Google has threatened to remove its search engine from Australia and Facebook has threatened to remove news from its feed for all Australian users if a code forcing the companies to negotiate payments to news media companies goes ahead.
The move would mean the 19 million Australians who use Google every month would no longer be able to search, and 17 million Australians who log into Facebook every month would not be able to see or post any news articles.
The two companies are fighting against legislation before the parliament that would force the digital platforms to enter into negotiations with news media companies for payment for content, with an arbiter to ultimately decide the payment amount if no agreement can be reached.
Illustration: Yusha
On Friday, Google delivered an ultimatum to the Australian government, saying it would not be viable to continue offering search in Australia if the code goes ahead.
The company’s Australian managing director, Mel Silva, told an Australian Senate committee that the proposed news code was untenable and would set a “dangerous precedent” for paying for links.
“The principle of unrestricted linking between Web sites is fundamental to search, and coupled with the unmanageable financial and operational risk is this version of the code were to become law, it would give us no real choice, but to stop making Google Search available in Australia,” she said.
“Withdrawing our services from Australia is the last thing that Google want to have happen, especially when there is another way forward,” she added.
Silva said the company wanted to make changes to the code to make it “workable,” and it was keen to enter into agreements with media companies to pay for content, adding that about 450 deals have been made with media companies around the world.
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison told a new conference in Brisbane that the government would not respond to threats.
“Let me be clear: Australia makes our rules for things you can do in Australia. That’s done in our parliament. It’s done by our government. And that’s how things work here in Australia and people who want to work with that, in Australia, you’re very welcome. But we don’t respond to threats,” he said.
Representatives from Facebook repeated the company’s previous threat to pull news content from user feeds.
Facebook’s head of public policy in Australia Josh Machin said if the code goes ahead, Facebook would potentially prevent not just news companies from posting links to news articles on Facebook, but all users based in Australia.
Machin said news articles make up under 5 percent of what the average user sees in their feed, and Facebook did not get much commercial benefit from news articles posted on Facebook.
When asked whether Facebook profited from fabricated news posted on the platform, Machin said no commercial benefit was gained by Facebook on its users posting fake news.
Guardian Australia managing director Dan Stinton told the committee that the claims were misleading, because news content keeps users engaged on Facebook.
“The way you advertise on Facebook is within the Facebook newsfeed and news content does provide at least some of the engagement that the Facebook newsfeed delivers,” he said. “So I’m surprised that they say they see no value in journalism within the Facebook newsfeed.”
Senators repeatedly questioned Silva about what they said was a threat, asking whether it was simply about avoiding the precedent it would create worldwide for paying for news in search results.
Silva denied it was a threat, just the “worst-case scenario” if the code went ahead.
Independent Senator Rex Patrick compared Google’s threat to China threatening Australia’s trade in response to the inquiry into COVID-19.
He said Google’s response was not about “breaking” search, but Google protecting its revenue.
“It’s about breaking your bank account, that’s what this is about,” he said. “It does not touch the Internet and the way in which it works.”
Silva told the hearing that last year Google paid A$59 million (US$45.54 million) in tax on profits before tax of A$134 million, and A$4.8 billion in revenue in Australia.
Facebook has called the code unworkable in its current form and has asked for digital platforms to be given six-months’ grace to negotiate deals with news companies directly before being hit with the “big stick” of the mandatory code.
Stinton told the committee that the code is a “pragmatic way” to facilitate negotiations between news media and the digital platforms, and said the claim of opponents that the legislation would break an open Internet ignored that the Internet had changed.
“Opponents of the code are defending an open Internet that ceased to exist years ago, and instead has become dominated by a small number of very, very large US tech companies,” he said.
“In fact, Google and Facebook are the Internet for most Australians, or at least the key gateway to it. Google has a monthly audience of 19 million, and Facebook of 17 million,” he added.
“Where people go online is largely determined by these two companies’ algorithms,” Stinton said.
The Nine Network has said the digital platforms need to be regulated because they are monopolies within Australia, and should pay for news content because “access to news content drives credibility for and value of the platforms.”
Newswire service AAP has said it supports the code, but added that as a wholesale news provider it would not directly benefit from the code so would need other government support.
A poll released on Friday found three in five Australians believe social media companies should prioritize news Web sites in news feeds.
Dynata polled 1,003 people on Jan. 14 and 15 on behalf of the Australia Institute and found 62 percent of people agreed that social media companies should prioritize journalism in user feeds, and 84 percent agreed they should be transparent about how their algorithms influence user feeds and should take steps to stop the spread of misinformation.
The poll found 75 percent believed anonymous accounts should be banned, but people aged over 60 were much more likely to call for a ban on anonymous accounts (88 percent) compared with those 18 to 29 (59 percent).
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with