[apple_innocent]

Australia is probably not a great example to use. The political landscape there is a problem in and of itself. Plus Murdoch, etc. They have their own problems to deal with. Google PR wants you to focus on Australia's insane politics. It distracts from the larger issue.

But. If you look at this in principle, without focusing on the specific country, then it is difficult to argue in Google's favour. Countries may want to preserve their media institutions, unlike the US. They may not want to watch journalism die at the hands of Facebook and Google.

The way Facebook and Google "decimate" is by being middlemen and extracting the lion's share of online advertiser revenue. They are positioned to collect larger amounts of data by being middlemen for all online content and thus can offer more value to advertisers than any single media publication.

These two companies have plenty of cash. If a country asks them to pay, they can. After all, neither produces any content.

That is the issue as I see it. Not Australia in particular but whether a country's media institutions can ask Facebook and Google to pay.

[jqpabc123]

... whether a country's media institutions can ask Facebook and Google to pay.

They can ask --- and Google/Facebook can refuse --- by de-listing these "media institutions" from search results.

Sound fair?

But this is not what is happening here. Australia is making Google and Facebook a mafia style offer that they can't refuse.

The only way to avoid paying is by leaving the country altogether. This is where it becomes a "free trade" issue.

What they are proposing is essentially a tariff --- a unique, special, unavoidable and highly targeted tax on these particular US companies just to legally operate in the country.

All this aside, what is really happening is Murdoch wants a cut of their profits without having to compete for it.

[apple_innocent]

The product, i.e., the Australian media, is already in the country. There is nothing to import. As for "legally operate in the country" that makes little sense either. If those companies want to open offices in Australia, they can. They can sell whatever they want. Of course, they do not sell anything. They are leeches.

The telecom infrastructure that Google and Facebook must utilise to conduct surveillance and collect data on the Australian readership, does not belong to Google or Facebook. What are these companies bringing to the country. Nothing. They are leaches. They want data on Australians.

Any country can create their own localised social network and search engine. If Google and Facebook want to charge fees to Australians to use their websites, then can. They will never do that. Why is that.

Again, "what is really happening" in Australia is not how I am looking at this dispute. I am looking at this as a general question of whether a country, any country, can protect its media industry from Google and Facebook. Other countries want to do this, too. This could be a test case.

Given that Australia now has a FTA with the US, the leverage is too great. So don't worry, Australia will back down.

But not every country is like Australia with its political grandstanding and Murdoch media. Not every country has a FTA with the US. Making Facebook and Google pay is not a crazy idea.

[apple_innocent]

Looks like Google is going to pay France.