Australia’s Plan to Make Tech Pay for News w/ Lizzie O’Shea

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: The episode examines Australia’s proposed News Media Bargaining Code, which would force Google and Facebook to pay news publishers for links and content access. Lizzie O’Shea argues the law mainly entrenches media conglomerates, incentivizes data-driven click optimization, weakens web linking norms, and creates private revenue deals that bypass democratic oversight, while failing to genuinely fund public-interest journalism or address platform power.

Main Topics: What the Media Bargaining Code Does (Priority: 5/5): The code would require designated digital platforms to pay Australian news organizations for links and news content, with mandatory arbitration if no private agreement is reached. Why the Code Is Being Proposed (Priority: 5/5): The law is framed as a response to the decline of journalism revenue, newsroom closures, and the public-good role of local and investigative news, especially in regional areas. Concentration of Media Power in Australia (Priority: 4/5): The discussion highlights how Murdoch-owned and other large legacy outlets dominate the media landscape, shaping policy and limiting genuine diversity in the debate. Problems with the Code’s Design (Priority: 5/5): O’Shea argues the scheme does not guarantee support for public-interest journalism, instead giving money to large outlets without requiring how it is spent. Data Extraction and Incentives (Priority: 5/5): The code could deepen surveillance-capitalism dynamics by giving publishers access to platform data about algorithms and user click-throughs, encouraging optimization for engagement and monetization. Threats to the Open Web and Public Institutions (Priority: 4/5): Paying for links may undermine the web’s linking norms, while platform-publisher deals could further marginalize public broadcasters and legitimize new gatekeepers. Alternatives: Taxation and Public Funding (Priority: 4/5): O’Shea prefers taxing platforms and using public revenue for arm’s-length funding of journalism, privacy reform, and competition policy rather than private bargaining schemes.

Key Arguments: The code addresses a real crisis in journalism, but it is designed to benefit large legacy publishers more than the public. Public-interest journalism should be funded directly through democratic mechanisms, not through private transfers between platforms and media companies. The proposal entrenches data-centric media production by rewarding click optimization and sharing platform analytics with publishers. Making platforms pay for links is a dangerous precedent that could weaken the web’s basic architecture and the norm of free linking. The law aligns the interests of concentrated media firms and tech monopolies, creating another powerful gatekeeping layer instead of dispersing power. Public broadcasters being included creates a risk of privatizing their funding logic and reducing public accountability. A better response would be stronger tax policy, competition regulation, privacy reform, and possibly non-profit or public alternatives to platform infrastructure.

Data Points: US newsroom employment decline: Half since 2008 - Used to illustrate the broader collapse in journalism revenue and staffing after the digital shift. Australian newsrooms closed: 157 since January 2019 - Cited as evidence of severe local journalism decline in Australia. Committee process duration: About 6 months - The bargaining code had been under parliamentary committee scrutiny for roughly half a year. Google/Facebook scope in bill: Initially focused on Google and Facebook - The code begins with these platforms but can be expanded to others later. Minimum thresholds: Revenue and content thresholds for news organizations - Eligibility criteria mean smaller and independent outlets are likely excluded. Public broadcaster status: Initially excluded, later included - The ABC and a smaller public broadcaster were brought into scope after criticism. Potential expansion: Other platforms may be added over time - The code’s platform definition can be broadened in future.

Pivotal Quotes: "It’s incentivising a form of optimisation of news production that is exactly what we don’t need." — Lizzie O'Shea: On the code’s tendency to push publishers toward data-driven, engagement-maximizing journalism. "You want to see how you can create laws that give rise to the best bits of the internet while minimizing the worst aspects." — Lizzie O'Shea: On the need for policy that supports the open web rather than reinforcing old media structures. "The fundamental principle of the web is the ability to link freely." — Lizzie O'Shea: On why charging for links would be a major departure from web norms and architecture.

Implications: Listeners should see the code as a warning: fixes to platform power can backfire if they deepen media concentration, surveillance incentives, and gatekeeping. The episode suggests future reforms should prioritize public funding, privacy, and antitrust, not private pay-for-link arrangements.