Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Australia News

Australia Passes Law To Make Google, Facebook Pay for News (apnews.com) 86

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Australia's law forcing Google and Facebook to pay for news is ready to take effect, though the laws' architect said it will take time for the digital giants to strike media deals. From a report: The Parliament on Thursday passed the final amendments to the so-called News Media Bargaining Code agreed between Treasurer Josh Frydenberg and Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg on Tuesday. In return for the changes, Facebook agreed to lift a ban on Australians accessing and sharing news. Rod Sims, the competition regulator who drafted the code, said he was happy that the amended legislation would address the market imbalance between Australian news publishers and the two gateways to the internet. "All signs are good," Sims said. "The purpose of the code is to address the market power that clearly Google and Facebook have. Google and Facebook need media, but they don't need any particular media company, and that meant media companies couldn't do commercial deals," the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chair added. The rest of the law had passed in Parliament earlier, so it can now be implemented. Google has already struck deals with major Australian news businesses in recent weeks including News Corp. and Seven West Media.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australia Passes Law To Make Google, Facebook Pay for News More

Australia Passes Law To Make Google, Facebook Pay for News

Comments Filter:

  • Slashdot next? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 25, 2021 @11:11AM (#61099206)
    I have not read the law, but how would this not apply to Slashdot/Reddit or any their site that aggregates news?

    • Re:Slashdot next? (Score:5, Funny)

      by dromgodis ( 4533247 ) on Thursday February 25, 2021 @11:21AM (#61099254)

      Slashdot will have to pay thrice to the news companies. Once for the first post, again for the dupe two days later, and again for the zombie-dupe a year and a half later.

    • I wouldn't worry, by the time something is posted on Slashdot, it's not news. E.g. We got the Discord Go -> Rust story today, about a year after it was news.

    • It really does not matter here. /. has long ago, quit being interesting. The stories are very political (extremists on both sides) and really have left the tech world. IOW, this is a site for trolls.

      • I don't see anything in the law "some guy says the site doesn't matter, so they don't have to pay."

        • I don't see anything in the law "some guy says the site doesn't matter, so they don't have to pay."

          It won't be written into the law, but everyone know that guy is Rupert Murdoch, or whichever odious bastard runs News Corp in Australia for him at the moment, because this law was written specifically for him.
          Murdoch's media got Scott Morrison elected, and he knows it. This is payback.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by catprog ( 849688 )

          52E Minister may make designation determination

      • It really does not matter here. /. has long ago, quit being interesting. The stories are very political (extremists on both sides) and really have left the tech world. IOW, this is a site for trolls.

        Agree, and the first post proves it. Paraphrasing..

        I have no idea about the topic, but here is my stupid question

        Currently score 4 interesting.

    • Re:Slashdot next? (Score:4, Informative)

      by magarity ( 164372 ) on Thursday February 25, 2021 @12:19PM (#61099488)

      I have not read the law, but how would this not apply to Slashdot/Reddit or any their site that aggregates news?

      Do you seriously think slashdot clears the $100 million revenue minimum?

    • Someone who knows better could correct new if I'm wrong but firstly, a Minister in the Australian government has to declare that Slashdot would have to pay, which will likely happen for Facebook and Google but isn't likely to happen for Slashdot. Aside from that, though, it can probably only be applied to businesses which fall under Australia's jurisdiction. Facebook has a business presence in Australia, whereas Slashdot probably doesn't.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dagarath ( 33684 )

      this law applies to 'designated digital platforms', so the Australian Treasurer would have to declare those sites as covered and that a bargaining imbalance exists between them and the new agencies.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by catprog ( 849688 )

      Because only Facebook and Google are mentioned.

  • My BIggest fear. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Thursday February 25, 2021 @11:17AM (#61099242)

    The More Reputable news sites, that actually do journalism and research all that stuff that costs them money and who should be compensated for their work, will get blocked by These sites, and News sources that will cost them less which are often just entertainment sites, who just want to spark controversy and most of their stuff is just made up, or filled with half truths, will get the spotlight, because it is a cheaper source.

    • >>The More Reputable news sites, that actually do journalism and research

      Those still exist?

      • Re:My BIggest fear. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Thursday February 25, 2021 @12:12PM (#61099466)

        Don't confuse Bias, with disreputable. All Journalism needs a degree of Bias to be successful. otherwise all information will be treated with equal weight, which leads to false or wrong information to be spread. Because we don't have the resources to research every stupid claim out there so the Journalist has their Bias, or Gut instinct to help guide their work. A good Journalist also is aware of their Biases, they know if they are Left or Right of Center, and perhaps their Bias may be blocking the truth, So they will often give a little more lead to the opposing side then they feel comfortable with.

        So you may get a Left or Right leading story, however if it is based on Truthful, Accurate and Well tempered information, then it is reputable. As most people are rather good at seeing a Bias in the media based on truthful information. Tax Breaks to People with Hummers. vs. Tax Breaks for businesses who buy large trucks to make shipping bulk more fuel efficient. So based on your bias, you can get information from both Bias stories, while you may disagree with an assertion the information on the two articles is accurate to actually allow you to judge it for yourself. And cases if you read the two articles, you end up with a bigger picture, seeing that the law was intended to help businesses and the economy, however there is a loophole which could be abused that would allow large luxury trucks to fall under the law as well.

        Bad journalism or the scam yellow journalism that we often get today, after reading it you end up knowing less about the topic than you did before, because you are learning false information, then reading a contradictory headline you get opposing facts forcing you to believe one and disbelieving the other.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by dagarath ( 33684 )

          By your own definitions, we deal with too much disreputable journalism. As you delineate, bias would require acknowledgement and presentation of the opposing side, which is almost never seen in modern journalism.

          Use of capitalization to transform adjectives into proper noun slogans... 'Truthful, Accurate and Well tempered'.. ranks about the same as 'Fair and Balanced'

          • You check multiple sources if the sources are true, then you can build a better picture of the issue at hand. Any single journalist will not give you the big picture. However many sources from different biases if reported truthfully would fill in the gaps and offer a wider perspective.

            "Fair and Balanced" or any Slogan is meaningless if it isn't backed up by real actionable actions. "Honest Eddies Used Cars" Doesn't really prove that Eddie is Honest, but it doesn't mean that Eddie is dishonest either.

            Fox N

            • Refusing to address Andrew Cuomo Sex Harassment Claim in their evening news: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC. They did this on purpose, for political reasons. They are not on the side of the people. They are our adversaries.

              • So by your same definition, I'm sure you agree Fox is also our adversary because they refused to address Trump's many sexual assault claims. Also clearly on purpose, for political reasons.

                These examples only reinforce jellomizer's point; they're not examples of falsehood, merely bias in what is and is not presented. If you want more than an incomplete picture, you must watch multiple sources - Fox *AND* CNN etc.

      • The AP would like a word with you.

    • Exactly right.
      Instead, we will see more trash from newcorp, fox news, pravdas, than we will see from small media.
      Government needs a front that will simply collect the $ and then dole out based on views or companies that link to them.
      With this approach, if google links in more to the better stories, they get more.

    • It is precisely those "More Reputable" news sites that constantly get caught in easily disprovable lies. We hear about them all the time. Well, we do in the alternative media, which isn't censored (yet). Censorship is protectionism for journalists, their jobs are secure if they're the only ones allowed to say things. Internet destroyed journalism a lot of ways, among them the fact that if ordinary joes can tell each other what's going on they don't need a journalist between them garbling the message. The

      • The Reputable site, normally have areas where they do retractions and corrections for their stories. While your "Alternative Facts Media" where they may just stew on the times these people did something wrong, while doubling down on all the crap that they are wrong.

        Yes mistakes are made, wrong information will be sent out. Now if you retract and offer a correction that is one thing, and try to make sure the mistake doesn't happen again.
        But what your crap news that influences you, who are self heralding th

        • The full video was released almost immediately. The media knew exactly what they were doing with the Covington kids, and did it anyway. They slandered because they hate. Don't pretend they issue a correction and get to walk away. It wasn't a little oopsie. They get caught like this all the time, NYT got caught last week lying about someone saying "retard" when it didn't happen. Oh no problem, censure and move on.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nagora ( 177841 )

      The More Reputable news sites, that actually do journalism and research all that stuff that costs them money and who should be compensated for their work, will get blocked by These sites, and News sources that will cost them less which are often just entertainment sites, who just want to spark controversy and most of their stuff is just made up, or filled with half truths, will get the spotlight, because it is a cheaper source.

      We get the government we deserve I guess. If people are stupid enough to get their news from Facebook...

    • The More Reputable news sites, that actually do journalism and research all that stuff that costs them money and who should be compensated for their work, will get blocked by These sites,

      If you're on Facebook then you probably have no idea what critical thinking is....

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AnilJ ( 1342025 )
      But those sites are what are driving the Internet and the Semiconductor industry as a whole.

  • news corp likes this!

  • That is interesting. Bing, Baidu, and others are also doing the same thing. To simply focus on 2 of these is just foolish.
    • Microsoft has spoken in favour of paying for news. So we'll hear about it.

      I doubt Baidu indexes much foreign news. Do you even know which country Baidu operates in?

  • Google threatens to pull out of Australia altogether. Australia caves in - thereby demonstrating that Google now has more clout than a sovereign country's government.

    Wanna bet?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mark-t ( 151149 )
      And wanna bet that Google gets labelled as a faceless corporate bully for doing so?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Are you from the past? Are you a slashdot editor?

      Google already DID threaten that, and Australia made it law anyway.

    • |I'm really curious to see how this plays out.

      Surely google doesn't need those news sites and the news sites can't be so stupid to think they can dictate payment to google.

      There must be something more interesting going on than simple bluff-calling.

  • in soviet australia...

    News outlet need facebook

  • Australia needs 1 government group to act as a front for ALL Australian news. From there, have the various companies, such as google, facebook, Bing, Baidu pay them. After that, the government then works with the various companies, INCLUDING the small ones, to pay them.

    Right now, there is very little chance of a small media company getting off the ground without something like this.

  • Here's wild and crazy thought.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mark-t ( 151149 ) <markt AT nerdflat DOT com> on Thursday February 25, 2021 @01:12PM (#61099646) Journal
    ... if you don't want people publicly posting or sharing your news headlines or articles,, then don't put them on the internet in the first place, or else put them behind a paywall or some other kind of mechanism that does not permit external linking.

  • Google and Facebook will each select 2 sources that they pay and the rest will go bust.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nuggz ( 69912 )

      Or carry none of them, until they negotiate a deal.
      Lets see who blinks first.

      I'd assume the first source will accept very low compensation to get this kind of market access.

      Myself I can see a strong case to PAY to be the primary news source for Google or Facebook users.

  • So, how about if a user posts links to a news item that is full of shit?

    Example: Murdoch Rag publishes 'Assange is a Rapist' bullshit or the incessant bullshit stories coming out regarding systems intrusions accusing new cold war enemies despite zero proof.

    Would it still be possible to put up a facebook post linking the rag article, and point out the outright lies and utter bullshit in them? or are we going to see filtering out of links because it would cost facebook to allow users to do so?

    How long before

  • It's gonna be kinda sad for Australian news agencies when all searches for 'news' on google stop showing them because google complies with this law.

    I mean, why pay anyone, just stop linking to anything with an Australian IP ( maybe display a warning when someone searches 'Australian news' that says , showing such a hit with no link just a name that say ( link removed by Australian law). Don't show the URL either. Then if an Australian organization wants to be seen in a google search they can pay for an Ad

    • Sad that you did not read the news earlier and find out that Google reached a settlement weeks ago.

  • So google needs to updates its policy to say:
    We are unable to determine if you are a primary news source unless you mark your site with if you choose not to do so please send us an e-mail.
    In either case we will ban your IP from all searches until we decide it is worth paying you , which is likely never.

  • Suddenly the news sites are invisible on the internet. When you search for them nothing is returned. Now all you will see is Google and Facebooks new Australian news services listed.
  • fucking stupid
  • While it is correct at the start, AU did pass a blanket law that forced Google et.al to pay for new content that comes to their platforms.

    Google being the pussies they are ponyed up, Facebook went "Fuck you" and when the law came into effect Facebook then removed all the AU news site content.

    Cue immediate indignation from the predictably parochial Scott Morrison who started ranting about "these companies are trying to bully us". Hang on ScoMo, you are the ones that brought a knife to a gunfight. Aussies

  • I guess nobody told Zuck that there are other 160+ countries on this planet and it is very dumb idea to set precedent.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Companies subjugated to citizens' representativ (Score:5, Insightful)

      by totallyarb ( 889799 ) on Friday February 26, 2021 @07:55AM (#61101684)

      I'm sorry, what? You stand behind the underlying idea that news companies - who value the incoming traffic they get from search engines and social media so much that they hire entire departments of people whose full-time job is search engine optimisation and social media management - should now also be paid by the companies providing that traffic?

      No, I'm sorry. Google and Facebook provide value TO news companies, they don't take value FROM them. This law is very obviously unjust. This is not about freedom, or rights. It's about money - Murdoch has the Australian government in his pocket, and wants to help himself to money he hasn't earned.

Slashdot Top Deals

A committee takes root and grows, it flowers, wilts and dies, scattering the seed from which other committees will bloom. -- Parkinson

Close