Hacker News Reader

Comment by iliketosleep | Hacker News Reader

After reading the article, it appears that this deal favors large media companies who are able to negotiate a decent deal for themselves with Facebook. It seems like that the government will also use it as an excuse to cut finding to state-funded news sources. I cannot see how the deal favors the general public at all.

View on HN

Cory Doctorow had (as usual) a good write up on these happenings. He spends a good while talking about how lopsided this law is. For a start:

> But of course, this isn't a negotiation between workers and employers: it's a bargain between a cartel of news organizations and a search duopoly. That's not ideal! For starters, it means that the government gets to decide who is a "news organization."

> That's ripe for abuse. News organizations are expected to report on the government and the government gets to decide whether they are entitled to participate in collective bargaining with Googbook, which could mean the difference between financial viability and bankruptcy.

https://pluralistic.net/2021/02/21/paltrow-industrial-comple...

He does say that there is some public accountability & reporting that big companies like Facebook & Google will face, which should be helpful generally. But yeah, this looks like a very silly effort, alas:

> It's not wrong to say that the only reason this regulation got off the drawing-board is that [Rupert] Murdoch viewed it as a way to shift a few balance-points from Big Tech's side of the ledger to Big Media's side.

That was an interesting read which shows the original intention behind it wasn't necessarily evil, and that the media code was designed to treat the symptoms of an underlying problem (which are of course the monopolies).

I only have a superficial understanding of the legislation, but my impression is the opposite - it requires Google/Facebook to enter into good faith negotiations with news organisations that can choose to negotiate individually or collectively.

There's a Q&A from the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) that drafted the code:

https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/DPB%20-%20Draft%20news%...

> How would the code benefit smaller, regional and rural news media businesses?

>The bargaining power imbalance between news media businesses and the digital platforms is particularly acute for smaller, regional and rural news media businesses. The draft code would allow news media businesses to bargain with a digital platforms either individually or (more likely) as part of a collective. Bargaining as part of a collective would allow smaller news media businesses to negotiate from a stronger position than negotiating individually. Collective bargaining is likely to also reduce costs for individual news media businesses, and allow groups to pool resources and expertise during the negotiation process.

> it requires Google/Facebook to enter into good faith negotiations with news organisations

It's funny how the human mind tries to make sense out of complete nonsense. (This isn't a dig at you.) You read the act was forcing them to bargain, and you (like me as it happens) immediately assumed to bargain someone must have something to sell and the price is determined by what it is. What it is must be access to news, surely?

So with that in mind, read this direct quote from the act [0]:

> Division5—Non-differentiation 52ZC … (2) The responsible digital platform corporation must ensure that the supply of the digital service does not … (a) differentiate between registered news businesses, because of … (iii) a registered news business being paid, or not being paid, an amount of remuneration

But no, they are not bargaining over access to news. So what, precisely? Well, as far as I can tell the act doesn't say. They just, must, bargain.

I know the advice is not to watch the sausage being made, but geeze ...

Why would you expect a deal to favour the general public or state funded news organisations?

Because the media code set by the government should, in an overall sense, benefit the people of the nation. Clearly it's not the case, and the government deserves to be called out for it.

I get how you would like things to work.

You do know who conceived of this legislation in the first place though, don’t you?

All I can find is that it was tabled by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission at the request of the federal government. But if I was to take a wild guess, I'd say that Murdoch was somehow behind it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com