Thread by @HaydenJOConnor

Why has Google removed Australian News from search results? What is the News Media Bargaining Code? A detailed thread ⬇️⬇️⬇️ #auspol #nmbc

Google has removed Australian News from search results in response to the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code, formerly known as the News Media Bargaining Code. This is to force social media companies into paying Australian news companies for their content.

Google's experiment is a clear warning or threat to the Australian Government and Independent Senators. Google has admitted to the change in search results and it is covered in this article here.
smh.com.au/politics/feder…

Rachel Anderson did some maths here on the impact of just 1%. Clearly this experiment has a big impact on media companies already so you can sympathise with those calling it a threat or blackmail.

https://twitter.com/rachelleighrva/status/1350202827243737089?s=20

However, you could also view it from the perspective of Google showing that they provide a free service to media companies. Do people go to Google because it has the news content or do news companies want their content in searches because people use Google?

I can see the argument from both sides but before I give my views, let's go through the issues that I have with the legislation. It has improved from the ACCC draft but it is still has many problems.

What's changed from when I tweeted about the code last year? The ABC and SBS will be included in the code. This is a good change but they were clearly left out of the draft on purpose so The Government could look like they were addressing concerns with the code.

The code will only cover Facebook and Google initially. Previously Youtube was also included. This can be changed very easily though which I will explain when looking at the problems with the legislation.

There are also changes to the algorithm change notifications from social media companies to news companies. I will discuss this in more detail when I get to that part of the legislation. The rest of the changes are clarifications and ACMA related stuff. Onto the legislation.

The first issue is with 52E. The Minister (Treasurer) can determine at anytime which 'digital platform services' are subject to the Code. As mentioned previously, to start it will just be Facebook and Google but it can literally change overnight.

What's the problem with the Treasurer making this determination? Well, Frydenberg has said he will add other platforms if "there is sufficient evidence to establish that [Instagram, YouTube, or any other digital platform service] give rise for a bargaining power imbalance"

What criteria is used to determine a 'bargaining power imbalance'? The legislation doesn't specify this and that's the problem. The Treasurer doesn't even have to consider reports or advice as shown by 52E (4).

There should be strict definitions of what constitutes a 'bargaining power imbalance'. It should not be left to a single person to decide. I also find it ridiculous that the Communications Minister is not involved in this, which shows that the whole thing is just about money.

If you are of the view that this legislation was created to give more money to Murdoch and crush Independent Media as I am then this raises some problems. If Murdoch wants more money, the Treasurer can click their fingers and force any social media company to pay #MSM for content

Also in respect to algorithms (more on that later), if an Independent Media source was acquiring a large amount of views on a specific platform, the Treasurer could as a favor to Murdoch force this platform into the code to give #MSM an advantage via algorithmic knoweldge.

For a news business to be eligible to register to receive payment for their content, under 52M they must receive revenue of more than $150,000 each year. Clearly all of #MSM meets this requirement.

However, many smaller media companies may not. For example @MichaelWestBiz is funded by donations from their readers. I have no idea how much they make yearly but setting a min revenue shows that this about giving money to #MSM, rather than having Google pay for content.

Why can't eligibility for a news company to participate in the code be based on content? If a company has a track record of consistently providing news content then surely their overall revenue is irrelevant? Why should their revenue determine if they receive additional money?

If a journalist writes a good article, then surely whether Google / Facebook pays them for it or not shouldn't be based upon whether they work for a massive company or a small company? Unless of course the code is designed is to eliminate Independent Media (which it is).

52P covers the standards required to register for the Code. In my view, @newscorp does not meet the standards of the Press Council but we know nothing will be done about that so I won't go into it any further. 52P is pointless given all that we let Murdoch get away with.

52S (formerly section 52N in the draft) is the part of the legislation that I have the biggest problem with. I do not believe that news companies should be given any access to algorithm information. It gives them an unfair advantage.

If #MSM has access to algorithm information that will give them an unfair advantage that is specifically designed to put #MSM content above Independent Media on Facebook feeds and Google search results.

See here in section 52S (2)(c), it specifically states that digital platform must describe the change and the effect that it will have 'in terms that are readily comprehensible' which basically means 'tell us how to beat the algorithm'

This is unfair and a big deal. When we post on Facebook, the algorithm determines when your post will be seen. If you always know what the algorithm desires at any given time then you can ALWAYS have your content appear above all others.

How will this crush Independent Media? Well, for example say a #MSM outlet and an Independent Media outlet post an article on the same topic. #MSM knows the algorithm secrets, so their article appears on the majority of Facebook feeds and becomes the first results on Google.

(Sorry Twitter has a limit when constructing threads, I should have used one of those apps, this thread isn't finished yet, my bad 😅)

So as you can imagine, when always appearing above all other content, Independent Media doesn't have a chance to get their voice heard. If you believe that #MSM is biased as I do, then section 52S is a HUGE problem for democracy.

It will be Facebook and Google to start but this could easily be applied to Twitter. Having the algorithm info will push #MSM content to the top and as the Treasurer can add any media platform instantly, platforms with strong independent media reach can be easily taken care of.

It's not just news companies though, let's look at youtube which could also easily be added. YT has a lot of political commentators that aren't traditional media. I'll use @friendlyjordies as an example as he is clearly someone #MSM hates.

If #MSM decided that @friendlyjordies was having too much influence, they could ask the Treasurer to add Youtube as a designated service. Then #MSM (on their awful Youtube channels) could utilize algorithm knoweldge to bring their content to the top of searches and suggestions.

So in conclusion re algorithms, section 52S is awful and should be removed.

52T covers algorithm changes that specifically cover paywalled content. If the Government is going to force Social Media to pay #MSM for their content, then surely paywalls should be banned? This is clear double dipping from #MSM. Getting paid by Google and your readers? Wow.

When the Treasurer determines that a new digital platform service must submit to the code, that company has only 28 days to set up a point of contact in Australia which is just ridiculous.

When a social media company sets up their point of contact, they must provide the information to every registered news corporation. This is ridiculous. The ACMA has all the News Corporation information. Why can't the ACMA pass the details onto the news companies?

Who determines what good faith is lol? What is the punishment for not negotiating in good faith? The legislation does not define good faith. I'm just going to assume that good faith = give Murdoch what he wants. Who wrote this legislation? 1st year law students?

The legislation is setup for the social media company and the news company to bargain a deal between themselves. The legislation makes no comments on the monetary value of news content, there is no starting point. Clearly there will be disputes of the $$ value of content

When an agreement can't be reached, it goes to an arbitration panel. Why not just have a panel determine the deal in the first place? There should be a formula and/or a set of rules / standards to determine the value of what news content is worth.

There seems to be nothing in the legislation preventing #MSM from complaining about the negotiation process or outcome. I assume the good faith clause covers this? LOL

If the bargaining process goes to arbitration then both parties get to decide on the members of the panel. How stupid. If they can't negotiate an agreement, no way will they agree on the panel members. Why not just have the ACMA pick the panel?

If the parties can't agree on the members of the panel, then the ACMA decided anyway. Just save time and have the ACMA pick in the first place.

Once the panel is eventually determined, the ACMA gets to decide if the members have a conflict of interest. Naturally, the two companies involved in negotiation will try to pick panel members who are biased in their favor. DUH! Just let the ACMA pick the panel!

I see massive potential for time wasting and this process taking forever.
If negotiations fail (likely), the parties have to settle on an arbitration panel, if they can't settle the ACMA picks the panel, then of course the panel has to resolve the negotiation dispute.

If the parties do agree on the panel, the ACMA has to check them for conflicts of interest anyway, the whole process is a timewaster.

Get an independent panel to do determine the $ value for news content, use maths and data. This will save #MSM from plucking massive $$ figures out of thin air. You can't except the digital platforms to play ball either. I suppose it would provide plenty of entertainment though.

If negotiation fails, the parties are supposed to participate in arbitration in good faith. If we are at the arbitration stage I reckon there was no good faith negotiation in the first place. Again, who is policing this good faith? This is really just laughable.

What happens when (not if) the social media company decides they are unhappy with the arbitration determination and ditches Australian news content or refuses to pay? These social media companies don't even (or barely) pay tax. Best of luck policing this if they don't comply

So what are the problems in my view with this legislation?
➡️Priorities: We can't tax Tech Giants but we can force them to give money to #MSM?
➡️It is clearly legislation to please Murdoch
➡️If you #MSM is getting paid by Social Media, PAYWALLS SHOULD BE BANNED

➡️There should be a specific definition and panel to determine what a 'bargain power imbalance' is, rather than letting one politician decide
➡️There should be a data driven / mathematical mechanism to determine how much each companies news content is worth

➡️Remove algorithms from the legislation entirely. They are only there to crush Independent Media and potentially content creators
➡️Remove the minimum revenue requirement and allow Independent media to participate in the code.

➡️Seemingly no way or plan to prevent Google or Facebook from ditching Australian Media Content entirely
➡️No definition of what constitutes bad faith negotiation

The argument of whether #MSM is owed for their content is an interesting one. In my view, #MSM utilizes Social Media to provide easy access to their content. People will use Facebook whether it has news or not. Social Media provides benefit to #MSM, not that over way around!

If Facebook banned #MSM Facebook pages tomorrow, #MSM wouldn't be able to share their content. This shows in my view that Social Media provides a free service to news companies / #MSM.

The same for Google. Without Aussie news appearing in search results, consumers must go to each website individually. It is clear that #MSM loses out if Social Media ceased to exist tomorrow. Whilst if #MSM died overnight, Social Media would be perfectly fine.

In my view the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code is a serious threat to our democracy. Increasing the wealth of #MSM and crushing Independent Journalism will only double down the bias towards The Liberal Party.

If the reach of Independent Journalism is limited, we will all suffer. The News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code has the potential to prevent @AustralianLabor from taking office ever again.

.@SenatorWong @AlboMP @AdamBandt @KKeneally @larissawaters, Labor and The Greens must oppose the News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code. It is designed to limit your reach and take you out. Have some common sense and oppose it entirely #auspol

I know this was a long boring read but in my view it is of vital importance to our democracy. Thanks for reading and please retweet. #auspol #MurdochRoyalCommission