Google, taxes, journalism, and fair play

[David]

One should expect the Silicon Valley technocrats and right-libertarians to hate this. But what bewilders me is the reaction of many on the left, who seem to be so distracted by the pantomime politics of "everything the Liberals/Murdoch want is bad" that they've overlooked that – whatever the moral or logical merits of a "news link tax", and I understand there are differing reasonable opinions on that – this is an essentially redistributive policy, and that if it were a progressive government coming up with it, it would actually be seen as something pretty radical and transformative.

Everyone knows that legacy media outlets – that is, the platforms through which serious journalism is done, no matter what other rubbish they pump out – have been slowly dying over the past 10-20 years and that the transition away from print to online hasn't worked for them (with regular rounds of job cuts, fewer people having to do more with fewer resources, and attendant decline in quality). A Silicon Valley technocrat would simply see this as healthy competition and old fogies making way for new innovators, but what's the reality of this new landscape? A whole new economy based around clickbait and "content" in which serious journalism is on life support. If you care about the future of investigative journalism and a media that holds the powerful to the account, then I think it's an understatement to say that things aren't looking particularly bright right now.

Meanwhile, as this is all happening, we see social media companies – which want nothing less than to shape our everyday lives, how we think and how we interact with the people we know, and are succeeding in that mission – getting wealthier and wealthier, well beyond what any company could conceivably need to function; and yes, a part of their central business model is to profit off other people's content, including news sites. What's Google without the services people use it to look for? What's Facebook without the stuff people share?

But even if you fundamentally disagree with that way of looking at their relationship with news media, all that's being asked for in practice is for the new corporate rulers of the world (and serial tax-dodgers) to give up a small portion of their immense profits to help a sector that badly needs it and that, as crappy as some of those newspapers may be, we actually can't do without. So I'm quite happy for people to call it a tax, because it's about time these companies paid for something.

[stui magpie]

^

Yet the reason many are squawking is because they've suddenly lost free marketing for their product.

many small businesses have a Facebook page rather than a website, which costs them nothing to produce, maintain and update. Other NFP's and health related services use social media including facebook to drive traffic to their websites. Some would even live stream press conferences on Facebook.

There's no doubt print media is dying, that's not facebook's fault, but yes it has led to adjustments in the industry. Instead of The Age employing heaps of people to produce content to fill up a massive broadsheet tome each day, their daily print version is smaller than most local Leader papers and while the quantity of content has seriously reduced the overall quality isn't really impacted.

Interesting you refer to "Investigative" Journalism. That's also been dying for decades but also has nothing to do facebook and everything to do with ROI. it's expensive to do and doesn't rate well enough to justify it. The only real investigative Journalism is at the ABC with Newscorp and 9 Media having a couple of good ones who they can afford to keep on. What passes for Current Affairs on commercial TV is not a patch on what was going in the 80's when people had access to far fewer ( a max of 5) TV channels but also had far longer concentration spans

[stui magpie]

[pietillidie]

"Giving up a small amount of immense profits", David, is called a tax, which as you know I have no problems with in principle. But this a populist Trump-like arbitrary interference and protectionism imposed by mobs and failed old media conmen who have no interest in journalism and want to annex information to a far greater degree than Google and Facebook in an economy that has moved beyond them.

If you want to collect a tax for journalism and public information, collect a tax for journalism and public information — properly. I would support it as I already do with the BBC because it means professionalising journalism and making it accountable for poor standards like any other serious profession.

But that's too much like hard, unpopular, painstaking work. Imagine working to collect tax through proper, standardised means when there are more fashionable and exciting fists to wave. No selfies and glory in the tax collection business, that's for sure (you should hear the hysteria here over paying a modest TV licence for an often superb and diverse array of content on BBC).

All tax on sharing and accessing content will do is create sites that publish content freely, allowing sharing on Facebook free of charge. If that's all their heart's desired, it would actually kill them off the old school robber barons. Then, you'll have hunt the free content sites down for undermining 'real' journalism by 'colluding' with the big tech firms, even as the Murdochs of the world start walling off the internet, slicing it into service tiers, and dividing access into licenced regions.

If that sounds familiar it's because your experiment has already been run. For decades. And yes, even at your new inflated prices, you still end up with the same rubbish being delivered to the same market that cares so little about information that prior to its Facebook News addiction it watched Fox News and read The News of the World.

[think positive]

Great posts PTID,

David, about time these companies paid for something?

A lot of magazines and newspapers are dying, but you can’t just blame Facebook etc. Like everything, people want value for money, they want quality. People who really want to read the news everyday, they get a subscription. I take everything in print with a grain of salt these days, and sensationalised journalism has a lot to do with it. When I was younger it went The age, boringly written but probably the truth, the sun, more interesting to read, do I believe it, the Truth, absolute bullshit with WTF. Pictures. I made a crack on Stuis FB. That I get my news from nick’s, the funny thing is, it’s often true! Especially footy stuff! Or big footy! I hear a rumour, that’s where I check! Because there’s people on here that avidly follow this stuff, be it footy or politics, so I don’t have to go through a tone of shit to find the info.

I see it’s a jack Niall and I’ll read it, I’m not reading bottom feeder shit from that horrible woman who hates us. Would I pay for it? If I was interested enough, yes. I’d rather pay for truth than get lied to for nothing.

Facebook has a lot wrong with it, but I’m not sure it’s the owners fault, people saying shit they would never say to your face, people selling scam stuff and then disappearing, people posting links to news articles, I would think that real honest news stories would be a blessing. Anyone with an ounce of sense doesn’t take Facebook stories as gospel.

If Facebook pays does Nicks when you link an article?

[Tannin]

The difference is that no-one at Nick's sets out a page, updated every day, which is explicitly designed to stop you visiting the websites of the actual news providers for the headlines and summaries - i.e., the stuff you mostly want to know - so as to monoopolise the advertising dollar and no do any of the work to earn it.

The whole point of Facebook's news feed is that they hope you will stay on Facebook and not go to the Age or the ABC or the Herald Sun. Facebook's aim is to monopolise the revenue and outsource the costs, and that is just what they do. Until now.

Good on you Scot Morrison. You are a dishonest, slimy scumbag and I despise you and all your dodgy mates, but you are right for once and on this one I'll back you all the way. Now India and Canada are looking to do the same.

Well played Scomo!

[stui magpie]

Tannin, when you and Peta Credlin are singing in perfect harmony from the same songbook, I'm doing "What's wrong with this picture"

I don't agree with what you're saying but I don't have a hard opinion either way.

I expect how this will play out here is that Facebook will maintain their news ban for long enough for the News outlets to notice a drop in clicks and to lobby the Government to make a few tweaks

On the other hand, this article does sum up some of the issues, around 21% of people, mostly young adults, don't seek out any news sources, they just see what happens to pop up in their Facebook feed,

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/james-campbell/james-campbell-news-ban-shows-were-all-at-facebooks-mercy/news-story/952500fcbdd57b2301c02d2f7bc0fedf

This, I thought, was an interesting closing quote.

[pietillidie]

^Before the internet, people chose the newspapers and cable channels that represented their cult, falling into line with authority as transmitted through these media. Now, people self-organise more and use headlines to try to influence others, with many falling in line with the crowd, more like a school yard.

It seems worse in some ways, but it's just a different problem. Now we need to replace both elite authority and mob authority with alternatives. They've always been the two extremes we want to avoid.

One thing is clear, and perhaps this is the core problem, not enough people care about the quality of the information and the benefits of maintaining an independent, considered view. The desire to react by having some powerful person or mob act on one's behalf is stronger than self-respect and professional esteem.

The contradiction here is that these people are finding ways to 'influence' and 'be heard', but you wouldn't hire them in a pink fit for any serious role because they don't know enough, aren't across the details, aren't practiced in disciplined research and reasoning, and can't be trusted to give you good advice or do the professional thing. They spend day and night practicing the contrary and seem to be under the impression that 'democracy' means 'opinion', and that's all society needs.

'Impulse' is not really a desired trait in any serious job or social role, except perhaps Professional Infotainment Opinionist, AKA 'Social Media Influencer'.

[stui magpie]

^

Too many people these days aren't interested in news, and of those that are, too many just seek sources that reinforce their own opinion rather than test it.

That's why we have so many social media echo chambers

[stui magpie]

facebook may have proved it's point.

[think positive]

[Tannin]

[Tannin]

Another good decision by the Feds! Blimey!

They just pulled all Federal Government advertising on Facebook. That's a big slice of $200,000,000 a year Facebook isn't getting.

They said OK, since Facebook wants to play hard ball, hard ball is the game.

A large part of $200,000,000 gone. Cop that you barstards!

[David]

Good news, although this article puts the amount more at $42 million:

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2021/02/22/facebook-media-code-advertising/

Something that everyone's taking for granted here but nobody to my knowledge has commented on is: how did we ever get to a stage where a single business is as powerful as a medium-power nation state, such that a disagreement between the two could be accurately considered an arm-wrestle? And not only that, but we actually seem to be the David to their Goliath. A radical idea, but maybe corporations shouldn't be allowed to have that much power …

[5 from the wing on debut]

So you would ban Australians from Facebook ? Set up Scomobook instead?