Just by publishing, Google are compelled to negotiate with you on the price to license something that they are being forced to license? I can only imagine that there is or will be some mechanism that allows them off the hook, otherwise it's only a matter of time until they have to leave Australia.

I suppose it has worked in Russia and China though.

OT and I do understand the meaning, but as a matter of language isn’t this in the wrong order?

You're absolutely right and I'm also horrified by the implications, and I would be even more so if the circumstances were more normal. The trouble is that Facebook is anything but a normal player and so is Google. These corporations are not normal given that they've usurped normal business practices when both governments and normal ethical businesses weren't looking and they have deliberately and opportunistically profiteered off the backs of millions—billions—of unsuspecting people who haven't a clue what has happened to their data, let alone their privacy!

This is NOT a normal situation, as these carpetbagger corporations have essentially declared 'war' on us by raiding our data without permission—and no one believes all that malarkey stuff about EULAs actually authorizing them to do so. Instead, they did do by sleight-of-hand and deceit alone, everyone knows that. This means we've little choice but to respond the best we can and in kind—and that means we have to play as dirty as them. We not only have to grovel in the ethical dirt and mud but also play by their rules or they'll retaliate and 'mincemeat' us—no questions asked.

Let's not be fooled: any corporation that can not only rival the two most dreadful corporations in all of history—The Dutch East India Company and the [British] East India Company—in its enormous stock value but also that it make profits even more quickly than they did is more than suspect, for their growth as has far, far exceeded the expectations of any normal lawful business—even the most brilliant of them by orders of magnitude! These companies are either engaged in unethical practices, or they are working in a lawless and unregulated domain, and or it's both of these. I'd contend that it's both.

Moreover, Facebook is now threatening us with blackmail, and without compunction they'll play off users as disposable pawns in this dirty war, as we can clearly see here:

"In response to Australia’s proposed new Media Bargaining law, Facebook will restrict publishers and people in Australia from sharing or viewing Australian and international news content."

It's time we acted, and the Australian Government has taken the first step. I grit my teeth to say it, but it needs our support this time around.

I agree that Facebook and Google need reigning in on their data and privacy invasiveness, as well as their offshore business structures that avoid Australian taxes. But this law is not that.

This law is sponsored by dying dinosaur media company News Corp because they have lots of mates in, and power over, Australian Government.

There's also a danger that, if this fight ends up being essentially lost by the Australian Government, it will vaporise any and all political will to go after Facebook and Google for anything else (eg. Data privacy, tax avoidance).

Don't support stupid laws that don't do the thing you want it to. Just because you (and I) don't like Facebook and Google doesn't mean they're wrong (in this particular case).

Edited to add: News Corp has fucked Australia throughout its history, if you support this Government action then you're tacitly supporting News Corp.

There are no good guys in this fight, so all that's left is the logic (or lack thereof) of the proposed laws. That's the key issue in this case.

See, I'm actually agreeing with you, it's just a shame you didn't read what I actually wrote.

"Don't support stupid laws that don't do the thing you want it to."

Seems you didn't read my bit about gritted teeth, I made it clear that this was a horrible option but it's not the worst one.

OK, now give me your workable alternative. Think like an out-flanked general on a battlefield, your army is cornered and you are up against a wall. Now tell me exactly what you are going to do to extract yourself.

Make no mistake about it, for that scenario is the current situation we're in here (don't ask me to do another three-page post, I've already explained why many times, and anyway you don't have to take my word for it, hundreds of others have essentially said what I have. If you want to start somewhere then start with the EFF) .

BTW, if you want my opinion about Australian government communications 'fuck-ups', then I'm very, very familiar with them, I'll list you a whole litany of them if you want! How far would you like me to go back? I know of no other country that so comprehensively fucks everything it touches when it comes to communications—from the Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1905 to the NBN and beyond. And the reason specifically is that the media and other vested interests have such an incredible lobby in Canberra; and the damn politicians are gutless lilies, they'll swing whatever way the vested-interest wind blows.

Let me give you a starting point. How about in 1946 when Keith Murdoch—Rupert's father and war corespondent at Gallipoli—used his political power to put the kibosh on the development of FM Radio in Australia? In fact, he very effectively killed it off for 28 years (until 1974) even though he was long since dead (d. 1952). Did you know that? Anyway, the Chifley Labor Government was about to overrule the bastard but they lost the '49 election to another first-class bastard, Pig-Iron Ming Menzies (a mate of Murdoch senior), so it was curtains for a very long while.

Right, I'm fully agreeing with you here, we all know how seedy Canberra is.

Have you ever considered that your dislike of this law stems from your dislike of News Corp?

If you hold the belief that our government is a puppet for News Corp, I could say to you: "Just because you and I don't like News Corp, doesn't mean they're wrong in this instance"

Since about 1995, eyeballs have been shifting from all forms of media to the web. Newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, books, etc. have all been disrupted by the web.

Rupert Murdoch has been particularly salty about this and has worked with the coalition government for years to undermine the internet in Australia. News Ltd, with the help of the coalition, fucked the National Broadband Network and now they’re shaking down the most successful internet companies. I have zero sympathy for them.

The proposed law is crafted in such a way that Facebook’s only viable option is to block all news content in Australia and all Australian news content internationally.

News Ltd has failed to innovate on the web for 25+ years while internet startups have gone from idea to almost trillion dollar market caps. News bought MySpace for $580m then sold it for $35m because they are clueless idiots.

It makes me sick that people would side with our overtly corrupt federal government.

Update: OK, now read my latest posts (to this thread).

P.S. I'm not siding with the OZ Govt, read my words more carefully

This isn't blackmail any more than I'm blackmailing my local coffee shop when I go elsewhere when they jack up the prices. Increase the cost of doing business and people are less likely to want to do business. What is surprising or nefarious about this?

It's interesting to note that none of the key points I made about these corporations' very dubious place in history penetrated. Therefore I'll have to assume their behavior is acceptable with you.

It seems you also missed the point that Australian users like everyone else were cajoled from an open web to a closed system. The fact is they had no choice whatsoever and that Facebook knows it. If it's not blackmail then perhaps extortion is a better word.

To say users were not cajoled when they had no other choice, I suggest you refer to my point in the nearby post about the fact that everyone's telephone, like it or not, went from an inviolable private service on a government utility to 'ownership' by Facebook and Google. If you say this never happened then I've nothing more to say to you.

And users do indeed have a choice. I don't use Facebook, and I use duck duck go for search (and Bing for video search). These are not utilities. Alternatives exist, and the use of these services aren't even necessary in the first place.

I'm really not seeing justification for your characterization of the situation. A website is being charged for links to news articles. They don't want to pay for this content, so they aren't going to host this content.

The comparison is obvious but if you want it spelled out then that is the trading companies were the richest and most profitable companies in history and their money was made by nefarious means. The Big Tech companies are the closest thing that rivals them in 350+ years - the math alone tells you that.

The values of Big Tech companies are a matter of public record so are the values of those trading companies. The records show that Big Tech's exponential growth is the closest in this 350+ year period. You may not like your favorite company being equated with the these traders but the stats alone show that there are remarkable parallels between them.

If you cannot draw a comparison between them then I can't help you. Others before me have pointed out that there is a parallel between the obscene and outrageous profits of Big Tech companies and the various exploitation done by the trading companies. For starters, Big Tech pays stuff-all tax anywhere, second, and as has been pointed out often, their rise in profits outstrips any known method of legitimate trading over this 350+ timeframe.

Re privacy, clearly you are not old enough to remember the laws that governed the POTS phone system. They were essentially almost uniform worldwide, the law was phones were strictly private and severe penalties - with long jail terms for anyone who violated privacy.

Moreover, there were extremely strict rules about third parties listening in without the full permission of both parties - for instance, if I were talking to you and someone at either my place or yours secretly listened to our conversation on an extension without explicit permission from both of us then technically that was unlawful and a long jail sentence could be imposed.

What Google did was to penetrate the telephone networks of the world in multiple ways, the most obvious one was to embed its spyware, Android OS, directly into the phone itself - the fucking unmitigated hide of them to do that.

If you don't understand the true significance of that and what has actually happened then it's perhaps because you don't want to. Right, I know it hurts when one's told your favorite thing - whatever that may be - actually stinks.

You may never feel violated by what has happened but many millions actually do so. And, unfortunately, there are millions still unaware that Google is snooping on them and stealing their data. The fact that governments haven't advised them of the threat is simply atrocious.

Anyone with a modicum of respect should accept the fact that many, many people feel genuinely violated and uneasy by what's happened, They should also accept the fact that smartphones are ubiquitous and people feel trapped, as they cannot avoid them. In practice, they've precious little alternative, either because they can't get Google-free phones, or they're forced to use them because they have family members who use Google or Facebook apps (this is perhaps the most nasty and insidious thing Big Tech has done - forcing users to use Google apps against their will in this way is about as bad and ethically low as it can get. Many now feel annoyed and letdown by the fact that their governments have left them stranded. No wonder there's rage over Facebook, Google and the other Big Techs.

Hovever, the fact is that this is now changing, it's the start of a new beginning. We're on a roll to eventually straightjacket them whether they like it or not, tough regulation is starting afoot everywhere across the world and it's not before time.

The question many ask is what is the motive for supporting shonky exploitive mobs like Google and Facebook when there's overwhelming evidence of their wrongdoing.

Of course, seeing justification or otherwise for such action depends on which quadrant of the political compass one's in. And most very large US companies are inevatibly in the top right hand quadrant. People like me who believe in the need for a much fairer and more equitable world will have an almost diametrically opposite political philosophy.

BTW, there were excellent search engines around before Google's monopolistic practices put them out of business. I know, I lost my favorite one, Northern Lights search engine, that way.

Did you actually comprehend the extent of want I said? That's the real problem no one believes what's actually happening and when it does then no one notices it. That incident in Washington wouldn't have happened if Google and Facebook didn't exist.

So if you want to sit on the fence and wash your hands of the matter like Pontius Pilate that's fine but it's not fine with many of us. Unfortunately, the biggest problem with democracy is that too many sit by and do nothing whilst living in ethical zombie land. If that weren't so, the problems I'm discussing wouldn't exist either, as Google and Facebook et al would have been straightjacketed by legislation years ago.

The fact is that others and I want our old phone system back that we had 20 years ago. If you're too young to know what that was then it's simple. I could phone anyone anywhere and be sure that my calls were private. Now if I telephone anyone who has a smartphone then Google automatically that I'm a contact of the person I phoned - even if I have a Google-phone.

Do you really understand the true implications of what's happened? Unfortunately, I don't think so, nor many do - especially if they are not old enough to have gone through the change - from the time of sacrosanct inviolable communications run by a government utility to 'ownership' by Google and Facebook. Right, that's what's actually happened because governments were lobbied and also they were asleep at the wheel. Why? Because democracy failed to stop it—again because half the population were in a state somnolence and couldn't care less.

That's a much more true summary of their position I think. Facebook, exactly like Google, is an ad-pushing company. I don't have any sympathy for ad-pushing companies in the first instance and then even less for those who want to push ads against work they haven't commissioned themselves.

core news content means content that reports, investigates or explains:

a) issues or events that are relevant in engaging Australians in public debate and in informing democratic decision-making; or

b) current issues or events of public significance for Australians at a local, regional or national level

This just proves how misguidedly sweeping the legislation is.

52A: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi...

Couldn't this be a viewed as a criminal act by the Australian government? Could they arrest FB employees in Australia for FB HQ blocking their pages, especially with the vital COVID-19 information?

Those services are perfectly free to have their own websites that are not paid for or promoted by Facebook.

What criminal act do you think applies here?