5 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] [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...

BLKNSLVR 6y ago
I'm a little bit surprised that it's possible to legislate that Google can't just drop Australian news sites. It's such a specific detail into a private company's operational decisions. It appears as a highly personal, directed attack. What are the limits of control that the Australian Government has over the operations of private companies? It also seems to be an illogical request: You must include Australian News sites in search, and you must pay for the privilege to do so. And Australian technologists and entrepreneurs are leaving the country in droves due to lack of opportunity you say? (pre COVID of course)
- Craighead 6y ago
  This is the power of the Murdochs
- karmasimida 6y ago
  > What are the limits of control that the Australian Government has over the operations of private companies? I mean a company can surely not doing business in a country, then what power does the country's government hold against them? I guess very little.
sjy 6y ago
> There is no acknowledgement at all of the value search engines provide to media organisations by the links provided. The bill deals with this in section 52ZZ(1)(b), which says that in determining the remuneration to be paid to a news business, the arbitral panel must consider "the benefit (whether monetary or otherwise) to the registered news business of the designated digital platform service making available the registered news business' covered news content."
rstuart4133 6y ago
> As I understand it: The bill would not allow Google to simply drop Australian news sites from search results (hello Spain News!), I suspect your right. I'm not a lawyer and I would not trust my reading of a legal document as far as I could kick it but the public discussion of the bill is so poor I don't have any choice. I would have thought forcing Google has to pay regardless of whether they link to news sites or not was a fairly fundamental question every voter would be interested in. Apparently not. So we are left with me quoting this, from the act: > 52Q.(1) The provisions of Subdivisions Band create obligations in respect of every designated digital platform service > 52E.(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make a determination that: (a) specifies one or more services covered by subsection (2) in relation to a corporation as designated digital platform services of the corporation; So you are a digital platform if the minister says you are (he puts it in a schedule). And we have this from the explanatory notes [0]: > 1.34 The Treasurer’s instrument is expected to specify the following as designated digital platform services: • Facebook News Feed (including Facebook Groups and Facebook Pages); • Facebook NewsTab (if and when released in Australia); • Instagram; • Google Discover; • Google News; and • Google Search. So yeah, Google shall share their ad revenue with the newspapers whether they link to them or not seems to be a reasonable interpretation or what is actually happening here. > hence really only leaving the option to block Oz altogether. I suspect there is another option: remove the legal presence of Google Search et al from Australia. They are then out of reach of Australian law. Australians will still be able search, pay for ad words, access their google docs, look at their google pictures as before. My guess is it would have stuff all effect on Google's revenue. Most (all?) other search engines operate that way now, Australia's used amazon.com instead of amazon.com.au for over a decade - I doubt it would effect Google's revenue at all. https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20EM%20-%20NEWS%20MEDIA%20AND%20DIGITAL%20PLATFORMS%20MANDATORY%20BARGAINING%20CODE%20BILL%202020.pdf https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20EM%2...

BLKNSLVR 6y ago

I'm a little bit surprised that it's possible to legislate that Google can't just drop Australian news sites. It's such a specific detail into a private company's operational decisions. It appears as a highly personal, directed attack. What are the limits of control that the Australian Government has over the operations of private companies? It also seems to be an illogical request: You must include Australian News sites in search, and you must pay for the privilege to do so. And Australian technologists and entrepreneurs are leaving the country in droves due to lack of opportunity you say? (pre COVID of course)

Craighead 6y ago
This is the power of the Murdochs
karmasimida 6y ago
> What are the limits of control that the Australian Government has over the operations of private companies? I mean a company can surely not doing business in a country, then what power does the country's government hold against them? I guess very little.

sjy 6y ago

> There is no acknowledgement at all of the value search engines provide to media organisations by the links provided. The bill deals with this in section 52ZZ(1)(b), which says that in determining the remuneration to be paid to a news business, the arbitral panel must consider "the benefit (whether monetary or otherwise) to the registered news business of the designated digital platform service making available the registered news business' covered news content."

rstuart4133 6y ago

> As I understand it: The bill would not allow Google to simply drop Australian news sites from search results (hello Spain News!), I suspect your right. I'm not a lawyer and I would not trust my reading of a legal document as far as I could kick it but the public discussion of the bill is so poor I don't have any choice. I would have thought forcing Google has to pay regardless of whether they link to news sites or not was a fairly fundamental question every voter would be interested in. Apparently not. So we are left with me quoting this, from the act: > 52Q.(1) The provisions of Subdivisions Band create obligations in respect of every designated digital platform service > 52E.(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make a determination that: (a) specifies one or more services covered by subsection (2) in relation to a corporation as designated digital platform services of the corporation; So you are a digital platform if the minister says you are (he puts it in a schedule). And we have this from the explanatory notes [0]: > 1.34 The Treasurer’s instrument is expected to specify the following as designated digital platform services: • Facebook News Feed (including Facebook Groups and Facebook Pages); • Facebook NewsTab (if and when released in Australia); • Instagram; • Google Discover; • Google News; and • Google Search. So yeah, Google shall share their ad revenue with the newspapers whether they link to them or not seems to be a reasonable interpretation or what is actually happening here. > hence really only leaving the option to block Oz altogether. I suspect there is another option: remove the legal presence of Google Search et al from Australia. They are then out of reach of Australian law. Australians will still be able search, pay for ad words, access their google docs, look at their google pictures as before. My guess is it would have stuff all effect on Google's revenue. Most (all?) other search engines operate that way now, Australia's used amazon.com instead of amazon.com.au for over a decade - I doubt it would effect Google's revenue at all. https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20EM%20-%20NEWS%20MEDIA%20AND%20DIGITAL%20PLATFORMS%20MANDATORY%20BARGAINING%20CODE%20BILL%202020.pdf https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20EM%2...