Home > Electrical/Electronics > Communication > Australia Passes New Bill Forcing Facebook And Google To Pay For News

Australia Passes New Bill Forcing Facebook And Google To Pay For News

Australia has passed a world-first law designed to make Google and Facebook pay media organisations for hosting their news content.

The bill passed the senate on Thursday with bipartisan support after politicians agreed to water down key elements of the law after Facebook blocked news content.

Ministers have painted the move as a victory over tech giants – saying Facebook’s news blockade will end on Friday and that both Facebook and Google are now signing deals worth millions of dollars with news publishers.

But critics say Australia has capitulated – taking the teeth out of the legislation and handing tech companies the upper hand in negotiations, when the law was supposed to ‘level the playing field’.

The move also sets an international precedent that countries drafting their own laws – such as the UK, US and EU member states – will now find it difficult to go beyond.

Australia has passed a world-first law to make Google and Facebook pay media organisations for hosting their news content. Pictured: Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan

Australia has passed a world-first law to make Google and Facebook pay media organisations for hosting their news content. Pictured: Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan

The changes give the tech companies extra time to negotiate deals with publishers and allow them to dodge the rules if they make a ‘significant contribution’ to journalism by handing over enough cash.

Tech giants have too much power and curbs are urgently needed, says UK regulator

Tougher rules to curb the power of tech giants are urgently needed after Facebook’s news blackout in Australia, the UK competition watchdog warned.

Andrea Coscelli, chief executive of the Competition and Markets Authority, said the worrying move by the social media company laid bare the ‘political power that comes with economic power’.

He said Facebook’s ban on news content – in retaliation to regulation proposed by the Australian parliament that would force the tech giant to pay a fair price for news – showed how the firm behaves like a monopoly.

Its decision to ban all Australian news content, including pages of official Covid-19 guidance at first, prompted an international outcry but saw the government agree to water down the law.

Mr Coscelli said the fiasco demonstrated exactly why the dominance of tech companies needs to be tackled urgently.

The CMA is preparing to launch a digital markets unit after a probe exposed Google and Facebook’s dominance over internet advertising.

Mr Coscelli said the blackout in Australia was ‘a symptom’ of these larger competition problems.

Facebook also claims ministers have given assurances that the site will be able to pick and choose who it buys news from, significantly weakening the bargaining position of media firms.

In theory, the rule would allow Facebook to block firms demanding high prices for their news and under-cut them with rivals.

Facebook agreed to re-instate Australian news pages after the amendments were announced on Wednesday.

Rod Sims, head of Australia’s competition watchdog, defended the changes on Thursday – saying they simply clarify some of Facebook’s ‘misconceptions’.

‘If what the government’s done is give things that mean a lot more to Facebook than they do the government, then that’s how good deals are done,’ he said.

Meanwhile Nick Clegg, former UK deputy PM and now Facebook’s vice president of global affairs, sought to defend Facebook’s news ban in a blog on the site which was branded ‘bizarre’, ‘patronising’ and ‘disingenuous’.

Claiming to be telling ‘the real story of what happened with news on Facebook’, the ex-Lib Dem leader accused the Australian government of demanding the tech giant sign ‘a blank cheque’ to media firms.

READ ALSO  Effective Ways To Enhance Your Business With AI

‘Facebook would have been forced to pay potentially unlimited amounts of money to multinational media conglomerates under an arbitration system that deliberately misdescribes the relationship between publishers and Facebook,’ he wrote.

In an extraordinary piece of double-think, Mr Clegg then claimed that Facebook ‘neither takes nor asks for’ news content which is hosted on its site and from which it derives advertising revenue – saying it is users’ fault for putting it there.

Australia’s new law was designed to tackle the huge power imbalance between big tech companies which dominate their markets and soak up the lion’s share of advertising revenue by forcing them to pay for the news content they host and reveal some of their closely-guarded algorithms and data.

Google and Facebook had led opposition to the changes, fearing it would create international precedent that would threaten their business models.

Initially, Google threatened to pull its search engine from Australia altogether – but backed down last week and began doing deals with media outlets.

Facebook went further, blocking all news content in a hastily-organised ban that also brought down charity pages, emergency services providing Covid information, domestic violence shelters and missing persons groups.

The ban even brought down the site’s own page for a short time.

Facebook agreed to restore news and negotiate deals similar to the ones Google has struck, but will do so with increased bargaining power after changes were agreed.

Google has been told about the changes and has described them as ‘sensible.’

Facebook and Google still face the prospect of having to agree deals with media around the world, as the European Union, Canada and other jurisdictions move to regulate the sector.

Since their emergence around the turn of the century, Google and Facebook have been largely unregulated and have grown into two of the world’s largest and most profitable companies.

But a string of scandals about misinformation, privacy violations, data harvesting and their virtual monopoly on online advertising has triggered the attention of watchdogs.

For every $100 spent by Australian advertisers online today, $49 goes to Google and $24 to Facebook, according to the country’s competition watchdog.

Facebook last week blocked all news content in Australia in protest at the new laws, sparking international outcry and calls for tougher regulations

Critics of the law have said it is punishing successful companies and amounts to a money grab by struggling but politically connected traditional media.

They also lament that there is no requirement in the law that money gained by the media companies from Facebook and Google be spent on expanding public interest journalism rather than just boost profits.

Thousands of journalism jobs and scores of news outlets have been lost in Australia alone over the past decade as the sector watched advertising revenue flow to the digital players.

Facebook’s news ban last week sent shockwaves around the world and sparked campaigns to delete the app.

‘Delete Facebook’, ‘Boycott Zuckerberg’ and ‘Facebook We Need To Talk’ began trending on rival site Twitter.

David Cicilline, a Democrat politician from Rhode Island in the US, even went so far as to say ‘Facebook is not compatible with democracy’ as users were also urged to give up Instagram and WhatsApp because Facebook owns them.

READ ALSO  9 Tips To Grow Your Business Beyond Borders

British MP Julian Knight said Facebook appeared to be using Australia as a ‘test case’ for how democracies would react to having news banned, and called for legislators around the world to bring the tech giant ‘to heel’.

Among those urging users to delete the app was Stephen Scheeler, former Facebook Australia CEO, who slammed the ‘alarming’ move and accused Mark Zuckerberg of being motivated by ‘money, power, and not [by the] good.’

Critics also said Facebook’s ban would lead to the proliferation of conspiracy theories and misinformation – which the platform claims to be tackling.

Australian ministers (Prime Minister Scott Morrison, right, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, left, and Communication Minister Paul Fletcher, rear) have agreed to make four concessions to the law which will make it more beneficial to Facebook

Instead of seeing posts from the social media giant, users clicking on its own Facebook page were instead met with a message saying ‘no posts yet’.

In a spectacular case of buck-passing, Facebook then attempted to blame the errors on the Australian government, saying it mirrors the ‘broad and vague’ definition of ‘news’ in its new law.

Mr Frydenberg and Communications Minister Paul Fletcher drew up Australia’s law after a three-year inquiry by Australia’s competition regulator, the ACCC, which  found Google and Facebook have ‘an imbalance in bargaining power’ when dealing with news companies.

The code was intended to apply to Facebook NewsFeed and Google Search – but other services such as Instagram and YouTube can be added if a bargaining power imbalance arises.

In addition to payment for content, the measures would also force transparency around the closely guarded algorithms that tech firms use to rank content.

The code will require Google and Facebook to give publishers 14 days notice of any algorithm changes that are likely to have a significant impact on their traffic.

Under a two-way value model, the payment for content would take into account the value that Google and Facebook provide to news organisations by driving traffic to their sites.

What is the bargaining code and why is it needed?

WHY IS IT NEEDED?

Google and Facebook derive a benefit from the ability to make Australian news content available to their users.

Australian news businesses have had to accept commercial deals with the platforms that are less favourable than they would otherwise agree to.

Intervention is needed to address this imbalance because of the public benefit of news and the importance of a strong independent media in a well-functioning democracy.

For every $100 spent by Australian advertisers online today, $49 goes to Google and $24 to Facebook, according to the country’s competition watchdog.

WHAT IS THE CODE?

The government wants good faith commercial deals to be struck outside the code.

But if the platforms and news organisations are unable or unwilling to reach an agreement ‘final offer arbitration’ will take place.

The arbiters will take into account the benefits traditional news media businesses get by having eyeballs on their product.

The digital platforms will also need to adhere to a series of minimum standards.

WHO IS INCLUDED?

* Facebook and Google.

* ABC, SBS and Australian commercial news media organisations.

Source: Dailymail

Total Views: 66 ,
0
0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *