[shortweb3]

Can someone explain why this is beneficial to Murdoch or other organisations? Right now if I perform a search for say ‘coronavirus vaccine Australia’ two government sites come up and 10 news sites. If I then click on a news site they can advertise to me and in the case of the guardian ask for donations in the case of Murdoch ask for subscriptions. If they are removed then how my only choice is to go direct to the site of choice. Especially for Murdoch sites that are hard paywalled I don’t get the benefit?

[hnick]

I suppose they are hoping the social companies (FB/GOOG) do not pull out, so then they get all the listed benefits around data and profit sharing (including algorithms - if Google had to share SEO implementation details or FB with their feed, that would be unprecedented I think).

But if they do call the bluff and pull out, then I don't see how it helps the papers apart from being able to set the narrative on their own platform and limit discourse (comments/critiques) off-site. If you can't share something on Reddit etc and talk about it, then you have to comment on 'approved' venues which will help bolster any cases they make by shutting out dissent. They are probably hoping this is still a win as others will go to the source directly, and pay if they have to because now there will be no other option.

In short they're used to the pre-2000 era and never adapted. They think with the right laws we can turn back time.

[postingawayonhn]

They don't want to be removed. The law is written in a way that makes it really hard for Facebook and Google to do so. They want to be paid (News Corp thinks they should be paying $1b and NINE think about $600m).