Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by _aavaa_ | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

_aavaa_

Which I don’t agree with. Why should social media companies be forced to carry the news?

View on HN

IMO it is just a shakedown. The "why" is simply that the government has the ability and leverage to extract the money.

I agree, especially given that the media companies that got the money was largely Murdoch’s empire.

Because they're rich foreign owned companies that you can force to pay.

But you're paying a rich Australian (Murdoch) who is trying to manipulate Anglo democracies and directly enabled the election of a President who has dramatically undermined Australia's foreign policy.

Australia has the 2nd most concentrated media industry in the world - only China is even more concentrated [0]

Like everything else, morals are for chumps. It's oligarchs fighting each other.

[0] - https://gmicp.org/communications-media-and-internet-concentr...

Did you mean "but" or "and"?

Clarification: I guess I don't view your statement as a negation, modification, or point of contrast to the statement above. Both are accurate as I understand the situation.

My understanding is that "and" is more appropriate for additive information.

I'm directly replying to OP's statement that "Because they're rich foreign owned [social media] companies that you can force to pay"

Yeah, I don't understand how that's a response to my post either.

I got that you don't like Murdoch.

news is a social good while social media in its current form is a social ill.

Depends on the news

On the one hand: tax all companies and people to pay for it. I’m all for that.

On the other: news is largely produced by private companies. Their ability to reach customers and their financial viability is their problem and their responsibility. I don’t see any proposals to extort Craigslist, and they’re equally if not more responsible for the situations news companies find themselves in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com