5 ms·

What is the Australian government misunderstanding? They wanted a better deal for domestic news media, they are getting a better deal for domestic news media:

What is the Australian government misunderstanding? They wanted a better deal for domestic news media, they are getting a better deal for domestic news media: https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/google-nine-agree-commercial-terms-for-news-content-20210217-p5736c.html https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/google-nine-agree-... https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56101859 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56101859 The Australian government's approach is working.

gambiting 6y ago
Are they? Surely Australian companies are now also forbidden from sharing their stories on Facebook.
- clouddrover 6y ago
  Yes. It was of no value to them anyway. That's what the legislation is about: preventing platforms with market dominance capturing most of the advertising revenue with no real return to the organizations producing the content.
  - gambiting 6y ago
    Sure, but now no one is getting the advertising revenue. So the domestic news companies are not better off, the best case scenario is that they are exactly as they were, but most likely they are worse off since they simply don't even get the traffic.
    - clouddrover 6y ago
      They weren't getting it anyway. Both Google and Facebook represented poor deals for news media and their market power made it impossible to get a better deal. Miraculously, after the Australian government gets involved, Google is now making deals with news media. Facebook will do the same eventually.
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    I can easily see the outcome being that people simply read less news, or read more international news.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      Under these new restrictions, Australians can't read or share even international news on Facebook.
  - pantsforbirds 6y ago
    Facebook showed in their release the monetary value of they provided the news companies. I can't see how you could possible argue they do not provide value to the classic media companies by allowing them to be linked and discussed freely on their feeds.
    - shock-value 6y ago
      Is it really any additive value? News companies and consumption certainly existed before social media.
      - rodonn 6y ago
        Any publisher already had the option of blocking their content from being linked on Facebook and Google, they chose not to do so because the traffic they get from F/G was valuable. Ben Thompson has a nice analysis of the situation: https://stratechery.com/2020/australias-news-media-bargaining-code-breaking-down-the-code-australias-fake-news/ https://stratechery.com/2020/australias-news-media-bargainin...
      - baash05 6y ago
        I'd say the only time I ever read SMH is when there's a link in my FB. When mates or groups I'm a part of drop a link in. To be honest, I don't remember the last time I read general news that wasn't in my feed. Apart from a few other aggregators (hackers news included)
    - DevKoala 6y ago
      Facebook can say a lot of things, but I bet the publishers also have their own numbers and they are the ones who pushed for this deal.
      - anonymousab 6y ago
        They could have blocked Google and Facebook at any time. They didn't because they know the value is important if not existential. What they want is for Facebook and Google to be forced to list them, but also forced to pay for the privilege. If they failed to craft or pay for legislation to that end, it was nothing more than a mistake.
  - sbierwagen 6y ago
    >It was of no value to them anyway. We have something of a natural experiment here on how much FB traffic is worth to news sites. We'll learn the results in a year if Australia repeals or maintains the law.
    - 2muchcoffeeman 6y ago
      This is probably the only reason why as an Australian resident, I’m not in a rush to get the law changed. I’m not sure how discoverability is going to be effected and that may take a while to see the effects given how locals probably know the locals news sources.
    - centimeter 6y ago
      It’s generous of you to assume that laws are passed and repealed based on benefit. We already had a natural experiment, in which Australian publishers were free not to share their content on fb.
      - rjmunro 6y ago
        Except that they weren't free to stop others from doing so.
  - 6nf 6y ago
    So then Facebook did us all a favour? Is this what the legislation was meant to do, stop all news on FB?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
nostromo 6y ago
This is how regulatory capture happens. Google can afford to pay for the right to link to publishers. New startups can't. Australia has strengthened Google's monopoly, all in the guise of "taking on" big tech.
- offby37years 6y ago
  Where does it stipulate this law applies to new startups?
  - baash05 6y ago
    It applies to any company the Gov wishes. If company XYZ is a news aggregator, then the gov could target them on a whim. It's not about the monopoly that FB has. If company XYZ started getting fined, we'd hear nothing about it. That garage based company would just go away. FB, just happens to have enough cash to say no.
- jsnell 6y ago
  First, Cloudrover's link has nothing to do with the law, nor on linking to news content. It's about showing news content inline in some new app that nobody has heard of, nor will use. Second, the Australian law does not apply to all companies. It just applies to the companies the current government decides it applies to. (It's not that it will even be selectively enforced. It literally only applies to a specific set of companies, which is currently FB and Google.)
  - clouddrover 6y ago
    > First, Cloudrover's link has nothing to do with the law It has everything to do with the new legislation. I can only suggest you read the article start to finish. Facebook will be making similar deals soon enough.
- ekimekim 6y ago
  > Google can afford to pay for the right to link to publishers. New startups can't. The law specifically only targets Google and Facebook due to their monopoly power. New startups are not affected.

gambiting 6y ago

Are they? Surely Australian companies are now also forbidden from sharing their stories on Facebook.

clouddrover 6y ago
Yes. It was of no value to them anyway. That's what the legislation is about: preventing platforms with market dominance capturing most of the advertising revenue with no real return to the organizations producing the content.
- gambiting 6y ago
  Sure, but now no one is getting the advertising revenue. So the domestic news companies are not better off, the best case scenario is that they are exactly as they were, but most likely they are worse off since they simply don't even get the traffic.
  - clouddrover 6y ago
    They weren't getting it anyway. Both Google and Facebook represented poor deals for news media and their market power made it impossible to get a better deal. Miraculously, after the Australian government gets involved, Google is now making deals with news media. Facebook will do the same eventually.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  I can easily see the outcome being that people simply read less news, or read more international news.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Under these new restrictions, Australians can't read or share even international news on Facebook.
- pantsforbirds 6y ago
  Facebook showed in their release the monetary value of they provided the news companies. I can't see how you could possible argue they do not provide value to the classic media companies by allowing them to be linked and discussed freely on their feeds.
  - shock-value 6y ago
    Is it really any additive value? News companies and consumption certainly existed before social media.
    - rodonn 6y ago
      Any publisher already had the option of blocking their content from being linked on Facebook and Google, they chose not to do so because the traffic they get from F/G was valuable. Ben Thompson has a nice analysis of the situation: https://stratechery.com/2020/australias-news-media-bargaining-code-breaking-down-the-code-australias-fake-news/ https://stratechery.com/2020/australias-news-media-bargainin...
    - baash05 6y ago
      I'd say the only time I ever read SMH is when there's a link in my FB. When mates or groups I'm a part of drop a link in. To be honest, I don't remember the last time I read general news that wasn't in my feed. Apart from a few other aggregators (hackers news included)
  - DevKoala 6y ago
    Facebook can say a lot of things, but I bet the publishers also have their own numbers and they are the ones who pushed for this deal.
    - anonymousab 6y ago
      They could have blocked Google and Facebook at any time. They didn't because they know the value is important if not existential. What they want is for Facebook and Google to be forced to list them, but also forced to pay for the privilege. If they failed to craft or pay for legislation to that end, it was nothing more than a mistake.
- sbierwagen 6y ago
  >It was of no value to them anyway. We have something of a natural experiment here on how much FB traffic is worth to news sites. We'll learn the results in a year if Australia repeals or maintains the law.
  - 2muchcoffeeman 6y ago
    This is probably the only reason why as an Australian resident, I’m not in a rush to get the law changed. I’m not sure how discoverability is going to be effected and that may take a while to see the effects given how locals probably know the locals news sources.
  - centimeter 6y ago
    It’s generous of you to assume that laws are passed and repealed based on benefit. We already had a natural experiment, in which Australian publishers were free not to share their content on fb.
    - rjmunro 6y ago
      Except that they weren't free to stop others from doing so.
- 6nf 6y ago
  So then Facebook did us all a favour? Is this what the legislation was meant to do, stop all news on FB?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

nostromo 6y ago

This is how regulatory capture happens. Google can afford to pay for the right to link to publishers. New startups can't. Australia has strengthened Google's monopoly, all in the guise of "taking on" big tech.

offby37years 6y ago
Where does it stipulate this law applies to new startups?
- baash05 6y ago
  It applies to any company the Gov wishes. If company XYZ is a news aggregator, then the gov could target them on a whim. It's not about the monopoly that FB has. If company XYZ started getting fined, we'd hear nothing about it. That garage based company would just go away. FB, just happens to have enough cash to say no.
jsnell 6y ago
First, Cloudrover's link has nothing to do with the law, nor on linking to news content. It's about showing news content inline in some new app that nobody has heard of, nor will use. Second, the Australian law does not apply to all companies. It just applies to the companies the current government decides it applies to. (It's not that it will even be selectively enforced. It literally only applies to a specific set of companies, which is currently FB and Google.)
- clouddrover 6y ago
  > First, Cloudrover's link has nothing to do with the law It has everything to do with the new legislation. I can only suggest you read the article start to finish. Facebook will be making similar deals soon enough.
ekimekim 6y ago
> Google can afford to pay for the right to link to publishers. New startups can't. The law specifically only targets Google and Facebook due to their monopoly power. New startups are not affected.