Publishers, Tech Dig Into Long Dirty Game

Michael Hedges September 2, 2020 - Follow on Twitter

Big tech and big publishing are in perpetual conflict. For publishers, text, audio and video, the fight is existential. After ignoring digital transition of years, they find themselves in an ever deepening hole, which they want to fill with money. Big tech, in the meantime, has grown richer and more powerful. But publishers have the ear of certain politicians while big tech attracts critics.

It has been about a month since Australia’s Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) revealed a draft recommendation to force big online and media operators to negotiate a compensation agreement with publishers. Big tech and big publishing would agree on this Code of Conduct mandating payment to publishers or the government would force it. Australian publishers were overjoyed. “The tech platforms’ days of free-riding on other peoples’ content are ending,” said News Corp Australasia chief executive Michael Miller, quoted by Mediaweek (July 31).

Neither Facebook nor Google, the primary targets, gave immediate, detailed responses. That ended this week with a serious warning shot from Facebook. “Assuming this draft code becomes law, we will reluctantly stop allowing publishers and people in Australia from sharing local and international news on Facebook and Instagram,” said Facebook Australia/New Zealand managing director Will Easton, quoted by independent news portal Mumbrella (September 1). “This is not our first choice. It is our last. But it is the only way to protect against an outcome that defies logic and will hurt, not help, the long-term vibrancy of Australia’s news and media sector.”

A similar reaction came a week earlier from Google Australia managing director Mel Silva (August 26). “All it looks at is the news organization’s costs, its content’s value to Google, and whether the payment would put an undue burden on the digital platform. That means bigger news organisations with higher costs and more content will get paid more. Because of all this, the law is set up to encourage enormous and unreasonable demands.” She added that the “law is set up to give big media companies special treatment.”

But the blunt end of the stick came from Facebook announcing a change in user service terms effective October 1st. “We also can remove or restrict access to your content, services or information if we determine that doing so is reasonable necessary to avoid or mitigate adverse legal or regulatory impacts to Facebook.” That was obviously written by a $1000 per minute lawyer.

Facebook critics - there are many - pointed out the irony of cutting off Australian users when the social media giant barely polices hate speech, extremism and terrorist organizing within its platform. Claims of remaining politically neutral ring hollow. Publishers want money and access to the systems. They could care less about extremism; some notable publishers being purveyors of such themselves.

Digging in his heels, if not realizing the depth of it all, ACCC chairperson Rod Sims offered the official retort, quoted by Market Herald (September 2). "The draft media bargaining code aims to ensure Australian news businesses, including independent, community and regional media, can get a seat at the table for fair negotiations with Facebook and Google. Facebook already pays some media for news content. The code simply aims to bring fairness and transparency to Facebook and Google’s relationships with Australian news media businesses.” He asked for "constructive discussions.”

See also...

• Hot Topics - Media in Australia

• Hot Topics - Google/Alphabet

• Hot Topics - Social Media