Become a subscriber or donor. Even $50 will make a difference.
We have a monthly audience consisting of 70,000 and advertising packages starting at $200 consisting of the month.
We still want editors and deputy editors in charge.
You have to say Send a try.
Tech giants tend to shed fine veils over threats to government regulations. They are also especially involved with those who are most in the public mind, the kind that is intended to be done for the public interest. Google gave us an example in an open letter published on 17 August to all Australians – the generosity that accompanies transparency – who is not concerned with a degree of threat. Written through the company’s CEO in Australasia, Mel Silva, it begins with a warning note about access to Google’s website, a white exclamation mark framed through a yellow pyramid. “The way Australians google every day is threatened by new government regulations.”
Google’s concise and syntactic reaction involved the draft trading code for the media developed through the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and published on 31 July. while subjugate others. Along the way, a myth was created: the concept of small manufacturers and users of information, valuable and promoted.
The code is intended to give news media corporations the strength to negotiate or in conjunction with Google and Facebook on the revenue of news included in their platforms. As the ACCC explains, the imbalance between virtual platforms and traditional media has been caused by “less favorable situations for the inclusion of data in virtual platform services”. The ACCC would be guilty of administering and controlling the code, while the Australian Media and Communications Authority would be the custodian of which media corporations would be eligible to use the system.
To be eligible, those media will have to, for example, “mainly produce ‘essential information’ and publish it online.” They will need to “adhere to the appropriate editorial rules” and “maintain their editorial independence from the issues of their media coverage.” A local element is also added: they “operate primarily in Australia with the aim of serving the Australian public”, with annual incomes greater than A$150,000 for the last fiscal year or 3 of the last five years.
Google considers that the Code is nothing less than a satanic imposition on the loose flow of data through a state authority. But more specifically, it’s a challenge to how he’s tried to tame his own licensing agreements with publishers, known as the Publisher Curated News Initiative. Brad Bender (where to locate them?), Vice President of Product Management News, discussed the plan at a company on June 25, 2020. “The program will help interested publishers monetize their content through an enhanced storytelling experience that allows others to go deeper into more complex stories, stay informed, and be exposed to a set of other disorders and interests.”
Bender, chatting like this, shows little understanding of his material. The quality of the news deserves to be devoid of advanced storytelling. Boring facts don’t necessarily lead to poor reading. But we live in the age of the oligopolies of Donald Trump and Silicon Valley, where, like hormone-pumped meat, the issues of taste are more than the adequacy of the content. And complexity isn’t exactly the first in this list of preferences.
The PCN initiative has already resulted in various media agreements that have made its component to the Australian media stable: Saturday Paper publishing house Schwartz Media, Crikey Private Media and InDaily Solstice Media. Unsurprisingly, Google uses them as models of the negotiated model, without interference from the regulators.
According to Silva, allowing the Australian government to move forward with the move would greatly aggravate Google and YouTube’s search and “could lead to the transmission of its knowledge to giant data companies and compromise the use of flexible service in Australia.” This is a lot of fun, given that Google and this other giant, Facebook, are very attached to transmitting the main points of the client to third parties, a practice excused through complex consent agreements.
The company argues that large media corporations will benefit unduly. Everyone else who has a website, small business, or YourTube channel will suffer. The large entities would “artificially inflate their rating relative to each and every other, even if someone else provides a higher result. Silva suggests that Google is more than beneficial to news sites like them, paying them millions of dollars and sending them “billions of loose clicks every year. “Giving data site providers an advantage to get started through government regulation” would jeopardize our loss.”
YouTube director APAC, Gautam Anand, also used a speech that bears a strange resemblance to Silicon Valley monsters: justice. The Code, he says, “would create an asymmetrical game box for who makes money on YouTube.” Those who will gain advantages will be “the big data corporations that can solicit giant sums of cash in addition to what they earn on the platform,” leaving less for “you, our creators and systems to help them increase their audience in Australia. and all over the world.”
This was ruled out as incorrect information and mocked the ACCC. On a date issued on the same day as Google’s letter, it sought to put an end to claims that the company would be forced to qualify for loose facilities. “Google will not be required to rate Australians for the use of its flexible facilities, such as Google Search and YouTube, unless you make the decision to do so.” Google “will also not be required to share the percentage of user knowledge with Australian news corporations unless it makes the decision to do so.”
The ACCC has its fervent followers. Bridget Fair of Free TV Australia, aptly named, called Google’s letter “a pull of power” in its attempt to maintain “excessive gains.” The note “came straight out of the monopoly on reading e-book 101 that seeks to deceive and frighten Australians into protecting their position as gateways to the Internet.” It defends the code proposed through the ACCC as “guarantee of a flexible and dynamic Australian media sector in the future”. All knowledge that Google has agreed to provide “must be subject to existing Australian privacy laws”.
While there is much to encourage in terms of having a dynamic media sector of strong and curious voices, anyone who knows the Australian news landscape vaguely will be aware that it has a huge trend towards monochrome. The point of Google’s deception is that those players in the big leagues are required to escape with the loot of winnings in front of the small news providers, which makes the scenario worse.
The ACCC accepts public submissions for the Code until August 28. Google has already made clear its point of view: a wave of threatening fury that such government regulations will unduly impede the “experience” it provides to its users and gain advantages. . But the ACCC, this small entity in the global regulatory landscape, has a good chance of fighting.
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to post comments.
Guest reviews
Printable version
Subscribe
Send an email to a friend