4 ms·

> Google last week launched a platform in Australia offering news it has paid for, striking its own content deals with publishers in a drive to show the propose

> Google last week launched a platform in Australia offering news it has paid for, striking its own content deals with publishers in a drive to show the proposed legislation is unnecessary. Strategically, Google has played the wrong card. It has a better card up its sleeve called GNI [0], which might ultimately be how this standoff gets resolved. The conservative Australian government, which is in Murdoch's pocket, used audacious logic to justify the extortion play, claiming Google's near monopoly has strangled journalism and so New Limited deserves to be compensated. However, Google doesn't steal News Limited content - it just links to their stories, thereby sending News Limited 70% of its web traffic in Australia. Moreover, the output from Murdoch's empire isn't even predominantly news anymore - it is entertainment and ideology. A better strategy for Google would be to take the high road and offer to support real journalism. It already has a program for that in America called Google News Initiative (GNI) [1] which has contributed to local news organs such as Berkeleyside [2] and Oaklandside [3]. If Google has to reach into its pocket and pay millions to keep doing business in Australia, where it earns billions, the best beneficiary would be local news content producers with whom it could forge symbiotic partnerships. That would be good for journalism, good for Google, and an ironic twist of fate for Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. [0] https://newsinitiative.withgoogle.com https://newsinitiative.withgoogle.com [1] https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/12/10/1958539/0/en/With-3-1-Million-in-Initial-Funding-from-Google-News-Initiative-and-the-American-Journalism-Project-Berkeleyside-Launches-New-Journalism-Platform-in-Oakland-Creates-Nonprofit-to-De.html https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/12/10/195853... [2] https://www.berkeleyside.com https://www.berkeleyside.com [3] https://oaklandside.org https://oaklandside.org

hypertele-Xii 6y ago
> Google last week launched a platform in Australia offering news it has paid for, striking its own content deals with publishers in a drive to show the proposed legislation is unnecessary. Doesn't that exactly demonstrate that the legistlation is necessary? Would Google had struck such deals without the threat of the legistlation?
- josephg 6y ago
  Exactly. And I absolutely do not want the future in which tech platforms also ineptly destroy, recreate then gain an unstoppable monopoly on journalism.
- wombatmobile 6y ago
  > Doesn't that exactly demonstrate that the legistlation is necessary? It seems to be a response to the government's threat to legislate, albeit a ham-fisted one. Responding to a threat doesn't mean the threat is valid, or that the response is of any use to anybody. The difficulty with any analysis of the impact of Google and Facebook on news in Australia is that news has never been funded directly. It was traditionally paid for by advertising revenue which was obtained from advertising products that were co-delivered, interspersed among news products. Google's advertising model superseded Murdoch's traditional advertising model, but Murdoch's core advertising businesses were not killed by Google alone. They lost out to direct internet competitors: Seek took the classified advertising revenue for jobs Domain took the classified advertising revenue for property eBay, Gumtree, Facebook and Google took the display advertising revenue If the government's concern is that journalism has suffered, the evidence it can point to is that 50% less people are employed in journalism compared to 20 years ago. The most sensible remedy for that problem is not to transfer wealth from Google and Facebook to Murdoch's entertainment corporations, but rather to fund grassroots journalism through programs that directly result in the production of news by journalists, in ways that preserve editorial independence.
  - hypertele-Xii 6y ago
    > Responding to a threat doesn't mean the threat is valid Quite fundamentally disagree there. Responding to a threat definitely validates it. If it's not a valid threat, there's no need to respond.
    - shakna 6y ago
      Cats attack laser pointers. People flail when they encounter a spider's web. They are responding to a perceived threat, in which there is no threat at all. Responding to a threat is not a validation that there is a threat.

hypertele-Xii 6y ago

> Google last week launched a platform in Australia offering news it has paid for, striking its own content deals with publishers in a drive to show the proposed legislation is unnecessary. Doesn't that exactly demonstrate that the legistlation is necessary? Would Google had struck such deals without the threat of the legistlation?

josephg 6y ago
Exactly. And I absolutely do not want the future in which tech platforms also ineptly destroy, recreate then gain an unstoppable monopoly on journalism.
wombatmobile 6y ago
> Doesn't that exactly demonstrate that the legistlation is necessary? It seems to be a response to the government's threat to legislate, albeit a ham-fisted one. Responding to a threat doesn't mean the threat is valid, or that the response is of any use to anybody. The difficulty with any analysis of the impact of Google and Facebook on news in Australia is that news has never been funded directly. It was traditionally paid for by advertising revenue which was obtained from advertising products that were co-delivered, interspersed among news products. Google's advertising model superseded Murdoch's traditional advertising model, but Murdoch's core advertising businesses were not killed by Google alone. They lost out to direct internet competitors: Seek took the classified advertising revenue for jobs Domain took the classified advertising revenue for property eBay, Gumtree, Facebook and Google took the display advertising revenue If the government's concern is that journalism has suffered, the evidence it can point to is that 50% less people are employed in journalism compared to 20 years ago. The most sensible remedy for that problem is not to transfer wealth from Google and Facebook to Murdoch's entertainment corporations, but rather to fund grassroots journalism through programs that directly result in the production of news by journalists, in ways that preserve editorial independence.
- hypertele-Xii 6y ago
  > Responding to a threat doesn't mean the threat is valid Quite fundamentally disagree there. Responding to a threat definitely validates it. If it's not a valid threat, there's no need to respond.
  - shakna 6y ago
    Cats attack laser pointers. People flail when they encounter a spider's web. They are responding to a perceived threat, in which there is no threat at all. Responding to a threat is not a validation that there is a threat.