The proposed News Media Laws

[jirskyr]

I don't know, there's a lot of neg / anti-media commentary in this thread so far.

Putting aside your personal opinion on media ownership in Australia, I can understand where the government is coming from. Tech firms like Google and Facebook are themselves monopolies and at this time it's not realistic for a media outlet to avoid major online portals / distribution mechanisms to distribute their content.

Google and Facebook generate a tonne of revenue by selling ads on content created and distributed by media companies. Google and FB do nothing except provide a platform. It makes sense that both parties should enter into revenue-sharing agreements, where one group is providing the content and another is providing the platform.

It's a similar situation to Youtube, though youtube has a pre-existing arrangement with content providers. Clearly without content youtube is pointless, but without youtube (or similar) it's near impossible for fledgling content providers to distribute material.

So if Sydney Morning Herald posts content on youtube, so long as it meets the youtube guidelines (in itself a separate controversy) then they revenue share with the platform.

But at the moment, if Facebook does the same thing - permit the SMH to post articles on their FB page, FB does not have to provide a cut on the ad revenue they subsequently take.

I don't see it overall as being a bad move, and it appears to be something governments across the world are leaning towards - e.g. recent media deals along these lines in Germany and France. I'm not a legislation or media expert so I won't offer comment on the actual laws that get passed.


Yes Google and Facebook, as do news media, generate revenue by selling advertisements. That’s the business model. I am totally against the idea that platforms should share revenue with any company that decides to post a comment or publish a story on their platform. The media company has a choice not to do so. It is the media companies that have failed here. They have lost revenue to various sources including eBay, Gumtree carsales etc, as I have mentioned earlier and they have never figured out a way to get it back. Their paywall model simply won’t cut it any more. Because the news media have failed to come to grips with the World Wide Web and their loss of revenue to other sites, should the news media be able to siphon off profits from companies that do understand how the World Wide Web works? No.

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.

Let’s look at the overall digital transmission of information. ISP’s receive revenue based on the plan you have, usually based on how much data used. So the analogy would be they should share their revenue with news media simply because articles are transmitted via the ISP to the consumer. Because the consumer needs a plan that generates revenue for the ISPs, ISP’s should share a portion of that revenue with the News Media based on the number of articles transmitted to the consumer. It’s a ridiculous idea, just as the proposed revenue sharing idea is with Facebook and Google.

These laws are bad, very bad and I cannot stress that enough. They pave the way for charging for links and the freedom that we currently have will be gone. The fundamental principle of the World Wide Web is that linking of sites is free, these laws terminate that principle. Having to pay to host a link is the exact opposite of how the World Wide Web has worked since it’s implementation.

If this model is extrapolated to use elsewhere, there will be two versions of the World Wide Web, one for those that can afford to pay and one for those that can’t and the digital divide will be huge, apartheid like.

The internet is still the wild west that needs to evolve very quickly.

However my concern is FB's monopoly. They decided to use algorithms to shut down health and social services and block Australian content unnecessarily .

That's an issue. At least Google came to the table and were willing to discuss a fair price.

The Internet is about 20-30 years old and continuously evolving. All without an owner or government intervention. It is a remarkable cooperative effort for and by the people and governments need to keep their mits off it.

Facebook were given an ultimatum by the Australian government in the way of a new rule, pay up or you will be breaking the new rule. Facebook took the only course of action they could and shut-down the news sites so they didn't break the new rule. No great surprise.

The benefit of news media publishing on Facebook is all in the news media direction. It gives them exposure and free traffic to their sites.

The Australian Government got it completely wrong in this instance. No great surprise really when it comes to tech, the NLP have form in this area.


That's disappointing that you don't believe we've taken the right stance.

It's not about tech Mike, it's about Aussie made content. We should get paid.

Building Australia's media industry and nurturing our young talent is imperative. This argument isn't about the big players, it's about all our journos, designers, artists and producers that will come through in the next decade.

By bending to FB we set a dangerous precedent.

It's a bit lazy by the big media though, relying on Facebooks platform.

That's like saying it's lazy to advertise your second-hand bike on ebay or gumtree... what choice do you have?

 

[jirskyr]

I don't know, there's a lot of neg / anti-media commentary in this thread so far.

Putting aside your personal opinion on media ownership in Australia, I can understand where the government is coming from. Tech firms like Google and Facebook are themselves monopolies and at this time it's not realistic for a media outlet to avoid major online portals / distribution mechanisms to distribute their content.

Google and Facebook generate a tonne of revenue by selling ads on content created and distributed by media companies. Google and FB do nothing except provide a platform. It makes sense that both parties should enter into revenue-sharing agreements, where one group is providing the content and another is providing the platform.

It's a similar situation to Youtube, though youtube has a pre-existing arrangement with content providers. Clearly without content youtube is pointless, but without youtube (or similar) it's near impossible for fledgling content providers to distribute material.

So if Sydney Morning Herald posts content on youtube, so long as it meets the youtube guidelines (in itself a separate controversy) then they revenue share with the platform.

But at the moment, if Facebook does the same thing - permit the SMH to post articles on their FB page, FB does not have to provide a cut on the ad revenue they subsequently take.

I don't see it overall as being a bad move, and it appears to be something governments across the world are leaning towards - e.g. recent media deals along these lines in Germany and France. I'm not a legislation or media expert so I won't offer comment on the actual laws that get passed.


Yes Google and Facebook, as do news media, generate revenue by selling advertisements. That’s the business model. I am totally against the idea that platforms should share revenue with any company that decides to post a comment or publish a story on their platform. The media company has a choice not to do so. It is the media companies that have failed here. They have lost revenue to various sources including eBay, Gumtree carsales etc, as I have mentioned earlier and they have never figured out a way to get it back. Their paywall model simply won’t cut it any more. Because the news media have failed to come to grips with the World Wide Web and their loss of revenue to other sites, should the news media be able to siphon off profits from companies that do understand how the World Wide Web works? No.

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.

Let’s look at the overall digital transmission of information. ISP’s receive revenue based on the plan you have, usually based on how much data used. So the analogy would be they should share their revenue with news media simply because articles are transmitted via the ISP to the consumer. Because the consumer needs a plan that generates revenue for the ISPs, ISP’s should share a portion of that revenue with the News Media based on the number of articles transmitted to the consumer. It’s a ridiculous idea, just as the proposed revenue sharing idea is with Facebook and Google.

These laws are bad, very bad and I cannot stress that enough. They pave the way for charging for links and the freedom that we currently have will be gone. The fundamental principle of the World Wide Web is that linking of sites is free, these laws terminate that principle. Having to pay to host a link is the exact opposite of how the World Wide Web has worked since it’s implementation.

If this model is extrapolated to use elsewhere, there will be two versions of the World Wide Web, one for those that can afford to pay and one for those that can’t and the digital divide will be huge, apartheid like.

The internet is still the wild west that needs to evolve very quickly.

However my concern is FB's monopoly. They decided to use algorithms to shut down health and social services and block Australian content unnecessarily .

That's an issue. At least Google came to the table and were willing to discuss a fair price.

The Internet is about 20-30 years old and continuously evolving. All without an owner or government intervention. It is a remarkable cooperative effort for and by the people and governments need to keep their mits off it.

Facebook were given an ultimatum by the Australian government in the way of a new rule, pay up or you will be breaking the new rule. Facebook took the only course of action they could and shut-down the news sites so they didn't break the new rule. No great surprise.

The benefit of news media publishing on Facebook is all in the news media direction. It gives them exposure and free traffic to their sites.

The Australian Government got it completely wrong in this instance. No great surprise really when it comes to tech, the NLP have form in this area.


That's disappointing that you don't believe we've taken the right stance.

It's not about tech Mike, it's about Aussie made content. We should get paid.

Building Australia's media industry and nurturing our young talent is imperative. This argument isn't about the big players, it's about all our journos, designers, artists and producers that will come through in the next decade.

By bending to FB we set a dangerous precedent.

It's a bit lazy by the big media though, relying on Facebooks platform.


Unfortunately they have a monopoly, and FB is only concerned about their share price.

It's not like it's a monopoly due to government stopping other opposition.

Does it matter how a monopoly develops into one? We can all agree, once an organisation achieves monopoly status, its behaviour can change very significantly, particularly being in an undemocratic manner.

 

[gallagher]

I don't know, there's a lot of neg / anti-media commentary in this thread so far.

Putting aside your personal opinion on media ownership in Australia, I can understand where the government is coming from. Tech firms like Google and Facebook are themselves monopolies and at this time it's not realistic for a media outlet to avoid major online portals / distribution mechanisms to distribute their content.

Google and Facebook generate a tonne of revenue by selling ads on content created and distributed by media companies. Google and FB do nothing except provide a platform. It makes sense that both parties should enter into revenue-sharing agreements, where one group is providing the content and another is providing the platform.

It's a similar situation to Youtube, though youtube has a pre-existing arrangement with content providers. Clearly without content youtube is pointless, but without youtube (or similar) it's near impossible for fledgling content providers to distribute material.

So if Sydney Morning Herald posts content on youtube, so long as it meets the youtube guidelines (in itself a separate controversy) then they revenue share with the platform.

But at the moment, if Facebook does the same thing - permit the SMH to post articles on their FB page, FB does not have to provide a cut on the ad revenue they subsequently take.

I don't see it overall as being a bad move, and it appears to be something governments across the world are leaning towards - e.g. recent media deals along these lines in Germany and France. I'm not a legislation or media expert so I won't offer comment on the actual laws that get passed.


Yes Google and Facebook, as do news media, generate revenue by selling advertisements. That’s the business model. I am totally against the idea that platforms should share revenue with any company that decides to post a comment or publish a story on their platform. The media company has a choice not to do so. It is the media companies that have failed here. They have lost revenue to various sources including eBay, Gumtree carsales etc, as I have mentioned earlier and they have never figured out a way to get it back. Their paywall model simply won’t cut it any more. Because the news media have failed to come to grips with the World Wide Web and their loss of revenue to other sites, should the news media be able to siphon off profits from companies that do understand how the World Wide Web works? No.

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.

Let’s look at the overall digital transmission of information. ISP’s receive revenue based on the plan you have, usually based on how much data used. So the analogy would be they should share their revenue with news media simply because articles are transmitted via the ISP to the consumer. Because the consumer needs a plan that generates revenue for the ISPs, ISP’s should share a portion of that revenue with the News Media based on the number of articles transmitted to the consumer. It’s a ridiculous idea, just as the proposed revenue sharing idea is with Facebook and Google.

These laws are bad, very bad and I cannot stress that enough. They pave the way for charging for links and the freedom that we currently have will be gone. The fundamental principle of the World Wide Web is that linking of sites is free, these laws terminate that principle. Having to pay to host a link is the exact opposite of how the World Wide Web has worked since it’s implementation.

If this model is extrapolated to use elsewhere, there will be two versions of the World Wide Web, one for those that can afford to pay and one for those that can’t and the digital divide will be huge, apartheid like.

The internet is still the wild west that needs to evolve very quickly.

However my concern is FB's monopoly. They decided to use algorithms to shut down health and social services and block Australian content unnecessarily .

That's an issue. At least Google came to the table and were willing to discuss a fair price.

The Internet is about 20-30 years old and continuously evolving. All without an owner or government intervention. It is a remarkable cooperative effort for and by the people and governments need to keep their mits off it.

Facebook were given an ultimatum by the Australian government in the way of a new rule, pay up or you will be breaking the new rule. Facebook took the only course of action they could and shut-down the news sites so they didn't break the new rule. No great surprise.

The benefit of news media publishing on Facebook is all in the news media direction. It gives them exposure and free traffic to their sites.

The Australian Government got it completely wrong in this instance. No great surprise really when it comes to tech, the NLP have form in this area.


That's disappointing that you don't believe we've taken the right stance.

It's not about tech Mike, it's about Aussie made content. We should get paid.

Building Australia's media industry and nurturing our young talent is imperative. This argument isn't about the big players, it's about all our journos, designers, artists and producers that will come through in the next decade.

By bending to FB we set a dangerous precedent.

It's a bit lazy by the big media though, relying on Facebooks platform.

That's like saying it's lazy to advertise your second-hand bike on ebay or gumtree... what choice do you have?

Facebook. For free.

 

[the_third]

@mike 100% on the money here

 

[mike]

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.

Facebook and Google (especially) are very much like radio and television - they are content aggregators for the purpose of selling advertising. FB I'll grant will still have users if it cuts out all media content, people sharing pictures of cats and dogs etc. Google will have substantially less users if it cuts news, because that is a prime driver of its search volume.

The ACCC itself, in its findings, identified that something like 81% of total advertising revenue goes to Google and Facebook, with the remaining 19% amongst all other advertising sellers combined.

You say that the flow of traffic is to the advantage of the news media, and yet you note earlier that traditional news media has lost advertising revenues to a host of sources including ebay etc. It doesn't seem to make sense, if FB and Google generate a positive flow of total traffic TOWARDS media companies, why they would have reduced income streams in the digital world?

Lastly, your final comment, fairly naive don't you think? You might like to believe the internet is highly cooperative and collaborative, yet Facebook has just proven overnight how much control it potentially has by simply flicking a switch and turning off all Australian media access to the platform.

You don't think, if Google and Facebook chose to do so, they could very seriously and rapidly impact the global internet behaviour? They are private US companies, not elected. You may champion lack of government intervention in the internet, but at the very least they are my elected government, not a megacorp run by a skinny white American kid who invented a social linking product in his dormitoty.

Nothing like TV or radio at all. They maybe content aggregators, hosting content from various sources to make it easy for the user to locate in an easy –to-find place but that’s where the analogy ends. The models are completely different. Facebook and Google don’t need news content to generate revenue.

If 81% of total advertising revenue goes to Google and Facebook, so what, that’s not news content related at all. Just because in the past media companies had 100% of advertising revenue doesn’t mean they should now, or any for that matter. That just shows that Facebook and Google are very good at what they do and it’s where people want to be online. It doesn’t mean that won’t change in the future.

Not at all naive at all. That has how the Internet, the World Wide Web has developed and It will continue to do so. Governments need to keep their naïve dirty stinking hands off it.

Facebook and Google are just one aspect of the Internet. Facebook is a platform, Google is a search engine. Yes they are very popular, but no one is forcing anyone to use them. Popularity can change on a whim. A couple of missteps and people’s usage will change. Something different that we haven’t even thought of yet will come along and that will be the next popular app.

 

[mike]

The Australian Government got it completely wrong in this instance. No great surprise really when it comes to tech, the NLP have form in this area.

Just to be clear - Labor supports the proposed legislation, so on this one it's fairly bipartisan, not just the Libs.

I hope everyone realises that the legislation was developed come on the back of the 2019 ACCC review into digital platforms and media. This is the same ACCC people run to when they think a company has wronged them by Australian Consumer Law.

The ACCC found an imbalance in the competitive capacity between majority digital platforms and media entities. Unless folks are suggesting that the ACCC has an agenda? Because it's supposed to be a neutral government authority to protect consumer and business interests. I don't believe Rupert Murdoch holds particular sway over the ACCC.

Complete findings, transparent, here:
https://www.accc.gov.au/publications/digital-platforms-inquiry-final-report

Just means the ACCC got it wrong in this instance, totally misunderstanding the Internet.

 

[Jedi_Tiger]

Funny when Facebook was blocking Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon everyone was cheering when they block Australia they blow up
Facebook is a waste of time anyway

 

[mike]

Funny when Facebook was blocking Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon everyone was cheering when they block Australia they blow up
Facebook is a waste of time anyway

Exactly, no one is being forced to use Facebook. It’s pretty simple, if you don’t like the platform and what they do or how they generate revenue simply stop using it and delete your account.

 

[Papacito]

I don't know, there's a lot of neg / anti-media commentary in this thread so far.

Putting aside your personal opinion on media ownership in Australia, I can understand where the government is coming from. Tech firms like Google and Facebook are themselves monopolies and at this time it's not realistic for a media outlet to avoid major online portals / distribution mechanisms to distribute their content.

Google and Facebook generate a tonne of revenue by selling ads on content created and distributed by media companies. Google and FB do nothing except provide a platform. It makes sense that both parties should enter into revenue-sharing agreements, where one group is providing the content and another is providing the platform.

It's a similar situation to Youtube, though youtube has a pre-existing arrangement with content providers. Clearly without content youtube is pointless, but without youtube (or similar) it's near impossible for fledgling content providers to distribute material.

So if Sydney Morning Herald posts content on youtube, so long as it meets the youtube guidelines (in itself a separate controversy) then they revenue share with the platform.

But at the moment, if Facebook does the same thing - permit the SMH to post articles on their FB page, FB does not have to provide a cut on the ad revenue they subsequently take.

I don't see it overall as being a bad move, and it appears to be something governments across the world are leaning towards - e.g. recent media deals along these lines in Germany and France. I'm not a legislation or media expert so I won't offer comment on the actual laws that get passed.


Yes Google and Facebook, as do news media, generate revenue by selling advertisements. That’s the business model. I am totally against the idea that platforms should share revenue with any company that decides to post a comment or publish a story on their platform. The media company has a choice not to do so. It is the media companies that have failed here. They have lost revenue to various sources including eBay, Gumtree carsales etc, as I have mentioned earlier and they have never figured out a way to get it back. Their paywall model simply won’t cut it any more. Because the news media have failed to come to grips with the World Wide Web and their loss of revenue to other sites, should the news media be able to siphon off profits from companies that do understand how the World Wide Web works? No.

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.

Let’s look at the overall digital transmission of information. ISP’s receive revenue based on the plan you have, usually based on how much data used. So the analogy would be they should share their revenue with news media simply because articles are transmitted via the ISP to the consumer. Because the consumer needs a plan that generates revenue for the ISPs, ISP’s should share a portion of that revenue with the News Media based on the number of articles transmitted to the consumer. It’s a ridiculous idea, just as the proposed revenue sharing idea is with Facebook and Google.

These laws are bad, very bad and I cannot stress that enough. They pave the way for charging for links and the freedom that we currently have will be gone. The fundamental principle of the World Wide Web is that linking of sites is free, these laws terminate that principle. Having to pay to host a link is the exact opposite of how the World Wide Web has worked since it’s implementation.

If this model is extrapolated to use elsewhere, there will be two versions of the World Wide Web, one for those that can afford to pay and one for those that can’t and the digital divide will be huge, apartheid like.

The internet is still the wild west that needs to evolve very quickly.

However my concern is FB's monopoly. They decided to use algorithms to shut down health and social services and block Australian content unnecessarily .

That's an issue. At least Google came to the table and were willing to discuss a fair price.

The Internet is about 20-30 years old and continuously evolving. All without an owner or government intervention. It is a remarkable cooperative effort for and by the people and governments need to keep their mits off it.

Facebook were given an ultimatum by the Australian government in the way of a new rule, pay up or you will be breaking the new rule. Facebook took the only course of action they could and shut-down the news sites so they didn't break the new rule. No great surprise.

The benefit of news media publishing on Facebook is all in the news media direction. It gives them exposure and free traffic to their sites.

The Australian Government got it completely wrong in this instance. No great surprise really when it comes to tech, the NLP have form in this area.


That's disappointing that you don't believe we've taken the right stance.

It's not about tech Mike, it's about Aussie made content. We should get paid.

Building Australia's media industry and nurturing our young talent is imperative. This argument isn't about the big players, it's about all our journos, designers, artists and producers that will come through in the next decade.

By bending to FB we set a dangerous precedent.

By implementing these laws we have set a dangerous precedent. It is absolutely about tech and Internet freedom and that's what the government doesn't understand.

The nurturing Aussie content is a bogus argument.

Facebook is not publishing these articles the news media are, they are the ones that click on the publish button, not Facebook. When they click the publish button the news media corporations get the benefit of Facebook exposure and then Facebook traffic being sent back to their site, not an insignificant amount either. It's double dipping by the news media corporations to then expect Facebook to actually have to pay the news media corporations for Facebook exposure and for Facebook sending traffic to the their news media sites.

Similar for google. You do a search and get a result with a link to a news site and the news media corporations expect Google to pay for sending traffic to their news media site. Ridiculous.


We're not arguing about internet freedom or tech,.. are we, seems like you are?

I'm arguing about content, who creates it and who gets paid.

We should get paid, not FB or Google.

Thing is, the media companies have been getting paid. Lots.

Around 20% of their ad revenue is generated on the back of free traffic from Facebook.

They got greedy and leaned on the Government for a policy handout but Facebook called their bluff.

 

[Tiger5150]

I don't know, there's a lot of neg / anti-media commentary in this thread so far.

Putting aside your personal opinion on media ownership in Australia, I can understand where the government is coming from. Tech firms like Google and Facebook are themselves monopolies and at this time it's not realistic for a media outlet to avoid major online portals / distribution mechanisms to distribute their content.

Google and Facebook generate a tonne of revenue by selling ads on content created and distributed by media companies. Google and FB do nothing except provide a platform. It makes sense that both parties should enter into revenue-sharing agreements, where one group is providing the content and another is providing the platform.

It's a similar situation to Youtube, though youtube has a pre-existing arrangement with content providers. Clearly without content youtube is pointless, but without youtube (or similar) it's near impossible for fledgling content providers to distribute material.

So if Sydney Morning Herald posts content on youtube, so long as it meets the youtube guidelines (in itself a separate controversy) then they revenue share with the platform.

But at the moment, if Facebook does the same thing - permit the SMH to post articles on their FB page, FB does not have to provide a cut on the ad revenue they subsequently take.

I don't see it overall as being a bad move, and it appears to be something governments across the world are leaning towards - e.g. recent media deals along these lines in Germany and France. I'm not a legislation or media expert so I won't offer comment on the actual laws that get passed.


Yes Google and Facebook, as do news media, generate revenue by selling advertisements. That’s the business model. I am totally against the idea that platforms should share revenue with any company that decides to post a comment or publish a story on their platform. The media company has a choice not to do so. It is the media companies that have failed here. They have lost revenue to various sources including eBay, Gumtree carsales etc, as I have mentioned earlier and they have never figured out a way to get it back. Their paywall model simply won’t cut it any more. Because the news media have failed to come to grips with the World Wide Web and their loss of revenue to other sites, should the news media be able to siphon off profits from companies that do understand how the World Wide Web works? No.

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.

Let’s look at the overall digital transmission of information. ISP’s receive revenue based on the plan you have, usually based on how much data used. So the analogy would be they should share their revenue with news media simply because articles are transmitted via the ISP to the consumer. Because the consumer needs a plan that generates revenue for the ISPs, ISP’s should share a portion of that revenue with the News Media based on the number of articles transmitted to the consumer. It’s a ridiculous idea, just as the proposed revenue sharing idea is with Facebook and Google.

These laws are bad, very bad and I cannot stress that enough. They pave the way for charging for links and the freedom that we currently have will be gone. The fundamental principle of the World Wide Web is that linking of sites is free, these laws terminate that principle. Having to pay to host a link is the exact opposite of how the World Wide Web has worked since it’s implementation.

If this model is extrapolated to use elsewhere, there will be two versions of the World Wide Web, one for those that can afford to pay and one for those that can’t and the digital divide will be huge, apartheid like.

The internet is still the wild west that needs to evolve very quickly.

However my concern is FB's monopoly. They decided to use algorithms to shut down health and social services and block Australian content unnecessarily .

That's an issue. At least Google came to the table and were willing to discuss a fair price.

The Internet is about 20-30 years old and continuously evolving. All without an owner or government intervention. It is a remarkable cooperative effort for and by the people and governments need to keep their mits off it.

Facebook were given an ultimatum by the Australian government in the way of a new rule, pay up or you will be breaking the new rule. Facebook took the only course of action they could and shut-down the news sites so they didn't break the new rule. No great surprise.

The benefit of news media publishing on Facebook is all in the news media direction. It gives them exposure and free traffic to their sites.

The Australian Government got it completely wrong in this instance. No great surprise really when it comes to tech, the NLP have form in this area.


That's disappointing that you don't believe we've taken the right stance.

It's not about tech Mike, it's about Aussie made content. We should get paid.

Building Australia's media industry and nurturing our young talent is imperative. This argument isn't about the big players, it's about all our journos, designers, artists and producers that will come through in the next decade.

By bending to FB we set a dangerous precedent.

By implementing these laws we have set a dangerous precedent. It is absolutely about tech and Internet freedom and that's what the government doesn't understand.

Anyone lionising Google and FB in the name of internet freedom doesnt understand either Google/FB or Freedom.

 

[mike]

I don't know, there's a lot of neg / anti-media commentary in this thread so far.

Putting aside your personal opinion on media ownership in Australia, I can understand where the government is coming from. Tech firms like Google and Facebook are themselves monopolies and at this time it's not realistic for a media outlet to avoid major online portals / distribution mechanisms to distribute their content.

Google and Facebook generate a tonne of revenue by selling ads on content created and distributed by media companies. Google and FB do nothing except provide a platform. It makes sense that both parties should enter into revenue-sharing agreements, where one group is providing the content and another is providing the platform.

It's a similar situation to Youtube, though youtube has a pre-existing arrangement with content providers. Clearly without content youtube is pointless, but without youtube (or similar) it's near impossible for fledgling content providers to distribute material.

So if Sydney Morning Herald posts content on youtube, so long as it meets the youtube guidelines (in itself a separate controversy) then they revenue share with the platform.

But at the moment, if Facebook does the same thing - permit the SMH to post articles on their FB page, FB does not have to provide a cut on the ad revenue they subsequently take.

I don't see it overall as being a bad move, and it appears to be something governments across the world are leaning towards - e.g. recent media deals along these lines in Germany and France. I'm not a legislation or media expert so I won't offer comment on the actual laws that get passed.


Yes Google and Facebook, as do news media, generate revenue by selling advertisements. That’s the business model. I am totally against the idea that platforms should share revenue with any company that decides to post a comment or publish a story on their platform. The media company has a choice not to do so. It is the media companies that have failed here. They have lost revenue to various sources including eBay, Gumtree carsales etc, as I have mentioned earlier and they have never figured out a way to get it back. Their paywall model simply won’t cut it any more. Because the news media have failed to come to grips with the World Wide Web and their loss of revenue to other sites, should the news media be able to siphon off profits from companies that do understand how the World Wide Web works? No.

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.

Let’s look at the overall digital transmission of information. ISP’s receive revenue based on the plan you have, usually based on how much data used. So the analogy would be they should share their revenue with news media simply because articles are transmitted via the ISP to the consumer. Because the consumer needs a plan that generates revenue for the ISPs, ISP’s should share a portion of that revenue with the News Media based on the number of articles transmitted to the consumer. It’s a ridiculous idea, just as the proposed revenue sharing idea is with Facebook and Google.

These laws are bad, very bad and I cannot stress that enough. They pave the way for charging for links and the freedom that we currently have will be gone. The fundamental principle of the World Wide Web is that linking of sites is free, these laws terminate that principle. Having to pay to host a link is the exact opposite of how the World Wide Web has worked since it’s implementation.

If this model is extrapolated to use elsewhere, there will be two versions of the World Wide Web, one for those that can afford to pay and one for those that can’t and the digital divide will be huge, apartheid like.

The internet is still the wild west that needs to evolve very quickly.

However my concern is FB's monopoly. They decided to use algorithms to shut down health and social services and block Australian content unnecessarily .

That's an issue. At least Google came to the table and were willing to discuss a fair price.

The Internet is about 20-30 years old and continuously evolving. All without an owner or government intervention. It is a remarkable cooperative effort for and by the people and governments need to keep their mits off it.

Facebook were given an ultimatum by the Australian government in the way of a new rule, pay up or you will be breaking the new rule. Facebook took the only course of action they could and shut-down the news sites so they didn't break the new rule. No great surprise.

The benefit of news media publishing on Facebook is all in the news media direction. It gives them exposure and free traffic to their sites.

The Australian Government got it completely wrong in this instance. No great surprise really when it comes to tech, the NLP have form in this area.


That's disappointing that you don't believe we've taken the right stance.

It's not about tech Mike, it's about Aussie made content. We should get paid.

Building Australia's media industry and nurturing our young talent is imperative. This argument isn't about the big players, it's about all our journos, designers, artists and producers that will come through in the next decade.

By bending to FB we set a dangerous precedent.

By implementing these laws we have set a dangerous precedent. It is absolutely about tech and Internet freedom and that's what the government doesn't understand.

Anyone lionising Google and FB in the name of internet freedom doesnt understand either Google/FB or Freedom.

I understand freedom very well thank you very much. Google and Facebook don’t need the news media pure and simple.

Changing the way the Internet works, in particular the World Wide Web by but putting a charge, Tarif or tax (whatever you want to call it) on links is not a way to solve any problems you may have with any organisation.

 

[TillLindemann]

Funny when Facebook was blocking Trump, who is a convicted Rapist and Felon everyone was cheering when they block Australia they blow up
Facebook is a waste of time anyway

I've been opposing them on both. Regardless of whether you are left or right, regardless of what you think of Murdoch, these giant tech monoplolies are a danger to democracy and are definitely themselves the biggest threat to a free and open internet.

 

[Tiger5150]

I don't know, there's a lot of neg / anti-media commentary in this thread so far.

Putting aside your personal opinion on media ownership in Australia, I can understand where the government is coming from. Tech firms like Google and Facebook are themselves monopolies and at this time it's not realistic for a media outlet to avoid major online portals / distribution mechanisms to distribute their content.

Google and Facebook generate a tonne of revenue by selling ads on content created and distributed by media companies. Google and FB do nothing except provide a platform. It makes sense that both parties should enter into revenue-sharing agreements, where one group is providing the content and another is providing the platform.

It's a similar situation to Youtube, though youtube has a pre-existing arrangement with content providers. Clearly without content youtube is pointless, but without youtube (or similar) it's near impossible for fledgling content providers to distribute material.

So if Sydney Morning Herald posts content on youtube, so long as it meets the youtube guidelines (in itself a separate controversy) then they revenue share with the platform.

But at the moment, if Facebook does the same thing - permit the SMH to post articles on their FB page, FB does not have to provide a cut on the ad revenue they subsequently take.

I don't see it overall as being a bad move, and it appears to be something governments across the world are leaning towards - e.g. recent media deals along these lines in Germany and France. I'm not a legislation or media expert so I won't offer comment on the actual laws that get passed.


Yes Google and Facebook, as do news media, generate revenue by selling advertisements. That’s the business model. I am totally against the idea that platforms should share revenue with any company that decides to post a comment or publish a story on their platform. The media company has a choice not to do so. It is the media companies that have failed here. They have lost revenue to various sources including eBay, Gumtree carsales etc, as I have mentioned earlier and they have never figured out a way to get it back. Their paywall model simply won’t cut it any more. Because the news media have failed to come to grips with the World Wide Web and their loss of revenue to other sites, should the news media be able to siphon off profits from companies that do understand how the World Wide Web works? No.

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.

Let’s look at the overall digital transmission of information. ISP’s receive revenue based on the plan you have, usually based on how much data used. So the analogy would be they should share their revenue with news media simply because articles are transmitted via the ISP to the consumer. Because the consumer needs a plan that generates revenue for the ISPs, ISP’s should share a portion of that revenue with the News Media based on the number of articles transmitted to the consumer. It’s a ridiculous idea, just as the proposed revenue sharing idea is with Facebook and Google.

These laws are bad, very bad and I cannot stress that enough. They pave the way for charging for links and the freedom that we currently have will be gone. The fundamental principle of the World Wide Web is that linking of sites is free, these laws terminate that principle. Having to pay to host a link is the exact opposite of how the World Wide Web has worked since it’s implementation.

If this model is extrapolated to use elsewhere, there will be two versions of the World Wide Web, one for those that can afford to pay and one for those that can’t and the digital divide will be huge, apartheid like.

The internet is still the wild west that needs to evolve very quickly.

However my concern is FB's monopoly. They decided to use algorithms to shut down health and social services and block Australian content unnecessarily .

That's an issue. At least Google came to the table and were willing to discuss a fair price.

The Internet is about 20-30 years old and continuously evolving. All without an owner or government intervention. It is a remarkable cooperative effort for and by the people and governments need to keep their mits off it.

Facebook were given an ultimatum by the Australian government in the way of a new rule, pay up or you will be breaking the new rule. Facebook took the only course of action they could and shut-down the news sites so they didn't break the new rule. No great surprise.

The benefit of news media publishing on Facebook is all in the news media direction. It gives them exposure and free traffic to their sites.

The Australian Government got it completely wrong in this instance. No great surprise really when it comes to tech, the NLP have form in this area.


That's disappointing that you don't believe we've taken the right stance.

It's not about tech Mike, it's about Aussie made content. We should get paid.

Building Australia's media industry and nurturing our young talent is imperative. This argument isn't about the big players, it's about all our journos, designers, artists and producers that will come through in the next decade.

By bending to FB we set a dangerous precedent.

By implementing these laws we have set a dangerous precedent. It is absolutely about tech and Internet freedom and that's what the government doesn't understand.

Anyone lionising Google and FB in the name of internet freedom doesnt understand either Google/FB or Freedom.

I understand freedom very well thank you very much. Google and Facebook don’t need the news media pure and simple.

Changing the way the Internet works, in particular the World Wide Web by but putting a charge, Tarif or tax (whatever you want to call it) on links is not a way to solve any problems you may have with any organisation.

I dont really have a dog in this fight. Im not backing the Govt at all, mainly because I havent really looked into the details sufficiently, but I do know sufficiently that there is no transparency, truth or freedom of internet where Google or FB are concerned.

IMO its a totally separate issue to the one you are arguing in this thread and Ill leave you to it, but two things can be true at once. The proposed Govt legislation can be bad (I dont know if they are or arent) and Google/FB can be corrupt, opaque enemies of internet freedom at the same time,

 

[TillLindemann]

I don't know, there's a lot of neg / anti-media commentary in this thread so far.

Putting aside your personal opinion on media ownership in Australia, I can understand where the government is coming from. Tech firms like Google and Facebook are themselves monopolies and at this time it's not realistic for a media outlet to avoid major online portals / distribution mechanisms to distribute their content.

Google and Facebook generate a tonne of revenue by selling ads on content created and distributed by media companies. Google and FB do nothing except provide a platform. It makes sense that both parties should enter into revenue-sharing agreements, where one group is providing the content and another is providing the platform.

It's a similar situation to Youtube, though youtube has a pre-existing arrangement with content providers. Clearly without content youtube is pointless, but without youtube (or similar) it's near impossible for fledgling content providers to distribute material.

So if Sydney Morning Herald posts content on youtube, so long as it meets the youtube guidelines (in itself a separate controversy) then they revenue share with the platform.

But at the moment, if Facebook does the same thing - permit the SMH to post articles on their FB page, FB does not have to provide a cut on the ad revenue they subsequently take.

I don't see it overall as being a bad move, and it appears to be something governments across the world are leaning towards - e.g. recent media deals along these lines in Germany and France. I'm not a legislation or media expert so I won't offer comment on the actual laws that get passed.


Yes Google and Facebook, as do news media, generate revenue by selling advertisements. That’s the business model. I am totally against the idea that platforms should share revenue with any company that decides to post a comment or publish a story on their platform. The media company has a choice not to do so. It is the media companies that have failed here. They have lost revenue to various sources including eBay, Gumtree carsales etc, as I have mentioned earlier and they have never figured out a way to get it back. Their paywall model simply won’t cut it any more. Because the news media have failed to come to grips with the World Wide Web and their loss of revenue to other sites, should the news media be able to siphon off profits from companies that do understand how the World Wide Web works? No.

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.

Let’s look at the overall digital transmission of information. ISP’s receive revenue based on the plan you have, usually based on how much data used. So the analogy would be they should share their revenue with news media simply because articles are transmitted via the ISP to the consumer. Because the consumer needs a plan that generates revenue for the ISPs, ISP’s should share a portion of that revenue with the News Media based on the number of articles transmitted to the consumer. It’s a ridiculous idea, just as the proposed revenue sharing idea is with Facebook and Google.

These laws are bad, very bad and I cannot stress that enough. They pave the way for charging for links and the freedom that we currently have will be gone. The fundamental principle of the World Wide Web is that linking of sites is free, these laws terminate that principle. Having to pay to host a link is the exact opposite of how the World Wide Web has worked since it’s implementation.

If this model is extrapolated to use elsewhere, there will be two versions of the World Wide Web, one for those that can afford to pay and one for those that can’t and the digital divide will be huge, apartheid like.

The internet is still the wild west that needs to evolve very quickly.

However my concern is FB's monopoly. They decided to use algorithms to shut down health and social services and block Australian content unnecessarily .

That's an issue. At least Google came to the table and were willing to discuss a fair price.

The Internet is about 20-30 years old and continuously evolving. All without an owner or government intervention. It is a remarkable cooperative effort for and by the people and governments need to keep their mits off it.

Facebook were given an ultimatum by the Australian government in the way of a new rule, pay up or you will be breaking the new rule. Facebook took the only course of action they could and shut-down the news sites so they didn't break the new rule. No great surprise.

The benefit of news media publishing on Facebook is all in the news media direction. It gives them exposure and free traffic to their sites.

The Australian Government got it completely wrong in this instance. No great surprise really when it comes to tech, the NLP have form in this area.


That's disappointing that you don't believe we've taken the right stance.

It's not about tech Mike, it's about Aussie made content. We should get paid.

Building Australia's media industry and nurturing our young talent is imperative. This argument isn't about the big players, it's about all our journos, designers, artists and producers that will come through in the next decade.

By bending to FB we set a dangerous precedent.

It's a bit lazy by the big media though, relying on Facebooks platform.


Unfortunately they have a monopoly, and FB is only concerned about their share price.

It's not like it's a monopoly due to government stopping other opposition.

Maybe in the case of facebook. But google has been backed by the US government/military since the beginning.

 

[gallagher]

There's much less crap on Facebook now. More of my friends posts and pages I follow.

 

[swag_tiger]

There's much less crap on Facebook now. More of my friends posts and pages I follow.

No articles on Rebels Wilson's wait loss journey as well.

 

[hobbo1]

There's much less crap on Facebook now. More of my friends posts and pages I follow.

No articles on Rebels Wilson's wait loss journey as well.

Has Brittany been freed yet ?

 

[happy_tiger]

Funny ...when it affects Ch 7 etc ...its a huge thing in the news

What did anyone do before facebook lol ........

 

[Nelson]

I find it strange that there is much decrying of the power of these large tech companies to influence and shape society while at the same time the media, with their obvious skin in the game, are splashing one-sided hit jobs on these same tech companies all over their sites and papers in an attempt to...influence and shape society. Not that anyone could possibly find their way to the sites without a link from Facebook...
I don't like the legislation. It's unnecessarily invasive in matters that should be between private corporations and it treads on corporate secrets in a way it should not by requiring disclosure of algorithm amendments and the like. If the problem is a deficiency in IP/copyright laws that leads to inadequate protection of interests that should be protected then they should fix that through amendments to IP/copyright laws, not directly intervene in this way. I'm sure it is a hard problem but that doesn't mean they should get a pass on a crap solution, which I think this is.

 

[Tiger5150]

I find it strange that there is much decrying of the power of these large tech companies to influence and shape society while at the same time the media, with their obvious skin in the game, are splashing one-sided hit jobs on these same tech companies all over their sites and papers in an attempt to...influence and shape society. Not that anyone could possibly find their way to the sites without a link from Facebook...

Its a good point. The power and danger of "big tech" would be reduced and less of a risk if the traditional/legacy media did their job of providing reliable, factual impartial news and information however old media long ago unhitched itself from this role, ironically due to the need to compete with new media in a clickbait fueled race for "clicks". As a result, because old media can not be relied on for factual information, new media is now necessary for access to unfettered open information and it is clear that they are not going to allow this.

I realise this is pretty much totally unrelated to the Govt proposed media laws, but the problem is some sort of cyclic multi headed monster feeding on itself (insert better metaphor here).