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

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.

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.

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

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

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?

Bit hard to attack misinformation while defending Murdoch.

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

What content?

Agree with those two points.

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. 

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

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.

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? 

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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

I saw it and liked that film. 

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'.

News Corp  was basically started by Collins House (the name behind the Herald and Weekly Times (HWT), Rio Tinto, Carlton and United Breweries, Dunlop Rubber and Dulux).and was owned by the most powerful industrialists of the day. It was created for the express purpose of disseminating “propaganda”.

"I am glad to note that you are going to shake the Port Pirie Recorder up. There is great room for propaganda in Broken Hill and Port Pirie … Let us try and educate our men, and the public too." W.S Robinson

Use DuckDuckGo

Any source that is actually centrist is far Right these days according to the left which have shifted more to the left. 

Being biased like certain media outlets such as FOX News and Sky News Australia after dark is, isn’t an issue. We all know these outlets are biased and these outlets don’t hide the fact they are therefore not underhanded. 

Google are the biggest copyright thieves on the planet.  The problem is that people don't want to pay for content hence the decline in actual journalism.

Fuck google.  Poor bugger me.

https://theconversation.com/googles-open-letter-is-trying-to-scare-australians-the-company-simply-doesnt-want-to-pay-for-news-144573

Well by the sounds of it no. 

Hence the proposed legislation.

(Not that I'm an expert so I don't know why copyright does/doesn't apply.)

So if they're stealing content then copyright law should be more than sufficient to protect Murdoch's rights, yeah?