>Oh, you posted this story we really didn't like. Sorry, this month's check got lost in the mail. We'll sort it out in 6-15 business days.
Businesses eventually become reliant on significant revenue streams which gives the party that provides them power over the business.
It might not even be Google doing anything nefarious, just a case of "sorry, but our business is doing poorly and we might have to shut down Google News and stop paying if this keeps up."
The liberal party is now out of power but the labor party has no courage to stand up to Murdoch to repeal this.
It was all very clever and basically a way to fund right wing media in Australia via big tech. Blatantly corrupt as fuck and people need to be arrested for what went on to create this law but definitely clever.
Impressive it was done, and absolutely insane.
If google decides to delist, forcing them to list news sites would constitute compelled speech, would it not?
However, it seems to at least be a common belief that US free speech laws are often interpreted more broadly than free speech laws in several other countries. Moreover, compelled speech (as noted by the commenter) seems not unrelated here. For instance, see the somewhat recent Colorado web designer case [1].
[1] https://www.cpr.org/2023/06/30/supreme-court-303-creative-ca...