Tim's perspective here is disappointingly narrow. The line he's drawing in the sand has already been crossed in all sorts of ways in many different jurisdiction

Tim's perspective here is disappointingly narrow. The line he's drawing in the sand has already been crossed in all sorts of ways in many different jurisdictions and commercial/legal contexts. This is a complex (and tiring) debate where all of the key players (largely News Corp and the Australian Commonwealth Government on one side and Facebook and Google on the other) have shown themselves to be untrustworthy, user-hostile and utterly flippant with regard to the public good provided by news. They have all been dishonest to the public through this process and the best outcome would be one where all the major parties to this issue lose out. There's a strong argument to be made that Google and Facebook should be made to cough something up. They've essentially done an attention economy land grab and the state exists to regulate such disruptive practices in order to preserve certain public goods. But of course the actual facts of this law are that it's a blatant opportunistic maneuver to get wads of cash out of one set of corrupt peoples' pockets into those of another group who happen to be mates with the people who hold legislative power.