The proposed News Media Laws

[mike]

If the news media posts a comment on a particular platform there is no way they should receive any benefit for doing so, other than the exposure they receive. The reverse, news media writing stories about Facebook or Google, certainly would not be true. News media is a protected species. It is entirely media companies’ choice to post on a platform or not, no one is making them post. Think about this for a moment. If I post something of Facebook, say a poem or short story, should I receive a share of any revenue generated? No, it’s my choice to post.

I hear what you are saying, but if you look at something like Television - you could use your same argument to say that TV channels should not have to pay for content that they show, because they are only acting as a dissemination platform. Or that a magazine could co-opt a selection of short stories taken from the internet and not pay the copyright holders.

I think there are arguments to be had in all directions and there's probably a grey area between where private users and businesses meet.

And it gets more complicated with platforms like Google and FB because they use algorithms to direct users to content. They aren't solely a distribution platform for business, they actively influence consumers via their own algorithms, to drive increased revenues.

I think it's too simply to say news media has "missed the boat" in effect, because they did't have the capacity to compete with Google. I would argue that paywalls on newspaper websites is almost entirely due to the fact that certain internet business models co-opt media content for their own purposes, with little outcome for the media.

And I think you do want the government involved in some way, because a fair, impartial, resourced, variety of media is very healthy for a country's culture. Imagine the govt did nothing and all Australian media companies were eventually ground into the dirt, and you had to rely on Google and Facebook for your news - two American companies. You might point fingers at Rupert Murdoch or Fairfax, but their revenues pale in comparison to the tech juggernauts.

Facebook and Google are not like television, or radio for that matter, at all. These are platforms that brought shows or generate their own content to transmit so they can sell advertising. It’s a false analogy, Google and Facebook don't need the news media to sell advertising on their platforms. On the other hand the news media use/need these platforms to get exposure and to send traffic to their sites. The flow is already to the advantage of the news media.

The Internet, to date, has been largely void of government intervention and that’s the way it should stay. It is one of the most cooperative and collaborative things humans have ever done without anyone being in charge.

 

[Papacito]

The whole premise of the Facebook/Google etc making money out of other people's content and giving nothing back does not stack up.

News get about 12% of their traffic from Facebook (alone) at no cost. They monetize this traffic through selling ads. Essentially free money.

Claiming Facebook do nothing other than provide a platform is not correct either when the said platform costs $30 billion US per year to run and develop.

Media companies have been caught asleep at the wheel of very poor business models.

News even tried at social and failed (remember Myspace?). Paywalls were equally a flop. In the last 12 months they've also been caught with their pants down when the cookie/ad industry changed.

This is nothing more than leaning on the government for a policy driven handout.

Reminds me of when they got their mates to put the brakes on the NBN when they saw Netflix was about to eat their lunch.

 

[mike]

The whole premise of the Facebook/Google etc making money out of other people's content and giving nothing back does not stack up.

News get about 12% of their traffic from Facebook (alone) at no cost. They monetize this traffic through selling ads. Essentially free money.

Claiming Facebook do nothing other than provide a platform is not correct either when the said platform costs $30 billion US per year to run and develop.

Media companies have been caught asleep at the wheel of very poor business models.

They even edged in The whole premise of the Facebook/Google etc making money out of other people's content and giving nothing back does not stack up.

News.com.au et al get about 12% of their traffic from Facebook (alone) at no cost. They monetize this traffic through selling ads. Essentially free money.

Claiming Facebook do nothing "other than provide a platform" is obviously very subjective. The said platform costs $30 billion US per year to run and develop.

Media companies have been caught asleep at the wheel of very poor business models.

News even tried at social and failed (remember Myspace?). Paywalls were equally a flop. In the last 12 months they've also been caught with their pants down when the cookie/ad industry changed.

This is nothing more than leaning on the government for a policy driven handout.

Reminds me of when they got their mates to put the brakes on the NBN when they saw Netflix was about to eat their lunch.

Exactly right. The flow is already in the news media favour. They want to double dip.

 

[TillLindemann]

I would happily gouge my own eyes out if it was somehow to the detriment of the tech monopolies.

These behemoths like Alphabet (google) are the most powerful juggernauts since the East India Company. They are a threat to democracy, and they have wrought more damage to the principles of an open world wide web than Scomo could ever dream of.

People seem to think they are just a bunch of friendly nerds running a big encyclopedia for our benefit, out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

[mike]

I would happily gouge my own eyes out if it was somehow to the detriment of the tech monopolies.

These behemoths like Alphabet (google) are the most powerful juggernauts since the East India Company. **They are a threat to democracy**, and they have wrought more damage to the principles of an open world wide web than Scomo could ever dream of.

People seem to think they are just a bunch of friendly nerds running a big encyclopedia for our benefit, out of the goodness of their hearts.

As opposed to Murdoch?

 

[TillLindemann]

I recommend this to all, it is vital reading

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/21839908-when-google-met-wikileaks#

 

[TillLindemann]

I would happily gouge my own eyes out if it was somehow to the detriment of the tech monopolies.

These behemoths like Alphabet (google) are the most powerful juggernauts since the East India Company. **They are a threat to democracy**, and they have wrought more damage to the principles of an open world wide web than Scomo could ever dream of.

People seem to think they are just a bunch of friendly nerds running a big encyclopedia for our benefit, out of the goodness of their hearts.

As opposed to Murdoch?

Yeah definitely. I despise Murdoch and his influence on our politics, and I wouldn't wipe my bum with his papers. But News Limited to Google/facebook/Amazon is a goldfish to a whale.

 

[mike]

I would happily gouge my own eyes out if it was somehow to the detriment of the tech monopolies.

These behemoths like Alphabet (google) are the most powerful juggernauts since the East India Company. **They are a threat to democracy**, and they have wrought more damage to the principles of an open world wide web than Scomo could ever dream of.

People seem to think they are just a bunch of friendly nerds running a big encyclopedia for our benefit, out of the goodness of their hearts.

As opposed to Murdoch?

Yeah definitely. I despise Murdoch and his influence on our politics, and I wouldn't wipe my bum with his papers. But News Limited to Google/facebook/Amazon is a goldfish to a whale.

Then by all means tax the bejebus out of them, but leave the fundamentals of the World Wide Web alone.

 

[earl]

I'm getting really good info here. Thanks.

 

[Swordy]

This might be a very naive veiw, but this is what I think.

All news media and all social platforms are private companies. I can either use them or not use them. I can either click on them or not click on them. The ones I dont like, I just dont use at all. If others do, thats up to them.

I have never been FORCED to use any site. I do so because I choose to. Many will say you're forced to use google. Well, actually you are not. Sure, they have a big chunk of that market, but the choice is still yours.

Like everything else, it will shift backwards and forwards in the future, just as it has in the past.

Can't see what all the fuss is about.

 

[mike]

Just to lighten the mood

https://youtu.be/cuBWiMpr2jA

 

[swag_tiger]

Now the news companies have been caught out the are asking the government for intervention in this issue and to basically force Facebook to post their articles.

 

[Leck]

I generally don't get into, or share my opinions across politics, however facebook's stance today to disregard our fair price proposal, block original news and content - which was created by us for us, is out of control and another example of a scary media monopoly.

**As per ABC news -**

"Australians waking up this morning found they were blocked from viewing or sharing news content from publishers' pages, including news organisations like the ABC.

The social media giant said it made the move in response to the government's proposed media bargaining laws, which would force major tech giants to pay Australian news outlets for their content

The move also prevents people overseas from sharing Australian content on the social media site.

Crucial pages across health and social services were shut down today, as well as important Australian news sources."

**My Opinion -**

This stance will ultimately affect how we interact socially and digitally across all our favourite interests / hobbies and sports pages.

But more importantly, it will also set a precedence for the megalomaniac Mark Zuckerberg which allows him to get away with media murder .

I've personally deleted my facebook, instagram and whatsapp account today. All three are core money machines for him.

It's time we keep this bastard honest. If we don't, who will?

The world is watching.

 

[hobbo1]

Who the hell gets there news content from Facebook?
I certainly don’t .

 

[cochise]

Who the hell gets there news content from Facebook?
I certainly don’t .

Me either, I don't even use facebook though lol

 

[mike]

Trending in Australia... MySpace.... :joy: :joy: :joy: :joy:

 

[diedpretty]

Hang on - everyone is looking at this from the little battler angle that Australia has fine tuned. Our govt who think they actually matter in world politics decided they would tax companies like Google and Facebook to distribute media generated in Australia ( well not really cause most of the media generated here is from an american who couldn't wait to denounce his australianship). These taxes would be funnelled back to their mates to legitimately use to pay their journos and generate revenue. Google who amazingly said OK - we think Australia is such a massive market we will pay the tax. Whereas Facebook has said stuff you. The bottom line is that media companies in Australia have been lazy, never accepted the digital platforms until it was too late and are now whingeing that they are now missing out on the big bucks.

 

[Leck]

Who the hell gets there news content from Facebook?
I certainly don’t .

You'd be surprised. Most users under 35.

@hobbo1 are you under 35?

 

[hobbo1]

Who the hell gets there news content from Facebook?
I certainly don’t .

You'd be surprised. Most users under 35.

@hobbo1 are you under 35?

I wish mate

 

[diedpretty]

You could all just buy a newspaper ....shock horror

I know its Qld happy but unless your 70+ no one buys a newspaper - edit 30 + for Qld.