Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Journalists can work for free when tech people work for free.by reaperducer
- Tech people often do work for free - the open source software movement is built on free labour.by brainwad
- Every time I click an archive.ph link, democracy sheds a single tear.by andai
- The kind of single-sided crap with no rigor, no verification, source "my ass" we get these days I feel like it was journalism that invented hallucinations on AI.
- It's amusing, in a shameful, 'typical government' rubbing all it's brain cells together to come up with the answer they were lobbied to come up with by the status quo of their era, way.
Of all the things they could throw at the tech giants, they choose this?
Fucking SMH (not Sydney Morning Herald in this case, although related).
Dismantle the collection of data. Enforce advertising standards and rules. Either of those things would benefit humanity.
This? This is Weekend At Bernie's; one last party with the corpse of a dead old man.
Fucks sake. Dumb cunts will retire to their gold plated mansions in the middle of dystopia.
by BLKNSLVR - They could create competing news organisations with the money, then I'm sure newspapers will abandon the push to tax them.by pingou
- Won't this end up with news orgs that don't have deals just being delisted?
It's probably great for the 3 or 4 largest ones, but the rest?
by juancn - There are only 2 serious private news orgs in the whole country (News Corp and Nine), so this won't be a problem.by brainwad
- They could have just bumped up GST for online advertising, but why take the simple approach when you can build Byzantine regulatory frameworks.by mr_toad
- > 2.5% on their advertising revenues
Does anybody know if that is enough for them to care? Surely they should be paying 30% tax on profit (not revenue above) regardless. Of cause I assume they use tax havens to avoid paying Australia tax.
by Humphrey - The profit margin on ads for both Alphabet and Meta is around 50%, so this just a 5% tax on operating profit.by brainwad
- It would be very difficult to enforce, but a mechanism to force scrapers to pay would probably be more effective than this. The social media sites can live without local news. Web search and LLM providers cannot live without new data and up-to-date information about the world.by arctic-true
- The theory that these online platforms are stealing value from the news companies is thoroughly disproven by the fact that they would rather ban news from their platform than make the payments. This is a government shakedown and nothing more. If local news is worth funding publicly then it should be done properly out of a general tax on the public like other public programs.by consensus1
- They would rather ban to deterr other governments from taking such measures.by j_maffe
- Governments tax entities to pay for stuff all the time. Why is this agreement requirement in there? Just tax Meta and pay the local news stations.by juiceland
- and when meta starts a local news station that just does what it did before it had a local news station?by senectus1
- The government already runs a 24/7 news station as well as 2 primetime news shows and accompanying websites, radio programs, etc. Why it needs to intervene to prop up the private news media is beyond me. But at least if the funding comes from 'agreements' with Google and FB it is a bit more at arm's reach from the government.by brainwad
- > Proceeds from the scheme would be directed to local Australian news outlets
If this is anything like the last similar law Australia passed, this is SEVERELY glossing over the details.
Because of size and criteria, only one “local Australian” news outlet got the money the Australian government collected.
They were all owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Oh yes, Australia has a current law whereby Facebook pay the government, and they give 100% of it directly to Murdoch, one of the richest and most powerful people in the world.
Utterly disgusting.
by testing22321 - Unfortunately for them, not publishing news will likely cost the giants less than the payments they'd have to make to keep the news.
News writers are in a supplicant position. They need the tech giants to disseminate their news way more than the tech giants need them.
By nature, it's a very asymmetrical relationship.
by mc32 - They don't need tech companies to distribute their news; they have websites and apps that people can and do visit directly. It's just that people who actually want to read news is a minority, and they'd also like the eyeballs of doomscrollers.by brainwad
- Didn't Canada try this in 2023?
> Online News Act (Bill C-18) in June 2023. The law was designed to make large digital platforms compensate Canadian news organizations when news content was made available through their services. It created a bargaining/arbitration framework rather than literally setting a per-link tax.
> So beginning in August 2023, Meta blocked news on both Facebook and Instagram in Canada. Canadians could no longer view or share links/content from Canadian or foreign news organizations on those platforms... As of 2026, the Canadian government still describes Meta as blocking news sharing on Facebook and Instagram
Pretty much the worst result for everyone. Newspapers get less traffic, can't use social media even if they wanted to. Inconvenience to users. Meta mostly unaffected, maybe some marginal loss in time spent on the platform.
These kinds of things eventually just face reality. Meta and Google know very well how much these things are worth to them in terms of marginal revenue or network value. And the answer is not what publishers want to hear.
by bko - So the reality they must face is that the social media giants will try to circumvent regulation.
Fine. And the most reasonable response to that is therefore to implement some form of general anti-avoidance rule, of the sort that's used in, for example, tax, company, and employment law.
For instance, you could say that if a social media company were to change its behaviour to avoid a law of this sort then they should incur a charge equivalent to, say, 10% of its global revenue. That ought to make compliance with the law the more attractive option.
There's no reason to be defeatist about this - social media companies are not and should not be above the law.
by roryirvine - >Newspapers get less traffic, can't use social media even if they wanted to
Newspapers want to sell subscriptions for their local area, on paper or on their WEB site. I would say getting clicks from non-subscribers has no value for them.
by jmclnx - Canada copied Australia - we did it first in 2021. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14614448241232296
This is just an extension to 2021. The pigs have come back. They want more gravy.
by rstuart4133 - The article doesn't link to the text of the law, but from what the article says the law will make it mandatory for Facebook to enter into agreements with news outlets, whether they want to or not (otherwise they'll be ""fined"" millions of AUD)by antiloper
- Correct, I remember my dad complaining he can't share Toronto Star articles on Facebook because they block you from posting them. Same with Instagram.
https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2024/05/the-behind-the-scenes-bi...
by dmix