4 ms·
I like the sound of this. It's the only way Facebook etc are going to actually bow to pressure. The same tactics should be employed by governments.
by Beggers1960 6y ago
I like the sound of this. It's the only way Facebook etc are going to actually bow to pressure.
The same tactics should be employed by governments.
- mschuster91 6y agoThey should not. The Australian move, just as the EU Leistungsschutzrecht crap, was nothing more than Murdoch (or, in EU, Axel Springer and friends) trying to cling onto money. Fuck these democracy destroying rags.
- chris_wot 6y agoIt also affected non-Murdoch press, however.
- m12k 6y agoThere are so any things wrong with Facebook, but them not paying news sites for the privilege of sending traffic their way is not one of them. We desperately need good legislation around social media, and I fear that bad legislation like this, written by newspaper lobbyists, is going to let politicians get away with saying "look, I did something" and call it a day.
- loceng 6y agoFuelling journalism seems like the answer, trickle up - providing citizens with $100/year to allocate to the journalist of their choice, essentially citizens "voting" with money for who they want to hear news from; this is a policy proposal by Andrew Yang, similar idea to his Democracy Dollars, $100/year voucher to every eligible voter to give to the politician of their choice - would help wash out money from lobbyists/industrial complexes 8:1. Journalism Dollars + Democracy Dollars will have a compounding effect, tie that to Ranked Choice Voting and Freedom Dividend/UBI - and you make people anti-exploitable - and compounding the impact of even more policies, breaking apart the duopoly and grip that the handful of mainstream media companies that have amassed so much power/reach.