3 ms·

Here's the full bill if you want to wade into it (PDF): [1] This [2] may provide some helpful commentary. From Google/Facebook's viewpoint, one of the more di

Here's the full bill if you want to wade into it (PDF): [1] This [2] may provide some helpful commentary. From Google/Facebook's viewpoint, one of the more distasteful aspects which is rarely mentioned in most coverage is that they must give two weeks notice of algorithm changes to registered news businesses. There's a perception in some circles that this is a fairly unnuanced money grab by the government on behalf of Murdoch media[3]. A perception that was not helped by earlier drafts excluding the public Australian Broadcasting Corporation and SBS from the trough. Two organisations the current federal government is seen as being hostile towards. As I understand it: - The bill would not allow Google to simply drop Australian news sites from search results (hello Spain News!), hence really only leaving the option to block Oz altogether. - There is no acknowledgement at all of the value search engines provide to media organisations by the links provided. - The forced arbitration conditions are quite... forceful. (I'm not really across this aspect.) A common nickname for our our Prime Minister among his detractors is "Scotty from Marketing" [4] In summary, when you say, "My way or the highway," perhaps you shouldn't get pissy when they choose the highway. [1] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r6652_first-reps/toc_pdf/20177b01.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/bills/r6652_first-reps/0000%22 https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi... [2] https://www.gtlaw.com.au/insights/its-here-news-media-digital-platforms-mandatory-bargaining-code https://www.gtlaw.com.au/insights/its-here-news-media-digita... [3] https://youtu.be/2BPLBIgKjN8 https://youtu.be/2BPLBIgKjN8 [4] https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2020/01/where-the-legend-of-scotty-from-marketing-began/ https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2020/01/where-the-legend-of-sc...

canadianfella 6y ago
> I'm not really across this aspect What does this mean?
BLKNSLVR 6y ago
Scotty from Marketing: my way or the highway Google: the highway Scotty from Marketing: we don't respond to threats[0] [0]: https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-22/scott-morrison-google-facebook-tech-news/13082222?nw=0&pfmredir=sm https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-22/scott-morrison-goo...
webmobdev 6y ago
From a foreign (non-US) perspective I find these Australian laws quite understandable, practical and rational. Google and Facebook are both US companies, with a strong online presence and great influence in Australia (and other countries). But obviously it is in Australia's national interest to see that this kind of influence is directed by Australia themselves, rather than corporate or some foreign interest. It is undeniable that due to overwhelming monopolist control that many of these foreign US companies have over today's internet, stronger government oversight and regulation is a must to protect the national interests and sovereignty of any democratic country. To this end, ideally we need the regulator to mainly: - Implement strong privacy rules in favour of the citizen (with strong emphasis in limiting data collection, sharing and usage without users permission, and ensuring data is stored not outside the country, among other things). - Create legal standard "templates" of the "terms of conditions" (on behalf of the citizens) for the various common online services and force the corporates to use these, instead of the ever-frequently-changing and one-sided contracts they force us to accept. - Ensure online discourse is limited from foreign influence (e.g. to fight foreign online troll armies that try to influence elections).
- BLKNSLVR 6y ago
  News Corp is a US company as well. But none of this is about influence or regulation and none of this touches upon anything related to privacy (although one of the slightly more conspiratorial theories is that News Corp wants access to more 'analytics' data, and this bill may enable that). Google and Facebook are worse than a thousand creepy uncles as it relates to user privacy, but that's not what this is about.
  - webmobdev 6y ago
    From Australia's perspective, it is about controlling the dissemination of news online. And while some of the media outlets in Australia may be foreign, I am sure they also come under various Australian laws. I see such laws on online companies as a precursor to the set up of an online regulator. It is inevitable with the range of laws cropping up that deal with online companies and issues related to them. Corporates always avoid regulation till their influence on the government diminishes - then they themselves demand it for a more balanced and competitive environment. Once foreign corporates starts to feel that such laws are more and more one-sided and against their interest, they themselves will begin lobbying that a regulator be set up for their industry to hear their side and draft better and more balanced laws.

canadianfella 6y ago

> I'm not really across this aspect What does this mean?

BLKNSLVR 6y ago

Scotty from Marketing: my way or the highway Google: the highway Scotty from Marketing: we don't respond to threats[0] [0]: https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-22/scott-morrison-google-facebook-tech-news/13082222?nw=0&pfmredir=sm https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-22/scott-morrison-goo...

webmobdev 6y ago

From a foreign (non-US) perspective I find these Australian laws quite understandable, practical and rational. Google and Facebook are both US companies, with a strong online presence and great influence in Australia (and other countries). But obviously it is in Australia's national interest to see that this kind of influence is directed by Australia themselves, rather than corporate or some foreign interest. It is undeniable that due to overwhelming monopolist control that many of these foreign US companies have over today's internet, stronger government oversight and regulation is a must to protect the national interests and sovereignty of any democratic country. To this end, ideally we need the regulator to mainly: - Implement strong privacy rules in favour of the citizen (with strong emphasis in limiting data collection, sharing and usage without users permission, and ensuring data is stored not outside the country, among other things). - Create legal standard "templates" of the "terms of conditions" (on behalf of the citizens) for the various common online services and force the corporates to use these, instead of the ever-frequently-changing and one-sided contracts they force us to accept. - Ensure online discourse is limited from foreign influence (e.g. to fight foreign online troll armies that try to influence elections).

BLKNSLVR 6y ago
News Corp is a US company as well. But none of this is about influence or regulation and none of this touches upon anything related to privacy (although one of the slightly more conspiratorial theories is that News Corp wants access to more 'analytics' data, and this bill may enable that). Google and Facebook are worse than a thousand creepy uncles as it relates to user privacy, but that's not what this is about.
- webmobdev 6y ago
  From Australia's perspective, it is about controlling the dissemination of news online. And while some of the media outlets in Australia may be foreign, I am sure they also come under various Australian laws. I see such laws on online companies as a precursor to the set up of an online regulator. It is inevitable with the range of laws cropping up that deal with online companies and issues related to them. Corporates always avoid regulation till their influence on the government diminishes - then they themselves demand it for a more balanced and competitive environment. Once foreign corporates starts to feel that such laws are more and more one-sided and against their interest, they themselves will begin lobbying that a regulator be set up for their industry to hear their side and draft better and more balanced laws.