7 ms·

I think that's a terrible argument. Auto makers shouldn't have to pay a tribute to horse stables for putting them out of business. Refrigerator makers shouldn'

I think that's a terrible argument. Auto makers shouldn't have to pay a tribute to horse stables for putting them out of business. Refrigerator makers shouldn't have to pay a tribute to ice diggers. Uber shouldn't be required to pay a tax to licensed Taxis. E-learning sites shouldn't have to pay a tax to school tutors. No business is entitled to a comfortable monopoly. The idea that Google should pay a tribute to traditional media where the amount is entirely at the discretion of media giants because the internet can do everything the old press did better just serves to maintain entrenched old interests.

flak48 6y ago
I don't think the comment you replied to is arguing in favor of Australia's attempts to get Google/FB to pay the media companies
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  The comment author appears to be using the Govs argument in an attempt to facilitate debate, even though they themselves don't personally hold the position. In the "debate, not argument" school this is a good thing because it lets us move the debate forward in good faith. Likewise, the response is to the argument, not the person.
Silhouette 6y ago
The assumption behind all of your examples is that the new version is a better replacement for the old version. However, social media sites and search engines typically do not do their own journalism. They provide an effective mechanism for distributing information, but that mechanism adds no value until there is some information worth distributing. So, how much of the reward from people who ultimately receive and benefit from that information should be due to those who did the work to generate it, and how much should be due to those providing distribution services? Historically, being the middleman in these situations has been very lucrative. Most book publishers still take huge cuts while authors receive only a tiny fraction of the cover price from each sale. It's a similar story for traditional record labels, film production companies, academic journals and so on. The Internet has been a great equaliser when it comes to distribution of good quality content, allowing creators to reach their audiences more directly than ever before. The Internet has also shown how much easier it is for potentially interested consumers of new content to find it when it's available in well-known places, which shows that big marketplaces for content do still have value. The question here is really about balance, and whether middleman organisations should still be able to keep as much of the pie as they used to.
ostenning 6y ago
They shouldn't have to, but in West there is something called Corporate Socialism. I find it ironic that the Liberal Government which is a center-right political party enables this. In my opinion, news media has been dead in Australia for a long time, which has done a terrible disservice to the Australian public. It time to drop the dead weight.
- MarkMc 6y ago
  It's also ironic that the center-right government is picking which projects to fund in order to reduce carbon emissions, instead of a market-based emissions trading scheme
  - squiggleblaz 6y ago
    The idea that "centre right" has anything to do with economic policy preferences is a bit dated by now. "Centre right" means "ignore traditional values; be rude; promote the policies of large businesses which may not be profitable but at least have wads of cash to invest in lobbying". Perhaps that is an economic policy ("For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away") - but it is not an economic policy based on argument, but rather, might makes right.
intended 6y ago
I don’t think this is an argument. IT seems more like a quiet listing of the circumstances and a clear position on how its for the benefit of Rupert Murdoch, in other words corruption dressed up nicely.
DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
Your argument doesn’t apply. Carmakers supplanted horses: that’s their objective. Consider the societal positive externalities that commercial news journalism has in society (yeah, I’d rather we had non-commercial news journalism too, but Google isn’t non-profit either). Google and Facebook aren’t supplanting journalism - they benefit from it: while responsible citizens like you and me may prefer to read a news article rather than skim the headline or article preview and post a take on our timelines - I can assure you the majority of the “news”-consuming public definitely prefers the latter. Yes, I’m fully aware AUS’ draft laws were Establishment (read: Murdoch) scummy bollocks, but we need to come to a reckoning of the need for a self-sufficient journalistic estate. For all the clickbait that Buzzfeed posts - they use the profits from that to fund real legitimate investigative reporting - that certainly isn’t cheap to run - and only profitable if it results in some politician getting fired. I’m arguing that it’s sucks that idealistic reporters and fact-finders have to sell shit (and shit is the word) to the public to support the good they do. I don’t think bowing, unquestionably, to the altar of the free-market is in any of our long-term interests. There’s a reason I still pay my UK TV License fee despite being non-resident: quality-journalism is worth tenfold what we pay for it (well, that, and so I don’t feel guilty when I torrent new episodes of QI...)
- concordDance 6y ago
  > Consider the societal positive externalities that commercial news journalism has in society Maybe I'm biased by the past ten years, but from where I'm sitting commercial news "journalism" has been mostly negative externalities, corrupting democracies in all sorts of ways while misinforming the public about many other things (the news stories I have personal knowledge of have all been grossly misleading).
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  If journalism is important, maybe the winning strategy is to have it be funded by taxpayers who have some control over what journalism exists. Because I wouldn't exactly call Murdoch's empire "good journalism" and that is where the "river of gold" would flow towards in this case. "Journalism used to be funded by ads, ads are now being spent on Google/Facebook, therefore Google/Facebook must fund journalism" is bogus, IMO.
tannhaeuser 6y ago
> No business is entitled to a comfortable monopoly. The idea that Google should pay a tribute to traditional media where the amount is entirely at the discretion of media giants because the internet can do everything the old press did better just serves to maintain entrenched old interests. That's a completely false dichotomy. It's not "the internet" that's benefitting from ad spent, but only Fb and Google, while everyone else goes bankrupt. And if there's a "comfortable monopoly" and "media giant", then it's Google and Fb, not the other way around. The AU case is special, though, because of the media concentration in a single hand.
FireBeyond 6y ago
I wish I could find this quote, but paraphrasing: "There exists a curious belief that because a business has always made money a certain way, that it is somehow entitled to continue doing so, regardless of the changes in the market. This curious belief however is not borne of any specific law, rule, regulation or principle."

flak48 6y ago

I don't think the comment you replied to is arguing in favor of Australia's attempts to get Google/FB to pay the media companies

vorpalhex 6y ago
The comment author appears to be using the Govs argument in an attempt to facilitate debate, even though they themselves don't personally hold the position. In the "debate, not argument" school this is a good thing because it lets us move the debate forward in good faith. Likewise, the response is to the argument, not the person.

Silhouette 6y ago

The assumption behind all of your examples is that the new version is a better replacement for the old version. However, social media sites and search engines typically do not do their own journalism. They provide an effective mechanism for distributing information, but that mechanism adds no value until there is some information worth distributing. So, how much of the reward from people who ultimately receive and benefit from that information should be due to those who did the work to generate it, and how much should be due to those providing distribution services? Historically, being the middleman in these situations has been very lucrative. Most book publishers still take huge cuts while authors receive only a tiny fraction of the cover price from each sale. It's a similar story for traditional record labels, film production companies, academic journals and so on. The Internet has been a great equaliser when it comes to distribution of good quality content, allowing creators to reach their audiences more directly than ever before. The Internet has also shown how much easier it is for potentially interested consumers of new content to find it when it's available in well-known places, which shows that big marketplaces for content do still have value. The question here is really about balance, and whether middleman organisations should still be able to keep as much of the pie as they used to.

ostenning 6y ago

They shouldn't have to, but in West there is something called Corporate Socialism. I find it ironic that the Liberal Government which is a center-right political party enables this. In my opinion, news media has been dead in Australia for a long time, which has done a terrible disservice to the Australian public. It time to drop the dead weight.

MarkMc 6y ago
It's also ironic that the center-right government is picking which projects to fund in order to reduce carbon emissions, instead of a market-based emissions trading scheme
- squiggleblaz 6y ago
  The idea that "centre right" has anything to do with economic policy preferences is a bit dated by now. "Centre right" means "ignore traditional values; be rude; promote the policies of large businesses which may not be profitable but at least have wads of cash to invest in lobbying". Perhaps that is an economic policy ("For to those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away") - but it is not an economic policy based on argument, but rather, might makes right.

intended 6y ago

I don’t think this is an argument. IT seems more like a quiet listing of the circumstances and a clear position on how its for the benefit of Rupert Murdoch, in other words corruption dressed up nicely.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago

Your argument doesn’t apply. Carmakers supplanted horses: that’s their objective. Consider the societal positive externalities that commercial news journalism has in society (yeah, I’d rather we had non-commercial news journalism too, but Google isn’t non-profit either). Google and Facebook aren’t supplanting journalism - they benefit from it: while responsible citizens like you and me may prefer to read a news article rather than skim the headline or article preview and post a take on our timelines - I can assure you the majority of the “news”-consuming public definitely prefers the latter. Yes, I’m fully aware AUS’ draft laws were Establishment (read: Murdoch) scummy bollocks, but we need to come to a reckoning of the need for a self-sufficient journalistic estate. For all the clickbait that Buzzfeed posts - they use the profits from that to fund real legitimate investigative reporting - that certainly isn’t cheap to run - and only profitable if it results in some politician getting fired. I’m arguing that it’s sucks that idealistic reporters and fact-finders have to sell shit (and shit is the word) to the public to support the good they do. I don’t think bowing, unquestionably, to the altar of the free-market is in any of our long-term interests. There’s a reason I still pay my UK TV License fee despite being non-resident: quality-journalism is worth tenfold what we pay for it (well, that, and so I don’t feel guilty when I torrent new episodes of QI...)

concordDance 6y ago
> Consider the societal positive externalities that commercial news journalism has in society Maybe I'm biased by the past ten years, but from where I'm sitting commercial news "journalism" has been mostly negative externalities, corrupting democracies in all sorts of ways while misinforming the public about many other things (the news stories I have personal knowledge of have all been grossly misleading).
UncleMeat 6y ago
If journalism is important, maybe the winning strategy is to have it be funded by taxpayers who have some control over what journalism exists. Because I wouldn't exactly call Murdoch's empire "good journalism" and that is where the "river of gold" would flow towards in this case. "Journalism used to be funded by ads, ads are now being spent on Google/Facebook, therefore Google/Facebook must fund journalism" is bogus, IMO.

tannhaeuser 6y ago

> No business is entitled to a comfortable monopoly. The idea that Google should pay a tribute to traditional media where the amount is entirely at the discretion of media giants because the internet can do everything the old press did better just serves to maintain entrenched old interests. That's a completely false dichotomy. It's not "the internet" that's benefitting from ad spent, but only Fb and Google, while everyone else goes bankrupt. And if there's a "comfortable monopoly" and "media giant", then it's Google and Fb, not the other way around. The AU case is special, though, because of the media concentration in a single hand.

FireBeyond 6y ago

I wish I could find this quote, but paraphrasing: "There exists a curious belief that because a business has always made money a certain way, that it is somehow entitled to continue doing so, regardless of the changes in the market. This curious belief however is not borne of any specific law, rule, regulation or principle."