Thread by @HaydenJOConnor

A thread on this opinion piece from @PeterLewisEMC, who is the Director of @CntrResponsTech which claims to be non-partisan and research driven. Unfortunately, this article and their ACCC submission suggests otherwise. #auspol #MurdochRoyalCommission #NMBC
theguardian.com/commentisfree/…

The counter argument here is so obvious. The real threat to democracy in Australia is Mainstream Media. Specifically Rupert Murdoch / News Corp. One could argue that NOT having biased journalism easily accessible via Google would actually help democracy. #MurdochRoyalCommission

This is wrong. This legislation was not driven by the ACCC. The Government asked them to draft it. Yes, this is an opinion piece but the facts matter. You'd expect the Director of The Centre for Responsible Technology to be aware of this fact.

Here's the evidence, straight from the ACCC website.
Yes, this is an opinion piece but surely the Guardian has a responsibility to ensure their articles are factually correct? Or are facts irrelevant as the Guardian will benefit financially from the NMBC?
accc.gov.au/focus-areas/di…

Why does it matter who 'drove' the legislation? Well, if it's requested by the Government then that supports the claim that this legislation is coming directly from Murdoch. In my opinion, Rupert Murdoch is the real 'driver' of this legislation.

Additionally, The Centre for Responsible Technology's submission to the ACCC in the draft stage on the #NMBC has a section on monopolies. Given this, I find it carless that Peter hasn't highlighted how the ACCC approved the acquisition of Fairfax by Nine in 2018.

Nine's takeover of Fairfax has decreased Media Diversity and increased ownership concentration in a country that already has high levels of ownership concentration. Given the @CntrResponsTech's apparent concern on this matter, why does this article give the ACCC a free pass?

You can read the @CntrResponsTech's submission to ACCC here and I will be referring to it later in this thread. Back to the article for now.

accc.gov.au/system/files/T…

Facebook and Google are well within their rights to simply stop hosting Australian media content. Has Peter even considered that it's big tech that helps #MSM and not the other way round?

The @CntrResponsTech's ACCC submission claims that 'Digital platforms derive significant benefit from news
produced by media businesses' yet the submission provides no citation for this claim nor does it detail what the benefits are.

For a research driven think tank, I find the lack of evidence and detail around the above claim to be ridiculous. I'm not saying the claim is wrong, I'm saying that I have no interest in claims made without evidence. Again, back to the article.

The bargaining framework is ridiculous Peter, it has no standards in terms of content, public interest contribution and no method of determining if a party is bargaining in good faith. You have to wonder if Peter has actually read the legislation.

Fortunately, I have read it, you can see my breakdown of the legislation here and you'll see what I'm talking about with my comments above.

https://twitter.com/HaydenJOConnor/status/1350758540109967362?s=20

And this clearly showed that #MSM needs Google to survive. Google will be just fine without Australia. Murdoch has sent Australia in as a guinea pig in his 'will big tech give me money?' experiment and our Government was more than happy to please their master.

Credible news and public interest journalism are of vital importance. Unfortunately we got none of that from News Corp and #MSM during the bush fires and COVID. Fake arson claims, climate denialism, undermining health advice etc. I'll provide a few examples below for Peter.

This rubbish from the Australian being the main culprit re. bushfires.

theaustralian.com.au/nation/bushfir…

This article from Aljazeera details how Murdoch controls the climate debate.

aljazeera.com/news/2020/1/24…

This research piece from The Guardian shows that only 1 in 20 Australian news stories on drought mention climate change.

theguardian.com/news/datablog/…

In regards to COVID, I believe #MSM coverage is very fresh on our minds and we don't need 'evidence' of their bias. I'm sure we all remember @rachelbaxendale's doctored transcript and how no one from MSM called her out.

Instead, I'll just leave you with this article from @DaveMilbo which perfectly captures the situation in Victoria.

theshot.net.au/general-news/w…

So, @PeterLewisEMC public interest journalism? I think not. You might also recall Peter, @MrKRudd's petition for a Royal Commission into News Diversity that received 500,000 signatures. There is also a Senate Inquiry that you neglected to mention.

Back to the article.

"For most Australians, Google and Facebook are the internet, or at the very least, the key gateway to it." Thanks Peter for proving my point. MSM media needs Social Media to survive. Social Media makes articles available for free, if anyone should pay up it's #MSM.

As I said, we are serving as Murdoch's guinea pig.

Just like News Corp and the rest of #MSM. What's your point Peter?

The ridiculous legislation backed Google and Facebook into a corner first. You can't blame them for hitting back. I reject this conclusion, Australia could simply drop this legislation and move on. We wouldn't be surrendering our democracy, Murdoch already owns it!

Or does it show how far Scott Morrison is willing to go to please Rupert Murdoch or how far Murdoch is willing to go to keep his influence?

That’s the end of the article, moving onto aspects of @CntrResponsTech’s ACCC submission that I find ridiculous and biased in favor of the code.

Why does MSM need access to algorithm information? In my view, the purpose of giving MSM access to algorithm data is purely to push their content above others and crush small, independent media. I’m yet to see any argument as to why MSM needs access to the algorithms.

The argument of just making the algorithm public is ridiculous. This would still not bring balance or ‘level the playing field’. Not everyone is in the same position to take ‘advantage’ of algorithm knowledge.

The algorithm doesn’t just affect large organisations, it affects individuals and small companies, the submission doesn’t seem to realize that.

What about concerns over News Corp’s and Nine’s market share? The submission doesn’t mention that at all. #MSM is naturally ignoring this entirely and so are Labor and The Greens. This is turning into a Google bad, MSM good approach and it’s laughable.

Whilst this is true, this isn’t due to ownership, Google has the 90% share because their product is the best. There are many other search engines. MSM on the other hand? Diversity is dying and this legislation will just speed that process up.

Overall, a biased article and a biased submission. An opinion piece yes but your opinion is misinformed when you don’t mention the impact of algorithms, make any substantial or evidence based arguments that Google and Facebook owe anything to #MSM.

It doesn’t even mention small, independent media. What a farce. Neglecting to mention the impacts on independent media supports my view of bias in the submission and the article.

I’m also concerned that The Director of @CntrResponsTech is providing opinions on this matter rather than a researched position.

That's it for this thread, I know it was long but thanks for reading. Enjoy you day.