Australia to Force Tech Titans to Pay for News

A new Australian scheme would slap a tax on Google and other major tech platforms that will be earmarked to pay for news. Josh Edelson / AFP/File
A new Australian scheme would slap a tax on Google and other major tech platforms that will be earmarked to pay for news. Josh Edelson / AFP/File
TT

Australia to Force Tech Titans to Pay for News

A new Australian scheme would slap a tax on Google and other major tech platforms that will be earmarked to pay for news. Josh Edelson / AFP/File
A new Australian scheme would slap a tax on Google and other major tech platforms that will be earmarked to pay for news. Josh Edelson / AFP/File

Australia will force Meta and Google to pay for news shared on their platforms under a new scheme unveiled Thursday, threatening to tax them if they refuse to strike deals with local media.
Traditional media companies the world over are in a battle for survival as precious advertising dollars are hoovered up online, AFP said.
Australia wants big tech companies to compensate local publishers for sharing articles that drive traffic on their platforms.
"The rapid growth of digital platforms in recent years has disrupted Australia's media landscape, and it is threatening the viability of public interest journalism," Communications Minister Michelle Rowland told reporters.
"It is important that digital platforms play their part. They need to support access to quality journalism that informs and strengthens our democracy."
Social media platforms with Australian revenue of more than US$160 million a year will be taxed a still-to-be-decided figure earmarked to pay for news.
But they can offset the tax -- or avoid paying it entirely -- if they voluntarily enter into commercial agreements with Australian media companies.
The Australian government indicated the parent companies of Google, Facebook and TikTok would be covered by the tax, which will come into effect next year.
Officials said Elon Musk's X would likely escape because its domestic revenue was too small.
Hundreds of Australian journalists have lost their jobs in recent years as newspapers are shuttered and media companies downsize.
In 2021, Google and Meta struck a string of deals with Australian newsrooms worth a combined US$160 million.
But Meta has indicated it will not renew its deals when they expire in March, arguing that news makes up a tiny portion of its traffic.
The tax will be designed to stop the tech giants from simply stripping news from their platforms, something Meta and Google have done overseas in the past.
A Meta spokesperson on Thursday said Australia was "charging one industry to subsidize another".
Latest salvo
The spokesperson said the "proposal fails to account for the realities of how our platforms work".
Australia's University of Canberra has found that more than half the country uses social media as a source of news.
Supporters of such laws argue that tech titans attract users with news stories and devour online advertising dollars that would otherwise go to struggling newsrooms.
Google and Facebook owner Meta have pushed back against efforts in other jurisdictions to compensate news outlets.
Google started removing links to some California websites earlier this year after the state indicated it would make them pay for traffic driven by news.
Facebook and Instagram have blocked news content in Canada to avoid paying media companies.
It is the latest salvo in Australia's efforts to reign in the tech giants.
Australia last month voted for new laws that will ban under-16s from social media.
It has also mooted slapping fines on companies that fail to stamp out offensive content and the spread of disinformation.



Trump Asks US Supreme Court to Pause Law Threatening TikTok Ban

Trump was fiercely opposed to TikTok during his 2017-21 first term, but has since changed his tune - AFP
Trump was fiercely opposed to TikTok during his 2017-21 first term, but has since changed his tune - AFP
TT

Trump Asks US Supreme Court to Pause Law Threatening TikTok Ban

Trump was fiercely opposed to TikTok during his 2017-21 first term, but has since changed his tune - AFP
Trump was fiercely opposed to TikTok during his 2017-21 first term, but has since changed his tune - AFP

US President-elect Donald Trump filed a brief Friday urging the Supreme Court to pause a law that would ban TikTok the day before his January 20 inauguration if it is not sold by its Chinese owner ByteDance.

"In light of the novelty and difficulty of this case, the court should consider staying the statutory deadline to grant more breathing space to address these issues," Trump's legal team wrote, to give him "the opportunity to pursue a political resolution."

Trump was fiercely opposed to TikTok during his 2017-21 first term, and tried in vain to ban the video app on national security grounds.

The Republican voiced concerns -- echoed by political rivals -- that the Chinese government might tap into US TikTok users' data or manipulate what they see on the platform, AFP reported.

US officials had also voiced alarm over the popularity of the video-sharing app with young people, alleging that its parent company is subservient to Beijing and that the app is used to spread propaganda, claims denied by the company and the Chinese government.

Trump called for a US company to buy TikTok, with the government sharing in the sale price, and his successor Joe Biden went one stage further -- signing a law to ban the app for the same reasons.

Trump has now, however, reversed course.

"Now (that) I'm thinking about it, I'm for TikTok, because you need competition," he recently told Bloomberg.

"If you don't have TikTok, you have Facebook and Instagram -- and that's, you know, that's Zuckerberg."

Facebook, founded by Mark Zuckerberg and part of his Meta tech empire, was among the social media networks that banned Trump after attacks by his supporters on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The ban was driven by concerns that he would use the platform to promote more violence.

Those bans on major social media platforms were later lifted.

In the brief filed on Friday, Trump's lawyer made it clear the president-elect did not take a position on the legal merits of the current case.

"President Trump takes no position on the underlying merits of this dispute," John Sauer wrote in the amicus curiae -- or "friend of the court" -- brief.

"Instead, he respectfully requests that the court consider staying the act's deadline for divestment of January 19, 2025, while it considers the merits of this case, thus permitting President Trump's incoming Administration the opportunity to pursue a political resolution of the questions at issue in the case."