Play Nice Random Chat Thread V

[Kangaroos4eva]

Now that we need to go straight to the source for our news, what do you think the most likely outcome will be for the average boomer who only reads news for the headlines?

a) scouring google/yahoo/askjeeves/duckduckgo to find a balanced and unbiased news source
b) going straight to the first few results which will be 90% Murdoch garbage

Facebook can GAGF too, but they really didn't have much of an alternative.

90% is a gross over-exageration. Hell, I just googled FB ban and not a single Murdoch article on the first page.


Newscorp has about 57% of newspaper circulation in Australia. TV, radio and online considerably less, but remains a dominant player in all three.

Australia's newspaper ownership is among the most concentrated in the world

Australia’s newspaper industry ranked third in 2011, behind state-owned media of China and Egypt

www.theguardian.com

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Interesting that the ban happened shortly after this news broke:

News Corp agrees deal with Google over payments for journalism

News Corp will receive ‘significant payments’ to feature news outlets in Google’s News Showcase

www.theguardian.com

Probably coincidental. A number of individual companies have negotiated deals with Google and will start obtaining revenue from them.

 

[Tas]

I also think that if you are making billions from digital advertising, it is not going to kill you to share even a token part of that wealth with people who create content. We are seeing news organisations all over the world go to the wall due to the loss of advertising revenue. Facebook made a profit last year of $69.2b USD. It can afford to pay news content creators.

Google Australia generated $4.8b in revenue in Australia, it can afford to pay content creators.

These mega corporations can bitch and moan, but the Australian government can and should do what is best for the Australian people and the economy here. Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc. are the same organisations that we have had to pursue with the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Tax Law and the Taskforce that audited these companies for over a decade as they lied, cheated and paid **** all tax here, all of them have made agreements with the ATO to repay tax they dodged morally and probably legally as well. We had to introduce a multinational tax rate that was higher than the Australian corporate tax rate so these pillars of the community would stop trying to use tax havens to dodge their tax paying responsibilities.

We can't trust these corporations to do what is right, they have to be forced to do it and if there isn't legislation forcing them to do it, they will not do the right thing.

 

[Tectonic]

.........on second thought, facebook may have some merit.

Childish and narrow minded comment

 

[DrZaius]

Interesting that the ban happened shortly after this news broke:

News Corp agrees deal with Google over payments for journalism

News Corp will receive ‘significant payments’ to feature news outlets in Google’s News Showcase

www.theguardian.com

Probably conicidental.

I guess Google blinked.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

I guess Google blinked.

This is probably why: (Market share)

By contrast, Microsoft last week publicly suggested extending the Australian government’s proposal worldwide. The company suggested Bing would be happy to fill any gaps in service if Google pulled out of Australia, which Microsoft president Brad Smith credited with prompting an early concession from the search engine.

“Our endorsement of Australia’s approach has had immediate impact,” Smith argued. “Within 24 hours, Google was on the phone with the prime minister, saying they didn’t really want to leave the country after all. And the link on Google’s search page with its threat to leave? It disappeared overnight. Apparently, competition does make a difference.”

 

[Tas]

Lol the problem is this was not a pragmatic law by the government to help out struggling news outlets. It is PURELY intended to funnel more people to Murdoch's dying newspapers.

it has bipartisan support, this is beyond people's bullshit political bogeyman conspiracies.

 

[DesertRoo]

I guess Google blinked.

Google is the dominate player in Australia, it looks as thou they are self aware enough to know how petty Australians can be, **** fb!

 

[DrZaius]

I also think that if you are making billions from digital advertising, it is not going to kill you to share even a token part of that wealth with people who create content. We are seeing news organisations all over the world go to the wall due to the loss of advertising revenue. Facebook made a profit last year of $69.2b USD. It can afford to pay news content creators.

Google Australia generated $4.8b in revenue in Australia, it can afford to pay content creators.

These mega corporations can b*tch and moan, but the Australian government can and should do what is best for the Australian people and the economy here. Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc. are the same organisations that we have had to pursue with the Multinational Anti-Avoidance Tax Law and the Taskforce that audited these companies for over a decade as they lied, cheated and paid fu** all tax here, all of them have made agreements with the ATO to repay tax they dodged morally and probably legally as well. We had to introduce a multinational tax rate that was higher than the Australian corporate tax rate so these pillars of the community would stop trying to use tax havens to dodge their tax paying responsibilities.

We can't trust these corporations to do what is right, they have to be forced to do it and if there isn't legislation forcing them to do it, they will not do the right thing.

Don't get me wrong, I am in no way supporting FB or other Social Media companies here.

 

[AnEmptyChair]

I do not think the law is bad, it shouldn't have been needed. You shouldn't profit off of someone else's content without some form of agreement/compensation. I think if you sell advertising to access someone else's content then you should have an agreement to pay for that content or share some of the revenue you generate from people accessing it.

These laws are arising because companies like Facebook and Google, who now represent 81% of Australia's digital advertising revenue, have profited from Australian content creators and have refused to compensate. Had they been more reasonable, the law wouldn't have been required.

What? Nah. If anything, it's the other way around. With physical papers dying, news sites derive a significant majority of their revenue by click through from the likes of Facebook and Google. It's arguable that they would be dead without those platforms.

Don't get me wrong, Facebook is the absolute arse-end of the internet world and I absolutely agree with you about the tax avoidance stuff, but let's not pretend they're adversaries with some saints here. This is News Corp, arguably the evillest and most vile corporation in the world and huge tax dodgers themselves, and an Australian government that is so incestuous with them in every way that they'll introduce laws that harm average Australians and smaller, independent news organisations simply to prop up their revenue and reduce competition -- and it's not the first time they've done that either *cough NBN *cough.

 

[koshari]

I personally wouldn’t put the CIA in the same basket as the Teliban

neither would I , However the term terrorist is broad. for example iam sure many people have a different opinion on who are terrorists.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

What? Nah. If anything, it's the other way around. With physical papers dying, news sites derive a significant majority of their revenue by click through from the likes of Facebook and Google. It's arguable that they would be dead without those platforms.

Don't get me wrong, Facebook is the absolute arse-end of the internet world and I absolutely agree with you about the tax avoidance stuff, but let's not pretend they're adversaries with some saints here. This is News Corp, arguably the evillest and most vile corporation in the world and huge tax dodgers themselves, and an Australian government that is so incestuous with them in every way that they'll introduce laws that harm average Australians and smaller, independent news organisations simply to prop up their revenue and reduce competition -- and it's not the first time they've done that either *cough NBN *cough.

As you know, corporate taxes are a complex, but separate, issue that isn't just Newscorp relevant.

Why many big companies don't pay corporate tax

Analysis by the ABC reveals some of the country's biggest companies haven't paid corporate tax in Australia for the past three years.

www.abc.net.au

Analysis by the ABC reveals Qantas is not alone — about 380, or one in five, of Australia's largest companies have paid no tax for at least the past three years. In the cutthroat aviation industry, not one of Australia's major airlines has paid corporate tax since at least 2013, including Virgin and its subsidiary Tigerair.

 

[Val Keating]

neither would I , However the term terrorist is broad. for example iam sure many people have a different opinion on who are terrorists.

terrorist,
noun

1. a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
   "four commercial aircraft were hijacked by terrorists"

 

[Val Keating]

I’m not a fan of the cia either, selling weapons and drugs to both friendlies and enemies. But people that blow up buildings full of innocent people are the lowest of low. It’s one of the main reasons I don’t like Obama

 

[DrZaius]

This is probably why: (Market share)

By contrast, Microsoft last week publicly suggested extending the Australian government’s proposal worldwide. The company suggested Bing would be happy to fill any gaps in service if Google pulled out of Australia, which Microsoft president Brad Smith credited with prompting an early concession from the search engine.

“Our endorsement of Australia’s approach has had immediate impact,” Smith argued. “Within 24 hours, Google was on the phone with the prime minister, saying they didn’t really want to leave the country after all. And the link on Google’s search page with its threat to leave? It disappeared overnight. Apparently, competition does make a difference.”

Google News Showcase, the company’s flagship news service, is slowly rolling out worldwide. In the UK, Showcase launched at the beginning of February, with partners including the Evening Standard, the Financial Times, New Statesman and the Telegraph. The Guardian, Daily Mail owners DMGT and the BBC were among those not involved at the outset, meaning their journalism will not be displayed to users of the app.

Hmmm...

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Hmmm...

DMGT is Murdoch-owned.

 

[DrZaius]

So basically Google now has to pick and choose which news outlets it will show content from? Where is the incentive for Google to promote smaller and independent media, rather than doing what they have already done and made a deal with the likes of News Corp which is guaranteed to bring in clicks one way or the other.

 

[DrZaius]

DMGT is Murdoch-owned.

It was more of a statement that publishers won't be featured at all if they have not made a deal with Google, rather than what those specific news outlets were.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

It was more of a statement that publishers won't be featured at all if they have not made a deal with Google, rather than what those specific news outlets were.

Well, not at all isn't quite right. An organisation can jump on and negotiate a deal with Google at any time.

For example, Google has stated that a number of companies are still negotiating:

Google News Showcase launches in Australia

Today we are rolling out an initial version of Google News Showcase to benefit users and publishers in Australia.

blog.google

Starting today, a growing number of Australian publishers, leading examples of the best of local and regional journalism, will be paid to provide content for News Showcase. The initial publishers featured in today’s launch were among the first globally to sign up, providing early feedback and input on how the product could help bring their journalism to the fore for readers. We have been continually working with Australian news publishers of all sizes to provide their readers with a different kind of news experience under News Showcase. As this early version of News Showcase rolls out, the partnerships will provide financial support for some of the country’s most respected independent, local and regional publications including The Canberra Times, The Illawarra Mercury, The Saturday Paper, Crikey, The New Daily, InDaily and The Conversation. We are looking forward to bringing more Australian media partners on board in the coming weeks and months as we further build out the experience for publishers and users.

 

[Val Keating]

So basically Google now has to pick and choose which news outlets it will show content from? Where is the incentive for Google to promote smaller and independent media, rather than doing what they have already done and made a deal with the likes of News Corp which is guaranteed to bring in clicks one way or the other.

I used to think Google was just a search engine that it would show up whatever you searched for but there’s a lot of stuff that won’t show up because they don’t support it. I’ve tried DuckDuckGo and that seems more neutral but I don’t know much about this stuff tbh. GG was actually pretty informative with regards to that sort of thing

 

[DesertRoo]

betoota proving time and time again, it’s the best news source in Australia.

"Jeez I Don't Remember Voting For The Rapist Anti-Vaxxer Party" Says Local Howard Battler — The Betoota Advocate

CLANCY OVERELL | Editor | CONTACT As Morrison decides to not engage with any media today, even Ash Barty wasn’t able to distract the news cycle from the chaos taking place in Parliament House today. For the first time since Barnaby Joyce’s lovechild first made headlines, the media appears...

m.betootaadvocate.com

 

[DrZaius]

Well, not at all isn't quite right. An organisation can jump on and negotiate a deal with Google at any time.

For example, Google has stated that a number of companies are still negotiating:

Google News Showcase launches in Australia

Today we are rolling out an initial version of Google News Showcase to benefit users and publishers in Australia.

blog.google

Starting today, a growing number of Australian publishers, leading examples of the best of local and regional journalism, will be paid to provide content for News Showcase. The initial publishers featured in today’s launch were among the first globally to sign up, providing early feedback and input on how the product could help bring their journalism to the fore for readers. We have been continually working with Australian news publishers of all sizes to provide their readers with a different kind of news experience under News Showcase. As this early version of News Showcase rolls out, the partnerships will provide financial support for some of the country’s most respected independent, local and regional publications including The Canberra Times, The Illawarra Mercury, The Saturday Paper, Crikey, The New Daily, InDaily and The Conversation. We are looking forward to bringing more Australian media partners on board in the coming weeks and months as we further build out the experience for publishers and users.

Yeah true, but what is the incentive for Google to negotiate a deal to pay for content from say, The Brokebackville Bugle, or some other small news source that isn't guaranteed to bring in a lot of traffic? Obviously Google will want to bring in as many outlets that already have an audience as they can as it's mutually beneficial, but the bigger outlets are the ones that really benefit from this as they have leverage.

It just seems like the antithesis of what we should be doing in regards to journalism in this country (all points about big tech/soc media companies aside), as it has the possibility to be rorted.

 

[Kangaroos4eva]

Yeah true, but what is the incentive for Google to negotiate a deal to pay for content from say, The Brokebackville Bugle, or some other small news source that isn't guaranteed to bring in a lot of traffic? Obviously Google will want to bring in as many outlets that already have an audience as they can as it's mutually beneficial, but the bigger outlets are the ones that really benefit from this as they have leverage.

It just seems like the antithesis of what we should be doing in regards to journalism in this country (all points about big tech/soc media companies aside), as it has the possibility to be rorted.

That is where local and regional media groups, which contain multiple organisations banding together for representation to the government, need to come into it. Hell, even the government needs to step in and ensure that these groups of small media outlets are getting their due. Otherwise, they will be left out in the cold. If they weren't generating the necessary clicks in the first place, then the marketplace may have churned them out anyway.

 

[giantroo]

 

[DrZaius]

That is where local and regional media groups, which contain multiple organisations banding together for representation to the government, need to come into it. Hell, even the government needs to step in and ensure that these groups of small media outlets are getting their due. Otherwise, they will be left out in the cold. If they weren't generating the necessary clicks in the first place, then the marketplace may have churned them out anyway.

I can see some parallels between this and the AFL.

The 'big' clubs (large media outlets) are given all the spotlight, primetime broadcast slots, exposure, favourable fixtures etc. (favourable media deals) which in turn leads to a perpetual cycle of the big clubs just getting bigger (larger % of clicks funnelled through smaller no. of outlets), and the small clubs (less popular, or even new outlets still finding their feet) slowly having the life choked out of them due to this inherent power imbalance.