...by restricting access to it. Let me explain.
So, the Federal Government are pushing a
Media Bargaining Code, which would see web sites pay for access to content. (The site linked is for all the readings of the Code. It's a slog, so only read it if you have the time and inclination.) Now, Google and Facebook are pitching a fit because it means they will have to pay for linking to news articles, and today FB decided to follow through on a threat to restrict access to Australian media outlets and Australians to media outlets.
Now, I do believe that sites that host news content as a third party should pay for what they host (and I mean host, as in "provide in full", not just link; this'd put Google's Accelerated Mobile Pages in the spotlight, since you need to go through Google architecture to access those pages). But I've read the Code (not the proposed Amendments), and it feels like there is a lot off about it. Core among the issues are the provisions for the national broadcasters, the ABC and SBS. For context, SBS has some allowance for advertising, but the ABC is completely publicly funded. Both broadcasters have been facing dwindling funding from the government recently (as well as, in the case of the ABC, a whole host of other pressures). The Code classifies a company as an eligible news media company if, among other things, it makes a net profit of
A$200,000p.a.A$150,000p.a. Now, what stops the government from reducing public funding to these two so that they become ineligible?
Edit 1: Edited net profit requirement as per third reading.