Defanging Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

Discussion in 'MKJ Off-Topic' started by TheRealAirbns, Aug 1, 2020 at 11:19 PM.

  1. Defanging Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.
    TheRealAirbns

    TheRealAirbns Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    8,650
    Likes Received:
    21,474
    Aug 1, 2020 at 11:19 PM
    #1
    News from Australia:

    Australia to make Google and Facebook pay for news content
    The Australian government plans to give Google and Facebook three months to negotiate with Australian media businesses fair pay for news content
    By
    ROD McGUIRK Associated Press
    July 31, 2020, 2:30 AM

    CANBERRA, Australia -- The Australian government said on Friday it plans to give Google and Facebook three months to negotiate with Australian media businesses fair pay for news content.

    In releasing a draft of a mandatory code of conduct, the government aims to succeed where other countries have failed in making the global digital giants pay for news siphoned from commercial media companies.

    Google said Australia's draft code was a heavy-handed step that could impede the digital economy.

    Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said Google and Facebook would be the first digital platforms targeted by the proposed legislation but others could follow.

    “It’s about a fair go for Australian news media businesses, it’s about ensuring that we have increased competition, increased consumer protection and a sustainable media landscape,” Frydenberg said.

    “Nothing less than the future of the Australian media landscape is at stake with these changes,” he added.

    If the U.S.-based platforms could not agree with the Australian media businesses on pricing after three months, arbitrators would be appointed to make a binding decision, the draft said.

    The draft will be open to consultation until Aug. 28, with the legislation to be introduced to Parliament soon after, Frydenberg said.

    As well as payment, the code covers issues including access to user data and transparency of algorithms used to rank and present media content.

    Breaches of the code could attract penalties of up to 10% of the platform’s annual turnover or a 10 million Australian dollar ($7.2 milllion) fine.

    Google Australia and New Zealand managing director Mel Silva said the code discounts the significant value Google provided in free clicks on publishers' content.

    “Our hope was that the code would be forward thinking and the process would create incentives for both publishers and digital platforms to negotiate and innovate for a better future, so we are deeply disappointed and concerned the draft code does not achieve this," Silva said in a statement.

    “Instead, the government’s heavy-handed intervention threatens to impede Australia’s digital economy and impacts the services we can deliver to Australians,” Silva added.

    Facebook Australia and New Zealand managing director Will Easton said in a statement his company was reviewing the code to "understand the impact it will have on the industry, our services and our investment in the news ecosystem in Australia.”

    Frydenberg said the motive was not to protect Australian businesses from competition or disruption but to ensure they are paid fairly for original content.

    The conservative government is pushing ahead with the changes after the pandemic created an advertising revenue crisis for many Australian media companies.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/australia-make-google-facebook-pay-news-content-72093264
    Playing devil's advocate: In the US, now that these companies are behaving like publishers, not platforms, and are removing content, don't they owe royalties for every piece of someone else's content appearing on any page on their site(s)? Fair use only applies to individuals, not publishers.

    Every time they "publish" the content someone posts on one of their sites, they should pay royalties, shouldn't they?

    I wonder how much that might cost them?
     
       
  2. August West

    August West Points Member


    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2019
    Messages:
    4,965
    Likes Received:
    4,963
    Aug 2, 2020 at 5:06 AM
    #2
    The just a platform myth has been thoroughly blown out of the water. It’s time to start treating them as publishers, and be held to those sets of standards.
     
    SCBIGTIME and Troianus Acies like this.
  3. Troianus Acies

    Troianus Acies Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    4,303
    Likes Received:
    5,301
    Aug 2, 2020 at 9:36 AM
    #3
    The Main Stream Media is now openly supported by the Main Stream Internet Social Media and their defense of the "so called open platforms" (Twitter, Facebook, Google etc.) that have become constitutional conservative censorship agents for the radical left. Time to remove their "open platform" protections and sue their asses off!

    Remember Nick Sandman, the crazy drumming Indian with left wing radicals in support, and of course, C.N.N. There is a large price tag attached for not being protected, like the "Internet Open Platform liars" that need to have that protection revoked.
     
    CrownoftheValley and fssca51 like this.
  4. KeenObserver

    KeenObserver Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    10,531
    Likes Received:
    15,064
    Aug 2, 2020 at 9:38 AM
    #4
    or better yet, let them keep their platform status and disallow moderation or manipulation.
     
    SCBIGTIME, Troianus Acies and DJ4SC like this.
  5. DJ4SC

    DJ4SC Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    25,945
    Likes Received:
    34,313
    Aug 2, 2020 at 9:45 AM
    #5


    That's a very good point.
     
  6. Troianus Acies

    Troianus Acies Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    4,303
    Likes Received:
    5,301
    Aug 2, 2020 at 10:41 AM
    #6
    How do we enforce removal of their censorship activities when the congress of the United States, and all parties concerned, seem to be sitting on their brains while sucking on their thumbs doing nothing!
     
  7. fssca51

    fssca51 Junior Member

    WeAreSc Member
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,082
    Likes Received:
    2,462
    Aug 2, 2020 at 12:46 PM
    #7
    We vote for President Trump in November. We retake the House and the Senate. That's the way we do it.
     
    Troianus Acies likes this.
  8. TheRealAirbns

    TheRealAirbns Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    8,650
    Likes Received:
    21,474
    Aug 2, 2020 at 12:54 PM
    #8
    The problem has always been that, as private entities, they're entitled to "censor" (edit) content on their own sites. They aren't allowed to steal material, however, and all those laws are already in place. Because they are, the President has some latitude in enforcement actions. He has a duty to enforce the law, in fact.
     
    Troianus Acies likes this.
  9. Troianus Acies

    Troianus Acies Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    4,303
    Likes Received:
    5,301
    Aug 2, 2020 at 12:54 PM
    #9
    Though my previous post may not seem to indicate. "We retake the House and the Senate. That's the way we do it.", I am in 100 percent agreement with your statement and have supported many causes and candidates to do just that. Mc Sally, Nunes, Crenshaw, and others.

    wwg1wga
     
    fssca51 likes this.
  10. fssca51

    fssca51 Junior Member

    WeAreSc Member
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    5,082
    Likes Received:
    2,462
    Aug 2, 2020 at 1:06 PM
    #10
    Kudos to you for that. I'm supporting all I can too, especially Nunes whom I respect and admire. I haven't supported Pence yet but I intend to do that too.
     
    Troianus Acies likes this.
  11. Troianus Acies

    Troianus Acies Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    4,303
    Likes Received:
    5,301
    Aug 2, 2020 at 1:12 PM
    #11
    TRA,

    I hope you can clarify something for me. I interpreted the "open forum platform identity" to mean that all postings would be in line with the 1st amendment right so long as the posts were not akin to screaming FIRE in a theater. I also believe the open platform status carries a no prosecution protection for lawsuits to be brought against the social media website for statements made there since it is considered an open and equal forum for those choosing to post what they believe. If the website, being a private entity, begins censoring specific posters messages because they do not agree with the private entities ideology or do not support the political view held by them, does that not nullify their open platform protection status? I interpreted the law to say that a website that selectively censors a group or persons postings over another preferred group or persons postings, would then have to be reclassified as a publication, or opinion and editorial publishing entity that no longer has the protection from lawsuits that could be brought against them.

    Thanks for your help on this clarification.
     
  12. TheRealAirbns

    TheRealAirbns Junior Member


    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    8,650
    Likes Received:
    21,474
    Aug 2, 2020 at 1:33 PM
    #12
    What you've written looks like a reasonable description of the platform versus publisher issue. The Trump Administration has already taken steps to remove "platform" protections from those entities that are now editing content on their sites. There would appear to be more room for them to act, under current laws.

    http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/president-trump-signs-executive-order-to-enforce-social-media-platform-vs-publisher-rules/
     
    CrownoftheValley likes this.

Share This Page