The article was written by an organisation who petitioned the pollies to risk their political capital to the organisation some favours. Before this, the act spe

The article was written by an organisation who petitioned the pollies to risk their political capital to the organisation some favours. Before this, the act specifically banned a digital platform (ie Google/Facebook) from changing a newspapers ranking based on whether the newspaper forced them to pay, or how much they paid. The act says the arbitrator is forced to accept one of the bargains offered (and no other amount), be it from Facebook or the newspaper, but the considerations in the act heavily biased it towards using the newspaper's offer. So the newspaper was free to drive a pretty hard bargain. Here is what an Associate professor in regulation and governance, UNSW said changed [0]: > the non-discrimination provisions (crafted as an anti-avoidance mechanism) will not be triggered in respect to remuneration amounts or commercial outcomes that arise in the course of usual business practice So, now Facebook can tie the rankings (think: how many newsfeeds will a newspaper link will appear on) to how much the newspaper forced them to pay during bargaining. Still think it was a capitulation? [0] https://theconversation.com/this-weeks-changes-are-a-win-for-facebook-google-and-the-government-but-what-was-lost-along-the-way-155865 https://theconversation.com/this-weeks-changes-are-a-win-for...