're required to consider for that portion, but they can choose to ignore it without apparent consequences. You can tell this was written specifically as a blatant money grab, something more legitimate would have factors beyond "because we say so" even if only to provide cover.