3 ms·

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

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.
- denismi 6y ago
  No, it targets any digital platform at the discretion of a single elected Member of Parliament. If /r/australia got too influential or troublesome to this politician, in the lead up to an election perhaps, then there is no need to get anything through parliament - this individual can essentially add reddit.com to a list and then send Condé Nast the bill.
  - jedberg 6y ago
    > and then send Condé Nast the bill. Just so you know, Conde Nast hasn't owned reddit for over a decade.
    - denismi 6y ago
      Isn't that like saying "it's not owned by Google, it's owned by Alphabet"?
      - jedberg 6y ago
        No, it would be more like saying Nest owns Google because they have the same parent company. If anything, reddit is the larger of the two. And the parent company that own Conde Nast (Advance publications) does not own all of reddit, unlike how Alphabet owns all of Google.

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.

denismi 6y ago
No, it targets any digital platform at the discretion of a single elected Member of Parliament. If /r/australia got too influential or troublesome to this politician, in the lead up to an election perhaps, then there is no need to get anything through parliament - this individual can essentially add reddit.com to a list and then send Condé Nast the bill.
- jedberg 6y ago
  > and then send Condé Nast the bill. Just so you know, Conde Nast hasn't owned reddit for over a decade.
  - denismi 6y ago
    Isn't that like saying "it's not owned by Google, it's owned by Alphabet"?
    - jedberg 6y ago
      No, it would be more like saying Nest owns Google because they have the same parent company. If anything, reddit is the larger of the two. And the parent company that own Conde Nast (Advance publications) does not own all of reddit, unlike how Alphabet owns all of Google.