Play Nice Random Chat Thread V

[Luke72]

If the kid from the " SUBWAY " ads is found murdered, it was me.

is it Rikki from Hunt For The Wilderpeople? I think it is. It's a shame because he was very funny in that movie

 

[Hojuman]

is it Rikki from Hunt For The Wilderpeople? I think it is. It's a shame because he was very funny in that movie

He's still gunna get it, " knows what's l meenz ? "

 

[Scallop Industry Thug]

If the kid from the " SUBWAY " ads is found murdered, it was me.

Ill be your alibi.

 

[Gasometer]

is it Rikki from Hunt For The Wilderpeople? I think it is. It's a shame because he was very funny in that movie

Yes it is...

 

[Gasometer]

Hojuman

 

[Gasometer]

Jisse W Smuth can you help out bru..how do you say Ricky Baker?

 

[Nate7]

is it Rikki from Hunt For The Wilderpeople? I think it is. It's a shame because he was very funny in that movie

"Uncle touched me"
"No child left behind aye"

 

[Gasometer]

I think the Subway Ad is a reminder from Management that he is still around for roles.

Celebrity get me out of here

 

[Ry009]

Across UFC today Val Keating ?

 

[Val Keating]

Across UFC today Val Keating ?

Nah. Only really on Twitter. McGregor v Poirier must be about to jump off?

 

[Val Keating]

Shit Poirier knocked him out

 

[Ry009]

Nah. Only really on Twitter. McGregor v Poirier must be about to jump off?

Just happened now.

Spoiler

Dustin won by KO in the 2nd.

 

[Val Keating]

Just happened now.

Spoiler

Dustin won by KO in the 2nd.

It’s that ridiculous watch

 

[tazaa]

I’d like to agree hear but if we do want Australia stories and content, the fight with big tech needs to happen..

They honestly need to be broken up but that’s not a fight Australia can have.

I agree Google censoring search results is ****ed but Frydenberg is being controlled by Rupert here and this law is the last frontier to save his dying newspapers.
The whole SBS, ABC and Crikey miss out on revenue is a Newscorpse cop out to make it look a united front.
Its not.

**** Rupert. The sooner he dies off then we can look at internet censorship.

 

[ferball]

I agree Google censoring search results is f’ed but Frydenberg is being controlled by Rupert here and this law is the last frontier to save his dying newspapers.
The whole SBS, ABC and Crikey miss out on revenue is a Newscorpse cop out to make it look a united front.
Its not.

fu** Rupert. The sooner he dies off then we can look at internet censorship.

I probably need to read the actual proposed law before I comment more I guess.

I get what you are saying but this is more than google results driving traffic. Its also people reading facebook feeds instead of actually going to the specific sites etc etc.

 

[DesertRoo]

I agree Google censoring search results is f’ed but Frydenberg is being controlled by Rupert here and this law is the last frontier to save his dying newspapers.
The whole SBS, ABC and Crikey miss out on revenue is a Newscorpse cop out to make it look a united front.
Its not.

fu** Rupert. The sooner he dies off then we can look at internet censorship.

But it’s actually a fairly big issue, we’ve seen the death of print magazines and investigative journalism in general.
Regardless of what you may think of newscorp/bauer etc.. these companies need to be able to make money on content for an industry to survive. It’s a little bit more complicated then to just say **** news corpse, there’s an industry of photographers, journos, producers, computer writers, gfx artists that sit underneath, that simply can’t just start a website to monetise.

and I know they are their own worst enemies. We watched the destruction of our film and television industry, with the Australian networks investing in cheap OS content, and filling their domestic quotas with programmes like Sunrise/Morning shows, which left a massive void at training a generation of creative types..
and news corpse has done the same with relying heavily on AP and Reuters now to create a story which they just comment on..

So you’ve got a trillion dollar company that doesn’t pay tax, doesn’t share revenue that relies heavily on that same industry to create, its something like 70% of all internet searches are based on news results.
so how that hell do you fix it?

 

[Themanbun]

But it’s actually a fairly big issue, we’ve seen the death of print magazines and investigative journalism in general.
Regardless of what you may think of newscorp/bauer etc.. these companies need to be able to make money on content for an industry to survive. It’s a little bit more complicated then to just say fu** news corpse, there’s an industry of photographers, journos, producers, computer writers, gfx artists that sit underneath, that simply can’t just start a website to monetise.

and I know they are their own worst enemies. We watched the destruction of our film and television industry, with the Australian networks investing in cheap OS content, and filling their domestic quotas with programmes like Sunrise/Morning shows and news corpse has done the same with relying heavily on AP and Reuters now to create a story which they just comment on..

So you’ve got a trillion dollar company that doesn’t pay tax, doesn’t share revenue that relies heavily on that same industry to create, its something like 70% of all internet searches are based on news results.
so how that hell do you fix it?

If they need to make money then they can run subscription content, or advertise as stated above. News corp has expanded into Stan to prop it up.

We aren't talking local suburban coffee shops incapable of r&d here. These are companies worth hundreds of millions, if not billions. If they can't marshall the resources to sell ad space or find an effective subscription model that people want to pay for then they should disappear from the market, not have the government come storming in to force a search engine which directs traffic to these companies to fork over some of its profits.

As for the ABC, it should be government funded. Any major source of private revenue presents the opportunity for capture. The federal gov didn't give a damn about them before now, and it's clear this law is not about them, it's about News Corp and Fairfax's inability to adapt to the 21st century marketplace.

Why can't the privately funded news media make money on their content? Not enough people willing to pay for it via their subscription model? I'm sorry, but if no one wants to buy what you're selling then you need to start selling something better.

Most of the whinging companies have been able to increase their CEO salaries over the last 5 years. I don't buy the narrative they're selling. "We can't make money" they cry, as they inflate their CEO's salary by another few million.

 

[DesertRoo]

If they need to make money then they can run subscription content, or advertise as stated above. News corp has expanded into Stan to prop it up.

We aren't talking local suburban coffee shops incapable of r&d here. These are companies worth hundreds of millions, if not billions. If they can't marshall the resources to sell ad space or find an effective subscription model that people want to pay for then they should disappear from the market, not have the government come storming in to force a search engine which directs traffic to these companies to fork over some of its profits.

As for the ABC, it should be government funded. Any major source of private revenue presents the opportunity for capture. The federal gov didn't give a damn about them before now, and it's clear this law is not about them, it's about News Corp and Fairfax's inability to adapt to the 21st century marketplace.

Why can't the privately funded news media make money on their content? Not enough people willing to pay for it via their subscription model? I'm sorry, but if no one wants to buy what you're selling then you need to start selling something better.

Most of the whinging companies have been able to increase their CEO salaries over the last 5 years. I don't buy the narrative they're selling. "We can't make money" they cry, as they inflate their CEO's salary by another few million.

100% this is about propping up companies that can’t survive without legislation, if they didn’t have dinosaurs on the board for the last twenty years, they might’ve read the tea leaves a little better..

but Google is a monopoly
And the numbers are staggering.
something like 90% of all internet searches are done by Google, and they take most of the advertising revenue in Australia too. Money needs to flow back down into the Australian media landscape. otherwise it’ll be gone, and you’ll have only companies that Google or Gina Rinehart endorses, which will become popular.
That is wrong..

 

[Themanbun]

100% this is about propping up companies that can’t survive without legislation, if they didn’t have dinosaurs on the board for the last twenty years, they might’ve read the tea leaves a little better..

but Google is a monopoly
And the numbers are staggering.
something like 90% of all internet searches are done by Google, and they take most to the advertising revenue in Australia too. Money needs to flow back down into the Australian media landscape. otherwise it’ll be gone, and you’ll have only companies that Google or Gina Rinehart endorses, which will become popular.
That is wrong..

Google's 'monopoly' is a symptom of it being a superior product to its competitors, such as Bing. It's literally the aim in a capitalist society - produce the best product that everyone enjoys using and beat out your competition. That's all they've done. I don't agree when they wade into censoring articles and such but this is totally not about that. Now I'm all for a structural change where profit isn't king - but I suspect most people aren't.

The legislation says that you need an annual revenue (or profit, I can't remember) of $150k to qualify for the bargaining code. This isn't about helping poor start ups.

And as I keep repeating, these companies can adopt revenue models. They have to opt in to Facebooks internet article search and Google's AMP. At some point these media orgs made the decision to do that.

For those that didn't, a headline is shown, and the user is linked to the source article. There is quite literally nothing from stopping these billion dollar organisations from monetizing this traffic given to them by search engines. They attempt to do it via pay walls, but quickly came to the realisation that no one wants to pay for their clickbait crap.

And again, they cry that they're doing it tough while forking over an extra few million to their CEOs.

These companies make the conscious decision to pay for advertising because they see value in driving said traffic to their organisations. They then write that advertising off as a business expense and seek to monetize the user experience from said advertisement driven traffic. Now they have a problem with paying Google for advertising when they literally chose to do it, and chose to saturate people's search results and Facebook feeds with their content?

 

[DesertRoo]

Google's 'monopoly' is a symptom of it being a superior product to its competitors, such as Bing. It's literally the aim in a capitalist society - produce the best product that everyone enjoys using and beat out your competition. That's all they've done. I don't agree when they wade into censoring articles and such but this is totally not about that. Now I'm all for a structural change where profit isn't king - but I suspect most people aren't.

The legislation says that you need an annual revenue (or profit, I can't remember) of $150k to qualify for the bargaining code. This isn't about helping poor start ups.

And as I keep repeating, these companies can adopt revenue models. They have to opt in to Facebooks internet article search and Google's AMP. At some point these media orgs made the decision to do that.

For those that didn't, a headline is shown, and the user is linked to the source article. There is quite literally nothing from stopping these billion dollar organisations from monetizing this traffic given to them by search engines. They attempt to do it via pay walls, but quickly came to the realisation that no one wants to pay for their clickbait crap.

And again, they cry that they're doing it tough while forking over an extra few million to their CEOs.

These companies make the conscious decision to pay for advertising because they see value in driving said traffic to their organisations. They then write that advertising off as a business expense and seek to monetize the user experience from said advertisement driven traffic. Now they have a problem with paying Google for advertising when they literally chose to do it, and chose to saturate people's search results and Facebook feeds with their content?

This is capitalism and the misunderstanding of monopoly’s.

The tech companies have created monopolistic competition, they don’t encroach on the others space, they don’t overlap and you can’t enter the market space without them. They’re also artificial monopoly’s, as most of the funding came from place like in-q-tel or dapra. Without that initial billion dollar start up funding, they wouldn’t exist.

The monopolistic behaviour has now entered a phase where other companies, not in the same space, basically have to pay tribute to survive. so the tech companies need to be brought in line, or legislated as utilities.

although I completely agree, cry me a river execs of traditional media companies is a bit rich. There’s not much sympathy, but as they say the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Australia needs to have a genuine conversation of what life would be like under a controlling monopoly of information.. and whether we want that information control in the hands of legislators or a group of foreign companies.

 

[Gasometer]

Vale the Potus Thread...finally

 

[Val Keating]

Vale the Potus Thread...finally

Start a Bidens one.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident. All men and women are created, by the, you know, you know the thing,” Biden said.

 

[Val Keating]

Have a look at this ****ing creature. 100% Uncle fester https://www.theage.com.au/national/...ght-to-australia-reports-20210125-p56wr1.html

 

[DesertRoo]

Have a look at this ******* creature. 100% Uncle fester https://www.theage.com.au/national/...ght-to-australia-reports-20210125-p56wr1.html

View attachment 1045742

Way overdue...

 

[Val Keating]

Way overdue...

Disgraceful of Israel to protect it so much.