- Meta is not a good corporate citizen. They have built the world’s largest social media company by distributing public interest journalism without compensation. They have mined publishers’ audience data in the process. In 2024 alone they will extract $5 billion in minimally taxed advertising revenue from the Australian market. Now that they are being asked to pay for the use of public interest journalism in Australia and globally, their algorithms are burying news posts. They distribute lies, misinformation, and disinformation without providing users equal access to fact checked journalism, damaging discourse in the civic arena. Australian democracy faces the very real threat that Meta will remove news posts from their platforms once again rather than compensate for the use of public interest journalism.
- On the advice of the ACCC in 2021, Public Interest Publishers Alliance (PIPA) applied to collectively bargain with both Meta and Google. The ACCC approved PIPA’s request to collectively bargain with both tech firms under the provisions of the News Media Bargaining Code. PIPA was founded by independent public interest publishers listed on the ACMA Register of Eligible News Businesses, which was established under the Code.
- To date Meta has refused to collectively bargain with PIPA’s 24 members. They have also refused to re-negotiate deals with Australia’s largest media corporations (none of whom are listed on the News Media Bargaining Code’s ACMA register). The government should designate Meta under the News Media Bargaining Code, requiring Meta to negotiate with Publishers who are listed on the Register and forcing them into arbitration should they refuse.
- Should the government designate Meta, Australia’s small and independent publishers will suffer most. In Canada, where similar legislation was enacted, Meta has removed news from its platform. Large publishers have (for the most part) weathered the storm, developing strategies to redirect traffic. Small community independents, First Nations publishers and LGBT mastheads have been hardest hit by Meta’s refusal to carry news. The same happened in Spain when Google refused to carry news on its platform in response to a “snippet tax”: large corporate publishers maintained their readership, but independents were badly hurt.
- In Australia Google has played more fairly. They collectively bargained with PIPA after the ACCC approved our collective bargaining application. Represented by the Minderoo Foundation, PIPA’s 24 publishers received significant and meaningful compensation as a result of the process.
- Meta refused to negotiate with PIPA, opting to only do deals with Australia’s largest media players (reportedly mollifying the previous government by covering 85% of the “market”). Meta referred PIPA members to a new $15 million fund to be distributed through the Walkley Foundation over three years. Grant applications for the first year had closed. Over the three years that the grants were available, one third of all PIPA members received funds through Meta’s Walkley fund.
- While large publishers bemoan the loss of hundreds of millions in Meta revenues from their balance sheets, few have spared a thought of the lost $15 million that META will no longer contribute to small, independent public interest journalism in Australia.
- Designation under the News Media Bargaining Code is essential, but it will not save independent, public interest journalism, only government action can. In Canada, following META’s decision to ban news posts on its site, Ottawa announced that it is renewing its own $58.8 million Local Journalism Initiative, placing more than 400 reporters in nearly 300 media outlets serving 1400 communities. Canberra must do the same.
- Publishers who are listed on ACMA’s Register of Eligible News Businesses should be protected. They are most at risk of having their content removed by Meta. Public Interest Publishers not only face an existential threat, as Meta’s algorithms reduce the distribution of news content, they face the risk of removal and retaliation since they have been identified by the government as being public interest publishers.
- A $50 million fund should be established to protect small and medium sized publishers on the ACMA register, which should be actively expanded. Inclusion on the ACMA list should be promoted and celebrated. Penalties received from META for failing to comply with the NMBC (up to and exceeding $50 million) should go into the fund.
- In Australia Meta must not be allowed to publish unsubstantiated facts as news without also offering the community access to verifiable, public interest journalism at a bare minimum. They must act as responsible corporate citizens and be held accountable for what they distribute in Australia.
- Australia’s nearest neighbour, Indonesia, has introduced legislation requiring that Meta, Google and other tech firms negotiate with the country’s publishers. Indonesian law also mandates that tech firms, such as Meta “must carry” news content. In the same way that the Australian government mandates that commercial broadcasters must carry local Australian produced content and other nations require that commercial broadcasters must carry news content, Jakarta is requiring that Meta publish journalism on the platform in their jurisdiction. Canberra should do the same, perhaps considering a local news content quota on all TV, radio and online to level the playing field. . Meta should not be permitted to extract billions from the Australian marketplace without regulation. They should not be allowed to censor public interest journalism.