sdw2001

I can’t speak to whether I support this potential law (I think I lean against it) but Facebook’s behavior is unquestionably tyrannical at this point.  The entire concept of them limiting/stopping sharing (beyond the blatantly illegal or pornographic) is the problem.  They have become a common carrier.  It’s no different than the railroads, telegrams, phones or ISPs.  They became so ubiquitous that they represented the new public square.  At least in the U.S., this meant they couldn’t refuse service because of political views or just about anything else that was legal. Here, we specifically gave social media immunity based on the notion that they wanted to be neutral platforms.  We were wrong.  They didn’t, and they aren’t.  They are now working hand in hand with one political  party and traditional media to push one ideology as well as government propaganda.  In the process, they are violating anti-trust, fraud and election interference laws.  Their reckoning is coming, be it through market forces, government action or both.  

macmojo said:

I’m Australian and we have a right wing government here, many of whose members are big Trump fans with the usual science-deriding, climate change denying, anti-minority etc.. positions.

The primary news organisation in Australia that backs them is News Corp (of your American Fox News infamy). Here in Australia, they’re losing money hand over fist and Murdoch has long complained about Google & FB eating up "his" ad revenue. The government is concerned that their major backer’s future is clouded so decided to implement this law as a wealth transfer from FB & Google to News (and other major outlets that also happen to be friendly to the government such as Nine/Fairfax and Seven West Media.).

Its basically extortion, FB & Google have no choice but to link to the News sites and pay the news sites for the privilege. The amount to be determined by a government appointed arbitrator. The news companies were claiming billions for their "costs", not the value they actually provide. They're demanding the right to post the articles on FB and that FB MUST PAY THEM for the privilege! As much as I hate FB, no business can operate under these conditions. In fact, they'd be insane to.

The news organisations here are so arrogant and entitled that they’re outraged at FB and demanding it reinstate them!

Also, no one knows more about internet traffic than FB and Google. Their ad tracking networks are all pervasive and they track even when you’re not logged into them or even a member! Can’t wait for iOS 14.5 to stop that, but this means that they know exactly the kind of traffic flows that occur and are able to predict what will happen from this action.

To cut a long story short, FB knows that this will not materially affect them here in Australia, but it will affect the news organisations.

LOL.  It’s all the right wing, racist Trump-loving, climate-denying lemmings!  Your “right wing government” is what our Democratic Party was until 2008.  In other words “not insane socialists” like much of Europe and our current Dem party.   While I’m sure the comical interests of News Corp play a large role, why aren’t we seeing the same thing here? Your government in trying to reign in the unbridled power of big tech.  Good for them.  

A pointless bill that accomplishes little and may be harmful.  First, it’s discriminator— based on company size and even what the particular service is.  They still pay tax on profits....now they have to pay an additional 2.5 to 10%? And only on ads that appear “in the state.”   Good lord...have fun keeping track of that.  And they are just going to do what all businesses do....pass on the cost in some way.   I’m all for going after Big Tech on anti trust, fraud, breach of contract and section 230 reform. But this tax is absurdly dumb.  

OctoMonkey said:

No streaming services for me, thank you!

I wonder how much people pay (in total) for their online media.
   Internet cost
+ Cable / Satellite
+ Streaming 1
+ Streaming 2
+ Streaming 3
...

Internet:  $50/mo for 200/200 (real speeds over WiFi exceed 300mbp frequently)  

Cable:  Cut a few months ago 

Streaming 1: YouTube TV $65 
Streaming 2: Prime ($12.99, but that includes Prime shipping, obviously) 
Streaming 3: HBO Max (free with cell phone) 
Streaming 4: Netflix ($13.99, just upgraded to premium for $17.99)  

So that's $145 as of now.  That amount was much higher.  Before, I was paying $185 for FioS internet (75mps) and TV (3 TVs, DVR, HBO).  I still had Netflix and Prime.  So I was paying about $70 a month more than I am now.  YouTube TV blows FioS cable away, my internet is much better, etc.  

JWSC said:

Putting aside the merits of this legislation, questionable though they may be, I’m not sure this can be done at the state level.  Interstate commerce remains the realm of the federal Government.

It would be enlightening to know who is behind this legislative push.  As Deepthroat would have said, “Follow the money.”

I agree with the first part. I'm not sure a state can get away with it.  As for the second point, I think what we see coming out of several "red" states right now probably is less about money and more about a reaction to what's going on with Big Tech.  Florida is pushing an anti-censorship bill, for example.  Their constituents are pissed (in my view, rightfully) and they want to make it look like they are doing something.