FR version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
42% Positive
Analyzed from 1514 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#news#law#tax#don#media#australian#meta#pay#government#social
Discussion (39 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
> Online News Act (Bill C-18) in June 2023. The law was designed to make large digital platforms compensate Canadian news organizations when news content was made available through their services. It created a bargaining/arbitration framework rather than literally setting a per-link tax.
> So beginning in August 2023, Meta blocked news on both Facebook and Instagram in Canada. Canadians could no longer view or share links/content from Canadian or foreign news organizations on those platforms... As of 2026, the Canadian government still describes Meta as blocking news sharing on Facebook and Instagram
Pretty much the worst result for everyone. Newspapers get less traffic, can't use social media even if they wanted to. Inconvenience to users. Meta mostly unaffected, maybe some marginal loss in time spent on the platform.
These kinds of things eventually just face reality. Meta and Google know very well how much these things are worth to them in terms of marginal revenue or network value. And the answer is not what publishers want to hear.
https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2024/05/the-behind-the-scenes-bi...
Contrary to the law's assumption, news is worth hardly anything to Meta, so they just stopped showing it.
Does the Australian law really say:
1. You must show news, even if you don't want to
2. You must pay to do so
3. The rate will be determined by negotiation with the people you are paying
4. You cannot say no to them in aggregate
I have my doubts, but if it does I still doubt it will get the results the govt wants. The problem is news is not valuable to Meta.
Newspapers want to sell subscriptions for their local area, on paper or on their WEB site. I would say getting clicks from non-subscribers has no value for them.
So the newspaper gets no revenue when non-subscribers view (and perhaps click) ads on the newspaper's web site?
TIL, I guess...
Fine. And the most reasonable response to that is therefore to implement some form of general anti-avoidance rule, of the sort that's used in, for example, tax, company, and employment law.
For instance, you could say that if a social media company were to change its behaviour to avoid a law of this sort then they should incur a charge equivalent to, say, 10% of its global revenue. That ought to make compliance with the law the more attractive option.
There's no reason to be defeatist about this - social media companies are not and should not be above the law.
This is in no way circumventing regulation. It's following it, the same way Anthropic is following copyright law by shredding books after they scan them. They're just doing what the courts said.
What I don't get is when people make rules with a particular outcome in mind, but don't reason through the incentives the rule creates.
For what it's worth, I'm thrilled that you can't post news links on Facebook and Instagram in Canada. The fewer people that visit those platforms, the better!
Yeah, there’s no chance that the response to such a law would be for them to immediately shut down all Australian operations, block all connections from Australia, immediately lay off every Australian citizen working for them, and essentially evacuate the country.
Like, I kinda jest, but also kinda don’t. Would that really be so bad of an outcome? The net positives don’t really seem to bear up under all the negatives just… going away.
Frankly it would be a win for everyone. I don't know why anyone is reading Australian news media in the first place, the information density is low.
They argued that Meta needs them for exposure and that's why they should pay, apparently it's not true and they don't need them.
Does anybody know if that is enough for them to care? Surely they should be paying 30% tax on profit (not revenue above) regardless. Of cause I assume they use tax havens to avoid paying Australia tax.
It's probably great for the 3 or 4 largest ones, but the rest?
It looks like a flat 2.5% tax on add revenue.
Likely,the tech giants. will just treat it like that, and not strike any deals, and add it on to the cost of doing business in that country.
News writers are in a supplicant position. They need the tech giants to disseminate their news way more than the tech giants need them.
By nature, it's a very asymmetrical relationship.
Of all the things they could throw at the tech giants, they choose this?
Fucking SMH (not Sydney Morning Herald in this case, although related).
Dismantle the collection of data. Enforce advertising standards and rules. Either of those things would benefit humanity.
This? This is Weekend At Bernie's; one last party with the corpse of a dead old man.
Fucks sake. Dumb cunts will retire to their gold plated mansions in the middle of dystopia.
If this is anything like the last similar law Australia passed, this is SEVERELY glossing over the details.
Because of size and criteria, only one “local Australian” news outlet got the money the Australian government collected.
They were all owned by Rupert Murdoch.
Oh yes, Australia has a current law whereby Facebook pay the government, and they give 100% of it directly to Murdoch, one of the richest and most powerful people in the world.
Utterly disgusting.