Just imagine if you create any platform where people link some post, then you need to pay to the author some royalties.
Because someone else engaged in some content. Unbelievable.
Because someone else engaged in some content. Unbelievable.
All joking aside, if the law required payment be made to someone when users link to a post, you either build that functionality into the platform or don't build the platform. Taking the opposite of your argument, why you do you believe a platform creator is entitled to the value of a link aggregator without compensating those creating the content?
Royalties are a well established compensation mechanism in the intellectual property sphere, and platforms shouldn't be allowed to free ride.
When Hacker News users link to paywalled content, some of us consume it without issue because we pay those sites (Bloomberg, WSJ, Economist, etc).
So congratulations, you've convinced me. I think Facebook and Google should charge Australian news sites to carry their links in their feeds. These are after all little more than adverts.
Anecdotally (n=1), my Australian friends have already signed up directly with email newsletters and apps of the news sources they previously would've consumed through Facebook's feed (when Facebook started blacklisting links to media websites by domain). Those news sources are going to be just fine without Facebook, and existed before Facebook was a thing.
The main value Facebook and Google have to news sites isn't access from established readers, they will find the content anyway because they already know they want it. The problem is discovery and by and acquisition of new readers. That's the primary value and service social media and search platforms like facebook and google offer in this area. It's why they are primarily adverting platforms, and get most of their revenue from advertising in the first place. News organisations have been free-riding off this for years but are so desperate and entitled they want to charge their advertisers for promoting their content.
Likewise regarding your position. I fall firmly on the side that Big Tech should be heavily regulated, and in some cases broken up. This is simply an extension of that, shifting monetary rewards to those creating content versus platforms extracting all of the financial rewards, throwing scraps to the content (which has a real cost, versus the zero marginal cost advantage platforms have).
Google and Facebook have a combined market cap of almost $2.2 trillion dollars and collectively generate over $260 billion a year in revenue. Am I supposed to feel bad for them? I pay for my news content (listed in another comment), and I think they should too (disclaimer: I am not a trillion dollar adtech platform).
I support the spirit of this legislation (content being compensated for its value on platforms), but also believe these specific corporations deserve it based on their exploitative actions & intent, and resources available to them [1]. My apologies if that wasn't properly communicated throughout my comments.
The fact that The Australian media is steaming about the policy change, running negative stories about Facebook across almost all mainstream sources, and urging/willing the government to somehow crack down on Facebook for making the choice they did suggests that maybe they are hurting quite a bit more than they might be letting on with their newsletter/app pushes.
If it is not copyright infringement why would you need to pay someone?
This is just legacy media using their quasi monopoly and regulatory capture to squash competition.