5 ms·

*WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who was a vocal proponent of the bill[1][2] [1] https://www.vox.com/recode/22287971/australia-facebook-news-ban-google-money h

by tqi 4y ago

*WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who was a vocal proponent of the bill[1][2] [1] https://www.vox.com/recode/22287971/australia-facebook-news-ban-google-money https://www.vox.com/recode/22287971/australia-facebook-news-... [2] https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/media-bargaining-code-will-entrench-murdoch-dominance-rudd-20210219-p573xn.html https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/media-bargaining-cod...

clouddrover 4y ago
And Facebook was a vocal opponent of the bill, but you're happy to believe them?
- tqi 4y ago
  You're choosing who to believe based on what, max outrage?
  - clouddrover 4y ago
    You're choosing who to believe based on what, a single source with a direct conflict of interest?
- xvector 4y ago
  The bill is straightforward and mandates paying for simply linking to a website. It's completely absurd. Facebook was in the right here, if you have any value for an open internet and free flow of information.
grecy 4y ago
For clarity, Murdoch was a proponent of the bill because the bill forced Google and Facebook to pay Murdoch for links. The Australian government literally wrote a bill that forced money to be paid to a media tycoon. Incredible, but true.
- actually_a_dog 4y ago
  Why is that incredible? It sounds like simple crony capitalism, and we all know that’s alive and well.
  - grecy 4y ago
    Crony capitalism is one thing, but I think it's unheard of for the federal government of a Developed country to write and pass a bill that requires Google and Facebook to pay money directly to the monopoly media company in that country. Note: The law only applies to Google and Facebook, and only requires money to be paid directly to NewsCorp (not other media outlets that might be "impacted"). The federal government is now writing laws to collect money for a private company. That's pretty blatant.
- suprjami 4y ago
  If you're not Australian, this is completely unsurprising. Murdoch owns 2/3rds of all news media here. His headlines ensured the centre-right election victory in 2011 which was terrible for many reasons. That government then cancelled our already in-progress national fibre broadband rollout in favour of inferior VDSL2, because (at the time) higher bandwidth was seen as a threat to cable TV. This was a multi-billion dollar waste of taxpayer money, and we now have the ~70th worst internet in the world for the ~10th highest price. Have a guess who owns the cable TV networks.
  - clouddrover 4y ago
    > Murdoch owns 2/3rds of all news media here. His headlines ensured the centre-right election victory in 2011 which was terrible for many reasons. So then his headlines also ensured the centre-left election victory in 2022. Was that also terrible for many reasons? > Have a guess who owns the cable TV networks. Are you genuinely trying to make the claim that pay TV providers like Netflix and Disney Plus and friends don't work in Australia when they plainly do and have done for a long time? VDSL2 was always capable of it. As conspiracy theories go I think your one needs some revising.

by tqi 4y ago

clouddrover 4y ago

And Facebook was a vocal opponent of the bill, but you're happy to believe them?

tqi 4y ago
You're choosing who to believe based on what, max outrage?
- clouddrover 4y ago
  You're choosing who to believe based on what, a single source with a direct conflict of interest?
xvector 4y ago
The bill is straightforward and mandates paying for simply linking to a website. It's completely absurd. Facebook was in the right here, if you have any value for an open internet and free flow of information.

grecy 4y ago

For clarity, Murdoch was a proponent of the bill because the bill forced Google and Facebook to pay Murdoch for links. The Australian government literally wrote a bill that forced money to be paid to a media tycoon. Incredible, but true.

actually_a_dog 4y ago
Why is that incredible? It sounds like simple crony capitalism, and we all know that’s alive and well.
- grecy 4y ago
  Crony capitalism is one thing, but I think it's unheard of for the federal government of a Developed country to write and pass a bill that requires Google and Facebook to pay money directly to the monopoly media company in that country. Note: The law only applies to Google and Facebook, and only requires money to be paid directly to NewsCorp (not other media outlets that might be "impacted"). The federal government is now writing laws to collect money for a private company. That's pretty blatant.
suprjami 4y ago
If you're not Australian, this is completely unsurprising. Murdoch owns 2/3rds of all news media here. His headlines ensured the centre-right election victory in 2011 which was terrible for many reasons. That government then cancelled our already in-progress national fibre broadband rollout in favour of inferior VDSL2, because (at the time) higher bandwidth was seen as a threat to cable TV. This was a multi-billion dollar waste of taxpayer money, and we now have the ~70th worst internet in the world for the ~10th highest price. Have a guess who owns the cable TV networks.
- clouddrover 4y ago
  > Murdoch owns 2/3rds of all news media here. His headlines ensured the centre-right election victory in 2011 which was terrible for many reasons. So then his headlines also ensured the centre-left election victory in 2022. Was that also terrible for many reasons? > Have a guess who owns the cable TV networks. Are you genuinely trying to make the claim that pay TV providers like Netflix and Disney Plus and friends don't work in Australia when they plainly do and have done for a long time? VDSL2 was always capable of it. As conspiracy theories go I think your one needs some revising.