there's already a way for megacorps to have to share some of their wealth - it's called taxes and subsidies, and it's a well-established system.

what australia, france, spain, and anybody else who is trying to enforce revenue transfers from facebook and google to their local media companies is trying to do is called a state-funded media, but that's apparently a bad look. so instead of collecting taxes and then distributing that tax revenue to the companies they want to subsidize, they're trying to pretend this is still some sort of free-market, independently funded media. a newspaper that's staying afloat because of government-mandated payments from big tech companies isn't any more independent than one being funded directly by the state.

You might as well say "what any government who is trying to enforce revenue transfers from spotify and youtube to their local musicians is trying to do is called a state-funded music". "What anybody who is trying to enforce revenue transfers from cinemas to local movie studios is trying to do is called a state funded film industry". "What any government who is trying to enforce revenue transfers from carbon emitting power generators to renewable generators in the form of a carbon credit is trying to do is called a state funded clean energy system."

Oftentimes governments seek to redress one party whose work is being taken advantage of by another party whether that's from a principle of fairness, a desire to maintain the health of both parties, more mercenary reasons, etc. Doing this outside of the narrow regime of taxes and subsidies is not only not uncommon. It's entirely normal.

Also, it's worth mentioning that the most trusted media organisation in Australia is state funded so it can't be that much of a bad look.