The proposed News Media Laws

[TillLindemann]

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.

Of course traditional media has skin in the game, but up against the power of trillion dollar tech giants (trillion with a t) they are nothing. It is so much easier to regulate a newspaper or tv channel with domestic legislation, compared to these global monopolies. And the bias in an editorial is easy to spot compared to opaque yet far-reaching tweaking to algorithms that determine the content you see.

And when all else fails these tech giants just buy up traditional media as well (e.g the Washington Post).

These giants have more financial power than most nation states, they have tremendous power to shape narratives, and this is why they are so hard to regulate.

 

[Papacito]

Based on the government's policy rationale, this forum should be paying Buzz Rothfield each and every time someone posts a link to one of his laughable fables.

 

[hobbo1]

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

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

Are you a blogger?

 

[balmain boy]

The news media, via a Federal Government Law, want to charge for providing a link to a news site and sending traffic to the news site that benefits the news site. Having to pay for providing a link to a site that only benefits the site linked to, ridiculous. The Federal Government is off their rocker. Basically the precedent would be set that any link to any site would be changeable from the site being visited. Their goes the free and open Internet as we know it today.

This will have ramifications beyond Google and Facebook. As an ultimate expression, not yet established, is that if a forum member posts a link to a news site and its article, or posts the news article itself then the news site can charge the forum for that link or the item. Nothing in the law will specify how much the news media site can charge.

I hope Facebook and Google fight this with everything they have.

As of this morning Thursday 18/02/2021 Facebook is removing all news content from the Australian Facebook platform. Good.

Make no mistake, this putrid proposed law is solely about making Rupert and co richer. Nothing else.

Facebook, Google etc don't post the entire article. They post an excerpt. Maybe the first paragrpah at most, and then the full article is available by clicking through to their site, where they get the ad revenue, and the user reads the article. And potentially while on that website they click on another article and get shown more ads. All revenue for the media company.

When you're browsing your feed on Facebook there are ads already on the page, and these are largely influenced by your behaviour and what you interact with etc. If someone shares a news article and it appears in your feed, the ads don't suddenly automatically change to represent the ads. And if you scroll straight past the article why should the media company get paid for an article you didn't read?

Yes ultimately big tech does require increased regulation. But this is most certainly not he way to do it.

 

[mike]

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

Absolutely, it’s a much better experience as of yesterday

 

[jadtiger]

Based on the government's policy rationale, this forum should be paying Buzz Rothfield each and every time someone posts a link to one of his laughable fables.

Would be cheaper than paying his daily liquor bill

 

[mike]

The news media, via a Federal Government Law, want to charge for providing a link to a news site and sending traffic to the news site that benefits the news site. Having to pay for providing a link to a site that only benefits the site linked to, ridiculous. The Federal Government is off their rocker. Basically the precedent would be set that any link to any site would be changeable from the site being visited. Their goes the free and open Internet as we know it today.

This will have ramifications beyond Google and Facebook. As an ultimate expression, not yet established, is that if a forum member posts a link to a news site and its article, or posts the news article itself then the news site can charge the forum for that link or the item. Nothing in the law will specify how much the news media site can charge.

I hope Facebook and Google fight this with everything they have.

As of this morning Thursday 18/02/2021 Facebook is removing all news content from the Australian Facebook platform. Good.

Make no mistake, this putrid proposed law is solely about making Rupert and co richer. Nothing else.

Facebook, Google etc don't post the entire article. They post an excerpt. Maybe the first paragrpah at most, and then the full article is available by clicking through to their site, where they get the ad revenue, and the user reads the article. And potentially while on that website they click on another article and get shown more ads. All revenue for the media company.

When you're browsing your feed on Facebook there are ads already on the page, and these are largely influenced by your behaviour and what you interact with etc. If someone shares a news article and it appears in your feed, the ads don't suddenly automatically change to represent the ads. And if you scroll straight past the article why should the media company get paid for an article you didn't read?

Yes ultimately big tech does require increased regulation. But this is most certainly not he way to do it.

100% You don’t change the way the World Wide Web has worked since 1990 to do it either. Charging or taxing for links is a very dangerous slippery slop to be headed down. I will oppose that vehemently.

If people have a beef with Google and Facebook then I suggest pressure the government to adjust the tax laws so that they can’t offset their revenue by overseas holdings. That would catch a few more as well like Apple, Microsoft and even the Murdoch media empire.

Then the Government can distribute any increase in tax how they like, maybe be even reducing personal income tax further. But you know they won’t go down that path. The big boys always pay the least share of tax.

 

[upthetigers]

I laughed when I first heard about the proposed laws. News websites have completely lost touch with reality. They must be hating all the free traffic Google and Facebook is sending them.

 

[jirskyr]

It is so much easier to regulate a newspaper or tv channel with domestic legislation, compared to these global monopolies.

That's the part I don't know if folks really understand. The legislation appears to be less about "copyright" protection and more about managing monopolies.

The whole point of the ACCC finding is that Google and Facebook have developed themselves into a position where they monopolise things like ad revenue, media distribution etc.

I see all these comments saying "too bad, that's business", but that's such a naive position to take regarding emerging / entrenched monopolies.

There seems to be an entrenched dislike or mistrust of all / some media, which I can understand, but I can't marry that up with a complete disregard for the power that Facebook and Google wield. In other words, I don't understand how someone can dislike Rupert Murdoch whilst simultaneously be indifferent towards Mark Zuckerberg. Rupert is a mosquito to Zuckerberg these days and News Ltd is insignificant compared to the reach of Google.

 

[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?

Facebook. For free.

Oh the irony!

 

[mike]

It is so much easier to regulate a newspaper or tv channel with domestic legislation, compared to these global monopolies.

That's the part I don't know if folks really understand. The legislation appears to be less about "copyright" protection and more about managing monopolies.

The whole point of the ACCC finding is that Google and Facebook have developed themselves into a position where they monopolise things like ad revenue, media distribution etc.

I see all these comments saying "too bad, that's business", but that's such a naive position to take regarding emerging / entrenched monopolies.

Tax their revenue then, a bit like GST but more like the NSW gaming machine tax. Do that for every organisation that has multi billion dollar revenue, not just ones you don’t like.

 

[Tiger5150]

It is so much easier to regulate a newspaper or tv channel with domestic legislation, compared to these global monopolies.

That's the part I don't know if folks really understand. The legislation appears to be less about "copyright" protection and more about managing monopolies.

The whole point of the ACCC finding is that Google and Facebook have developed themselves into a position where they monopolise things like ad revenue, media distribution etc.

I see all these comments saying "too bad, that's business", but that's such a naive position to take regarding emerging / entrenched monopolies.

Tax their revenue then, a bit like GST but more like the NSW gaming machine tax. Do that for every organisation that has multi billion dollar revenue, not just ones you don’t like.

What part of their revenue, *earned within Australia*, is not taxed? If my company places an ad/adwords/targetted marketing on Google or Facebook, I pay GST.

 

[jirskyr]

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.

You continue to make reference to how the internet used to be. It's not the WWW any more, it isn't a collection of university computers talking to each other about chess strategies and playboy centrefolds.

The government is compelled to regulate the interface between the internet and our daily lives, same as they do any sovereign boundary like airspace or the ocean. In this particular legislation, the Australian Govt is attempting to regulate BigTech media operations in Australia, not overseas, not in "the ether" but where they make landfall in Australia.

Fundamentally, if Google don't need news content as part of their revenue, you have to ask why Google has now set aside over $1B across 3 years to sure-up deals with individual media companies. There must be something to it.

And even if I disregard any other moral / cultural / social / economic / democratic line of argument, at the base level Google and FB take such enormous revenues that I don't understand anyone defending them on principle. They are megacorporations, they can afford to whittle away a little income in response to government regulation.

Anyway you are clearly entrenched in your view and it will transpire that the government is going to pass the legislation anyway.

 

[mike]

It is so much easier to regulate a newspaper or tv channel with domestic legislation, compared to these global monopolies.

That's the part I don't know if folks really understand. The legislation appears to be less about "copyright" protection and more about managing monopolies.

The whole point of the ACCC finding is that Google and Facebook have developed themselves into a position where they monopolise things like ad revenue, media distribution etc.

I see all these comments saying "too bad, that's business", but that's such a naive position to take regarding emerging / entrenched monopolies.

Tax their revenue then, a bit like GST but more like the NSW gaming machine tax. Do that for every organisation that has multi billion dollar revenue, not just ones you don’t like.


What part of their revenue, *earned within Australia*, is not taxed? If my company places an ad/adwords/targetted marketing on Google or Facebook, I pay GST.

Yes but your company can offset that GST tax by the GST on purchases. You only actually pay the difference. That’s why I said more like the NSW gaming machine tax. It’s based on pure revenue and there are no offsets. Straight up tax on revenue received by the company.

 

[jirskyr]

It is so much easier to regulate a newspaper or tv channel with domestic legislation, compared to these global monopolies.

That's the part I don't know if folks really understand. The legislation appears to be less about "copyright" protection and more about managing monopolies.

The whole point of the ACCC finding is that Google and Facebook have developed themselves into a position where they monopolise things like ad revenue, media distribution etc.

I see all these comments saying "too bad, that's business", but that's such a naive position to take regarding emerging / entrenched monopolies.

Tax their revenue then, a bit like GST but more like the NSW gaming machine tax. Do that for every organisation that has multi billion dollar revenue, not just ones you don’t like.

Mate have you not been paying attention the past 3-4 decades of the level to which companies will go to avoid their tax obligations? There's already been a commission on it, and if it was so straightforward, the government would already be taxing the ring out of these companies.

 

[Tiger5150]

It is so much easier to regulate a newspaper or tv channel with domestic legislation, compared to these global monopolies.

That's the part I don't know if folks really understand. The legislation appears to be less about "copyright" protection and more about managing monopolies.

The whole point of the ACCC finding is that Google and Facebook have developed themselves into a position where they monopolise things like ad revenue, media distribution etc.

I see all these comments saying "too bad, that's business", but that's such a naive position to take regarding emerging / entrenched monopolies.

Tax their revenue then, a bit like GST but more like the NSW gaming machine tax. Do that for every organisation that has multi billion dollar revenue, not just ones you don’t like.


What part of their revenue, *earned within Australia*, is not taxed? If my company places an ad/adwords/targetted marketing on Google or Facebook, I pay GST.

Yes but your company can offset that GST tax by the GST on purchases. You only actually pay the difference. That’s why I said more like the NSW gaming machine tax. It’s based on pure revenue and there are no offsets. Straight up tax on revenue received by the company.

Mike with respect, thats not how corporate tax works. No company in Australia pays tax on revenue. All revenue is offset by cost of goods sold, in effect company tax is tax on gross profit. Effectively the same as GST.

Google & Facebook, like any other company trading within Australia, pay GST on ***all*** of their sales which is ***ONLY*** offset by purchases of goods and services ***purchased in Australia*** so its a pretty good mechanism to get tax out (or at least money returned to the Aus economy) of a massive international company like FB/Google because they obviously have all of their international companies set up at a gross loss.

 

[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.

Oh the irony!

So if i put my bike for sale on Facebook I can expect them to pay me for providing content?

 

[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.

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.

Oh the irony!

So if i put my bike for sale on Facebook I can expect them to pay me for providing content?

This is what people dont understand about FB. **YOU** ARE THE CONTENT.

 

[mike]

It is so much easier to regulate a newspaper or tv channel with domestic legislation, compared to these global monopolies.

That's the part I don't know if folks really understand. The legislation appears to be less about "copyright" protection and more about managing monopolies.

The whole point of the ACCC finding is that Google and Facebook have developed themselves into a position where they monopolise things like ad revenue, media distribution etc.

I see all these comments saying "too bad, that's business", but that's such a naive position to take regarding emerging / entrenched monopolies.

Tax their revenue then, a bit like GST but more like the NSW gaming machine tax. Do that for every organisation that has multi billion dollar revenue, not just ones you don’t like.


What part of their revenue, *earned within Australia*, is not taxed? If my company places an ad/adwords/targetted marketing on Google or Facebook, I pay GST.

Yes but your company can offset that GST tax by the GST on purchases. You only actually pay the difference. That’s why I said more like the NSW gaming machine tax. It’s based on pure revenue and there are no offsets. Straight up tax on revenue received by the company.


Mike with respect, thats not how corporate tax works. No company in Australia pays tax on revenue. All revenue is offset by cost of goods sold, in effect company tax is tax on gross profit. Effectively the same as GST.

Google & Facebook, like any other company trading within Australia, pay GST on ***all*** of their sales which is ***ONLY*** offset by purchases of goods and services ***purchased in Australia*** so its a pretty good mechanism to get tax out (or at least money returned to the Aus economy) of a massive international company like FB/Google because they obviously have all of their international companies set up at a gross loss.

I know that’s not how it works now but neither is taxing hyperlinks. I know many companies set themselves up for gross loss. But instead of changing the way the Internet works how about we fix the real tax issue instead.

Edit: But clubs and pubs in NSW pay tax now on gaming machine revenue, not profit or loss.

 

[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.

Oh the irony!

So if i put my bike for sale on Facebook I can expect them to pay me for providing content?


This is what people dont understand about FB. **YOU** ARE THE CONTENT.

Absolutely. And like these media companies if I don't like it then I won't put my content on there. I don't demand them to pay me.