Facebook's week of dancing the hokey-cokey – it put the news tab in, it pulled the news tab out, it out the news tab in and it shook it all about – is over, and we're watching the dust settle. A quick lay-of-the-land, for those who haven't been following this news as closely as I have. Australia has spent the last few years working towards the creation of legislation which would force large tech companies – specifically named by a state body, and in practice limited to only Google and Facebook – to enter binding arbitration with the news industry to pay for their use of news on their platforms.
What needs to happen before tech companies take the step of recognising the harm-mitigation intent of legislation, if they ever will? The only possibility that springs to mind is the appearance of competitors that profit off exploiting harmful mechanisms to a greater extent than they do — for example, Apple pushing for pro-privacy legislation that will harm their competitors far more than themselves. But in a world hyper-dominated by FAAMG this seems a long way off.
The Telegraph is paywalled, as is the Financial Times. The Guardian isn't. The Times is but you can get access (some access, all access?) via Apple's News+. There's Newsadoo and Inkl aggregators but I am not sure how much access to the source news that actually gives you. I use Google News and hate it when I click a link and find it is paywalled. That happens a lot. Which newspapers can afford to not have a paywall for the foreseeable future? I am guessing it is the tabloids. So if all the quality newspapers put up a paywall - what are people going to read? The Daily Mail??
What needs to happen before tech companies take the step of recognising the harm-mitigation intent of legislation, if they ever will? The only possibility that springs to mind is the appearance of competitors that profit off exploiting harmful mechanisms to a greater extent than they do — for example, Apple pushing for pro-privacy legislation that will harm their competitors far more than themselves. But in a world hyper-dominated by FAAMG this seems a long way off.
The Telegraph is paywalled, as is the Financial Times. The Guardian isn't. The Times is but you can get access (some access, all access?) via Apple's News+. There's Newsadoo and Inkl aggregators but I am not sure how much access to the source news that actually gives you. I use Google News and hate it when I click a link and find it is paywalled. That happens a lot. Which newspapers can afford to not have a paywall for the foreseeable future? I am guessing it is the tabloids. So if all the quality newspapers put up a paywall - what are people going to read? The Daily Mail??