2 ms·
It’s not clear what this actually means in practice. Most news source I searched are reporting small (but logical) tweaks to the law, to the point that it seem
by jeeeb 6y ago
It’s not clear what this actually means in practice.
Most news source I searched are reporting small (but logical) tweaks to the law, to the point that it seems Facebook largely conceded and then put out some face saving PR.
In practice the government has achieved their goal of both FB and Google paying for news content. Both have backed down. The total (industry wide) payments seem likely to reach about $200 million AUD.
Further the government’s legislation is going to pass with cross-party support.
Overall the government probably considers this a resounding success.
- jeeeb 6y agoTo clarify, by face saving PR I mean that yes of course Facebook can take down its entire news service going forward. That wasn’t really in doubt. What doesn’t seem to be the case is that Facebook can discriminate against content from bargaining code participants (companies that ask for money for content). It seems likely they’ll now follow Google’s path and strike individual deals ahead of the legislation.
- mjgs 6y agoI’ve read several reports, they all speak about ‘amendments’ but so far I haven’t found an article that lists what they actually are. It’s weird. They make this huge media circus for several days, then things change and nobody bothers to explain the new info that changed the situation.