People on the left rage about MuRdOcH!1!1 in a similar manner to the way the alt-right rages on about Soros. Like sure, they are one player with an ulterior motive, but they aren't doing it all on their own.

If you haven't done so, I'd encourage people to read the Dave Eggers' book 'The Circle'. It's the story of a girl who gets a job at a California tech company that's clearly based on Google, for me the most concerning part wasn't so much what took place throughout the story, but just how many people out there would read and see nothing wrong with it because they could never imagine a world where their ideas were considered 'bad'.

I saw it and liked that film. 

K Rudd's thoughts on the news media laws: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nL6XBJ5CoXo

If I go to news.google.com.au I get a page of links to these companies' websites using only the headlines. It looks more like they're doing them a favour.

Surely the auto-generated thumbnail when you post a link to an article on facebook doesn't count as content theft?

Straight up cheerleading for News Corp and Nine. Painting them as the little guy, not explaining how exactly google makes money off these businesses, the irrelevant factoid of 25% of google searches being new as if that proves anything, implying that the proposition for these companies to get access to the algorithms doesn't exist, and it appears that he told a straight up lie claiming online platforms won't have to hand over user data, which seems to be contrary to Section 52M of the draft legistlation. I'm really sad about what's happened to the ABC under the Libs.

That article is taking an odd line, considering that independent sites like itself and the ABC and SBS wouldn't be covered by a potential ban and could benefit enormously should Facebook and Google choose not to do business with Murdoch, et al. on the mandated terms.

As I said before.  Between the ACCC and companies that are beholden to almost no one and are worth more than the majority of countries I'll take the ACCC's word over theirs thanks.

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/response-to-google-open-letter

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/australian-news-media-to-negotiate-payment-with-major-digital-platforms

Makes some half decent points but sounds like a child with the nicknames doled out.  "Scotty from marketing", "Uncle Rupert".  Grow up Kev.

I'm interested in why you think facebook and google shouldn't pay for content?  Don't forget google actively hide torrent and warez sites because, you know, content theft.

It's an unholy battle. While the ACCC are on the side of News/Fairfax, that is just because it is in their interest to take Google/Facebook down a notch and rebalance the playing field. The question is, are these new laws pushing things too far? 

Think about this.  Why are facebook and google so against this legislation?  Do you think the tiny little amount of money that they'd have to shell out in Australia would be anything more than spare change for them?  It has nothing to do with Australia and everything to do with their platforms across the remaining 7 billion people around the world.

I have zero sympathy for these bunch of cunce that, firstly make obscene profits without paying tax (or fuck all tax) and refuse to take accountability for just about anything put up on their platforms.   I mean Zuckerburg is straight out responsible for vast swathes of misinformation getting put about and refuses to do bugger all about it.  

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/28/zuckerberg-facebook-twitter-should-not-fact-check-political-speech.html

The internet is the best and the worst thing to happen to the world.

That's what you have to do nowdays to cut through the noise to get people to listen though.

Look at Scomo and Co with all their "Jumble Jim" shit this week in QT.

I'm happy for Google/Facebook to pay for content linking (10-15mil per year, however much it is based off the revenue the make), but not to the tune of the billions that Newscrap and Co are asking for, that's silly. I'm also of the opinion that ABC/SBS should be reimbursed as well.

But I'm super against those big tech giants having to open up their Algorithm to outsiders, that's just daft.

-PB

While it might be spare change for them, it is still a material amount of money. As you say, if this goes ahead, this will affect their operating model for the rest of the world as well. As for the amount of tax they pay, that's a function of the arcane tax system which we have. They should be accountable for stuff which goes on their platform, but it's a slippery slope. I'm not sure how it can and should be dealt with but is a different issue. Just because you hate/disagree with someone or something and what they are doing, doesn't mean you can go all out on them. 

Agree with those two points.

What content?

News Corp doesn't pay tax in Australia at all: https://www.afr.com/rear-window/is-news-corp-still-paying-zero-tax-20190509-p51lqe

Google Australia paid almost $100 million: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-18/google-pays-more-tax-but-still-makes-billions-in-singapore/12254448

Bit hard to attack misinformation while defending Murdoch.

If I catch a bus to go to a newsagent where I look at the newspaper headlines and pick one to buy, should Murdoch get a cut of that bus fare? Should he get access to my myki card data to see what busses I catch to see which newsagents I go to?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/122048365/stuff-stops-all-activity-on-facebook-in-trial-inspired-by-principle

Already said I'm no fan of Murdoch but your defence of a platform that is used by racists and terrorists (for profit) with little or no interference from those companies is baffling.

Presumably google shouldn't be proactive in keeping say child pornography off their platforms because you know they're just a 'carriage service'. 

As for tax.  They've had to be dragged kicking and screaming through the courts just to get a sliver back of what they should be paying.  

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-18/google-pays-more-tax-but-still-makes-billions-in-singapore/12254448
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/18/google-to-pay-4815m-in-major-win-for-australian-tax-office

Well if these media bargaining laws stop peados and terrorists then great (they don't) but I'm debating these new rules on their merits and not on other matters. Nice strawman though.

Court or no court, they're still paying way more than Murdoch, so you must concede your above point.

Edit: Seems they never actually went to court.

What strawman?  You introduced the carriage service argument with your bus analogy and I just expanded on it.

My bus analogy was about Murdoch getting a cut of the online platforms that send readers his way, which is part of the goal of these new rules.

Peados and terrorists have nothing to do with the argument about the new media bargaining rules, and implying that I support them due to my view on this particular matter is a rather offensive strawman.

It's not a crack at you it's an ad infinitum argument.  

Been trying to get my head around the whole thing. Definitely don't agree with the MSM getting exclusive insights into the algorithms, however I do feel that Google and Facebook are profiting from their content and should pay something. Yes they provide click throughs but we also know that many people just get a "digest" of their content, read the headline and synopsis in the post and never actually click through. Seems like a fair compromise to:
1. drop the algorithm BS
2. let the media companies and Google/Facebook negotiate deals with each other. Arbitration is fair too if they can't come to agreement, what the amount should be should be evidence based. Both sides are exaggerating their figures.

The problem with point 2 is, the smaller independent content creators getting cut out. If we see the revenue pie as being historically owned by the MSM, the advent of the internet has split it 3 ways (MSM, Google/Facebook, independent providers). MSM is just trying to get a bigger slice and I think the little guys would lose out in the end.

I get that but MSM produce content that the smaller independent content creators simply can't do because of the amount of resources required to do so. Im talking proper investigative journalism. 

Agree. MSM has a role, so the question is still, how do you cut the pie?

Yep I don't know. I'm pretty sure the answer is not this bill though!

Why not? It's from the same government that's handed tens of millions of taxpayer dollars over to Murdoch for "women's sport" even though the government owns two TV networks of their own, you should trust them on this lol

It is completely untrue to say that the Murdoch media is the propaganda arm of the Liberal party. Really, the Liberal party is the political arm of the Murdoch empire. (That and big mining as well of course).