Senator Bragg: "I'm struggling to understand..."

Applies to just about everything this bloke raises

Senate, Economics Legislation Committee (Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2020) Live https://www.aph.gov.au/news_and_events/watch_parliament

This Senator Susan McDonald is just embarrassing?

How the frack do you get to her age and this job without even having the slightest idea of how a search engine works? FMD!

Bit rich carrying on about how much tax Google pays. Considering this whole new piece of legislation is to protect profits of News Corp & NineFax that is bloody rich. Didn't we actually pay News Corp and they have paid no bloody tax in years?

Have to say, disappointed with SHY, normally asks better questions in these forums. Attacking Google, when as they state, we comply with all tax laws is rather annoying.

Yeah, they should pay more tax, but that is an issue with our tax system where EVERY large biz enjoys.

Bragg is seriously upset about Googles "threats and blackmail".

Man, that 'free market' is just not so attractive when it doesn't do what the government wants

Facebook now saying didn't have time to give feedback before mandatory stuff shoved down their throat, I am paraphrasing obviously

Another who has "threatened to take news off their platform" says Chair. Facebook disagrees with that statement.

I find this very interesting. Australia thought they were legends turning around making this code "mandatory" and it is blowing up for them.

Facebook are being less blunt than Google was, but are pretty much saying "Yeah... Nah... just won't show news then, stuff ya"

Interesting that even though Facebook has pretty much said the same thing as Google, ie 'won't comply, stuff you, will take bat & ball and piss off', questioning (from Senators) seems to be more reasonable with Facebook than was with Google?

Exhibit A. Bragg's first question is about misinformation on Facebook?

Odd when was hyperventilating in fury over Google's 'threats and bribery'?

Bragg: "does credible news from like ABC or the The Australian..."

The Australian and 'credible' is not what comes to mind for me. Could bite them in the butt if Facebook actually does take 'misinformation' flagging seriously

Bragg still being very polite to Facebook. Obviously going to shit in his own backyard.

As an aside Would love to know how much it helped Liberals just scrape over the line in last election with Facebook as the vehicle for spreading the retiree tax & death tax lies?

Old mate Rex is now up, seems more interested in US involvement in Facebook, in regards advocacy...

Facebook doesn't really want a bar of it and suggests the Senator raises this with the US Government

Oh in case anyone wonder what the hell I am tweeting about

Senate, Economics Legislation Committee (Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2020) Live
https://www.aph.gov.au/news_and_events/watch_parliament

Rex raising issue of tax paid too, (well lack of it) admits not illegal but what about 'morals' and 'social license'.

Howz about you change the laws so that ALL big business pay tax.

Rex: "SOCIALLY IT IS NOT MORAL"!!!

Rex still talking about 'social license' at the company level.

Can't wait for News Corp, NineFax and Seven West Media to get the same "morally bankrupt" accusation

Dopey Senator Susan McDonald is up now, and her concern is "fake news"! How do Facebook deal with it.

Maybe should ask her own party? They love to benefit from fake news on social media, particularly Facebook

HAHA! McDonald implying Facebook doesn't have to fact check if they use Australian media news coz they all follow a code

Holy shite, has this woman read a lot of our traditional media in recent times? FMD!

McDonald is now talking about promoted content not quite sure where she is going here?

I suspect is actually a backhand question, as in one of her nasty mates has tried to promote terrible info and they got pinged in the 'fact checking'?

News is less than 5% of content shared on Facebook.

McDonald asking about rural areas being harmed if news removed from Facebook - as they also threatened to just pull it if forced into this mandatory code.

Susan won't be happy, dude is giving a detailed answer

Now SHY is up. Asking about how many users in Australia Facebook has? Answer is 17 million on Facebook & 13 million on Instagram and significant cross-over of both groups.

SHY back on the money earned in Australia.

This is flogging a dead horse SIGH!

SHY: Does Facebook take responsibility for content place on their site?

Short answer: Nope, just reported stuff, misinformation and moderation.

SHY pointing out "they" as in Facebook make decisions over what is harmful & what is not.

Think she is hinting at "OMG! the power!"

SHY: 17 Million users, you have a social responsibility...

Facebook reckon they have been advocating for change in this area as they reckon they should not have to police - obviously I am paraphrasing.

Younger FB dude now talking about terrorist act, defo law etc.

Fake News that leads to harm can be taken down, but fake news that is not a safety issue doesn't have to be taken down?

Talking about difficulty of making decisions on misinformation and paying 3rd party experts.

Obviously still on the "OMG! The Power!" line

OO! Now referring to their bragging about Covid information being solid, so now SHY lands a shot asking if have removed any Craig Kelly posts?

All they will say is some public figures have had posts removed but 'privacy'... won't say who.

Still pushing Craig Kelly, but bloke won't budge: "We have removed posts of a number of public figures".

This is rather funny.

Users share news so SHY seems to think that means they are a news org? Not sure this is a smart line for her?

Already answered it is less than 5% on average is news shared. So SHY wonders why they are worried about this new law?

I kind of get where she is going, but 'precedent'

Now asking how Facebook will restrict news if code is implemented.

"HOLDING 17 MILLION AUSTRALIANS TO RANSOM"!
Well, could only be News Agencies.

OUCH! Senator Gallagher's wife would not be able to share an Australian article on Facebook! #TheyAreNotHappy

Senator Gallagher asking if this code coming up has hurt Facebook investment in media in Australia.

The young Facebook dude has said yes. Seems a few initiatives they have not been able to do with small publishers due to this pending code?

So it sounds like this code is an own goal for media companies if Facebook is to be believed (a big IF).

Were doing commercial agreements with publishers, where they instigate the relationship as in commissioning themselves.

So sounds like some small publishers have been harmed

Senator Gallagher now asking about how much has been lost in this investment (as dude had said would have thought more set up by mid 2020 but bounced due to the mandatory code demands).

He couldn't give figures, but would be interesting to know?

Facebook saying they want a workable code and want to invest more... Sounding very reasonable.

Gallagher now asking about 'possible withdrawal of services', is the Treasurer taking this as a threat or commercial decision?

Not something that is new today, bloke says something that has been known since September.

Trying to take the high ground, as in, if we can have a decent code that works with us, will be a good result for everyone.

Now Lenore from The Guardian up.

Senate, Economics Legislation Committee (Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2020) Live https://www.aph.gov.au/news_and_events/watch_parliament

Sorry had to walk away.

OK some dude up talking about big tech, how powerful it is, monopoly, take it or leave it terms by google. All very scary - no I am not being sarcastic, they are!

Good thing they are not trying to install white supremacists as leaders of nations huh?

Now a dude from News Corporation. Sucking up to Government big time about "confronting this global problem and take it on" blah blah

Yeah... no-one likes a monopoly do they?

#LookInTheMirrorDude

Sounding like News Corp don't want any changes of "refinements" to this code.

So I guess that means they wrote the code?

I guess that makes sense now why ABC were left out originally huh

Now AAP up... They also support the bill "in it's current form".

A lot of mention of the term "public interest journalism".

I really get that, wish we just had more of it.

AAP focus is on wholesale news obviously.

Not quite sure how this mandatory code will help them? Hope this is fleshed out a bit more, particularly considering the big boys in media trying to destroy them?

Ahhh ok, AAP wants more as this bill will not really help them and they want recurrent government support for AAP.

Considering what AAP does, I think this is very fair, though doubt they will help them, didn't when nearly folded.

Guardian Australia dude up now. Supporting the code and reckon will be able to employ more journalists if code is implemented.

Focus on Google & Facebook and rubbishes any naysayers as being attached to them in some way.

Now talking about 14 days notice about changes to algorithms.

Yeah... so would every person who handles a website in this nation, particularly all the small businesses, but stuff them huh?

Another reference to ACCC. Not sure can agree with the percentages of 'share' discussed here as that is 'using' those platforms, not 'news' on those platforms.

Raising how they collect user data too, now this is relevant and yes data does have value, but don't see how media need

Guardian say they want that data as well so they know they are getting a fair deal on the revenue of advertising on their sites.

Yeah... nah... I don't like Google or Facebook having that data, but I sure as shit really don't want likes of News Corp or NineFax having that data!

First question to AAP, so pretty much saying that this code will not assist AAP at all, who is the only one out of all these groups who is actually doing PUBLIC INTEREST JOURNALISM

Now asking about 'regulatory uncertainty' and how has this 18 months affected their bottom lines.

News Corp dude reckon all media revenue has declined but audiences have increased.

Now they are all taking turns saying it is urgent that this code be implemented.

News Corp reckons they are all trying to negotiate commercial agreements with Google & Facebook and reckon terms are no good.

Poor AAP on hold & no google at all

At least Senator Gallacher does seem to be trying to work out why none of these negotiations seem to be successful and it is all dragging out.

News Corp dude making out like they really don't want to deal.

NineFax dude just plays hardball, wants his legislation.

Sorry, gotta nick off, you can carry on watching here:

Senate, Economics Legislation Committee (Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2020) Live https://www.aph.gov.au/news_and_events/watch_parliament

Back...

Just caught the News Corp dude talking about "credible news" on digital platform reassures people.

News Corp? "credible news"? yeah... when you stop the crap and shut down Sky might believe that.

From what I can tell, they all seem to think the news is more valuable to Google and Facebook than they are admitting.

Not sure they are that valuable?

Lenore raises good question, as to how it will affect people if no news is on those platforms?

Good question from Rex: How will affect these dudes if Google does leave the Australian market.

Lenore says Google is a big source of referral. Admits Google helped Guardian grow. Will have affect on those trying to grow.

International News dude agrees, talks about new entrants. Sorry if I am suspicious about that concern. Don't think most of these big dudes give a shite about smaller publishers and new entrants as they are not really helped by this code?

Rex asking about Google withdrawal and how it would help if Google exists the market.

International news dude reckons no difference, as don't contribute to it now.

News Corp dude thinks would be a back to the future type thing.

McDonald up... Raising how Google & Facebook said were driving users to those articles.

Finally an ok question from her.

News Corp dude agrees they do, but still reckons the snippet on Google hurts them as it serves their news needs.

Not quite sure how Google is getting so much money from someone looking at a snippet? Hell if that person saw that passing a newsagent and didn't pick up & pay for a paper, sure as hell won't online either. That means punter just not that interested in that news.

Now asking about decline in Regional papers and how Google & Facebook have contributed that decline.

FMD! I live in a regional place and some decline is lack of advertising, but FMD! News Corp purchasing most (in Qld) then shutting down paper & putting behind paywall hurt more!

Of the 400 AAP supply to over 250 are in regional Australia. WOW! that is massive.

We really should be spending more time talking about Government helping AAP, not bloody News Corp.

International News dude now about the Google 'experiment'. McDonald wanting more info on that.

Oh FFS! this dude is talking about emergencies, covid, CYCLONES McDonald yells, so he implies this was dangerous

Cyclone people were looking at FB community groups & ABC radio imo.

Now SHY is up. Raising some criticism of Mainstream media just being upset about disruption. Thinks might be some truth to that argument. She wants to know where the 'balance' is here?

Some truth is "old guard" not wanting "new kids on the block".

International News dude (considering who he refers to all the time is really the NineFax dude). Rabbiting on about monopolies not contributing.

News Corp dude reckons it is not about saving "old fashioned companies". Reckons they are innovating, but "gatekeeper" not helping.

"old fashioned trust and legacy" yes, that came out of the News Corp dudes mouth

Guardian dude saying continuing to grow despite the advertising disruption. Admits classifieds dying line from Google is valid but...

Google and Facebook have 81% of advertising share.

I would have a lot more sympathy with these media dudes if they admitted this bill was more about them getting 'advertising share' and not so much about 'public interest journalism.'

AAP not helped sort of proves it

SHY trying to tease out "public interest" aspect. Have to say, not all news media is public interest and when behind paywalls, really not public interest at all, that is just a commercial interest.

At least SHY now mentioning this is a war between Google & Murdoch.
#EvilVsEvil

News Corp dude reckons the 'Murdoch' line is old fashioned. Even said people can challenge Murdoch now, the 'monopoly' line is a "self serving fantasy".

FMD! He actually said that?!

Lenore actually saying media diversity is an issue in Australia. But not place to discuss.

Yeah... can't say I agree with Lenore. It never seems to be the time to raise this issue of media ownership in Australia and if Google & Facebook agree to this code, will just make News Corp even more powerful.

Good question from Senator Gallagher as to how many more journos could be employed if code comes through.

None can answer, all very vague and reckon can't answer.

Poor bloody AAP takes opportunity to say WOULD employ more, but not included in code.

SUPPORT AAP!!

The line from all of them seems to be they don't know how much Google & Facebook are getting so they can't tell how much would help them in employing people?

hmmm if that is the case then why are you fighting so hard for this? None will commit to employing more staff

Another good question from Gallagher about future legal challenges if legislation is passed and how that will affect them.

My vibe is that Senate Committee will support this legislation.

Media dudes maybe should be careful what they wish for

At least Guardian dude admits might be a dire impact on traffic referral at first.

Now Gallagher asking about International pressure, and is a code the only answer, what other models might work?

News Corp dude reckons they need the 'pressure' "coz of the impacts on many parts of society" and they respond to pressure.

Shame bloody News Corp doesn't respond to any pressure from 'society'

Guardian dude reckons would be no way would be having serious conversations with the platforms without this regulatory pressure.

Gallagher now asking their opinion on proposed model of arbitration (Final Offer Arbitration). This morning both Google & Facebook dissed it.

Of course News Corp thinks it is great. Then again, they know arbiter will always choose News Corp in this nation I would guess.

Bloody hell, should be Senator McAllister (not Gallagher) SIGH! not sure why I kept writing the other.

Also of note, News Corp dude reckons Final Offer Arbitration will really help 'small publishers', elaborated on it too

If you believe they give a shit about small pubs...

Now they are on break.

When they come back, listen for yourself on
Senate, Economics Legislation Committee (Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2020) Live https://www.aph.gov.au/news_and_events/watch_parliament

Alrighty, they are back!

Now we have the Free TV people.

Greg from Free TV Australia and a few dudes with him. https://www.aph.gov.au/news_and_events/watch_parliament

Talking about paying spectrum fees, broadcasting fees, meet content regulations etc., and thinks 'gateway' businesses like Facebook & Google must do so as well.

He sort of has a good point here.

Though not sure this bargaining code is right, FTA bloke has 10 recs to add.

They want insta etc added to code as well.

They want ALL media protected.

Damn it! Can't catch all these recs - in office ARGH! Hope FTA actually publish them as some are interesting.

Gallacher up first. Asking what value they are losing due to Google & Facebook.

Dude talks about distribution, but he has not quantified? Referring to ACCC estimates (which a few dispute) and again flogs the 'gatekeepers', 'monopoly' lines.

Other FTA dude says can't answer question coz they don't know what data is collected and how they monetise that data.

So pretty much they 'think' they are losing money and want access to that data.

I will say again, hate Google & Facebook having this data, HELL NO! to media too

Now talking about their rules they have to meet with media regulations.

Sort of... We have rules, they should too.

The FTA bloke is not wrong, they should. But imo those rules should be for ALL Australians, including protections, not just media orgs.

HAHA! We can't answer stuff coz "commercial in confidence" BUT Google and Facebook should be answering all their questions about revenue, data etc.?

Gallacher raising issue Google said, why should media get preferential treatment others don't get?

I would like to know this!

FTA dude. Media is more important.

Trying to make out like you get full economic value if you pay Google for advertising when you sell it.

yeah... but we paid for the referrals, unlike media

Gallacher now asking about fears of unintended consequences?

FTA dude is not real concerned, reckons stuff will be changed if there are as with most legislation.

More focus on "drain on advertising dollars"

Good thing I am not having a shot every time I hear "monopoly gatekeepers"

Advertising market being discussed a hell of a lot more than 'public interest journalism'. OO! this dude says "80-90% market share" (will be 100 by days end )

Free Market Bragg up now.
Who is not so keen on free market when it comes to tech types

Asking about Google & Facebook proposals to address news issues, FTA dude agrees 'show case' is another ad hoc thing and means little.

Now some woman from FTA talking about a regulatory framework for a market place solution. Google showcase is a "red-herring".

hmm media don't like current 'market place' so want Government to force 'market place' to pay them more? Not really a free market vibe here?

As an aside:

Just in case anyone thinks I am trashing media & loving Google & Facebook, you would be wrong. I despise Facebook with a passion, same with Google as a small biz owner & have helped hundreds of other small businesses, really despise both!

Just cynical about media.

So yeah, would love to see more regulation over Google and Facebook, but assisting Small business, stopping orgs from forcing you to view via FB, privacy protections for Australians etc., are a shitload more important in reining in these monopolies than media whining imo.

Anhow... back to this FTA bloke still droning on about the "monopoly gatekeepers" distorting the market.

Bragg still not getting answers he wants about Google Showcase.

Now Bragg is on to Facebook being the home of 'fake news' and would have thought content from media would be better for them and give them more credibility if shared on their platform.

Sure if you think Sky News is legit https://twitter.com/FacebookTop10AU/status/1351363016973959170?s=20

Now Bragg talking about the 'threats & blackmail' and asking if will harm FTA.

FTA dude reckons are other players and more would enter the market. And can go direct to website and would increase that traffic.

FTA dude obviously thinks is worth calling the bluff.

They love quoting ACCC and their quoted advertising revenue figures for Google & Facebook?

Correct me if I am wrong, but thought those figures were estimated as could not get full figures from both those big players?

Lady FTA also backs up his dude, thinks Google nicking off won't be an issue at all.

hmmm not sure I agree with that, but appreciate the bravado

Now we have ABC & SBS coming up.

SBS is online but looks like someone might have pulled the copper line at Ultimo, ABC are AWOL

suspended briefly until they find ABC

ABC of course welcomes the legislation and reckons they could invest more in regional Australia.

I would like to see this but knowing how how regional radio has been gutted, not holding my breathe.

Plus, ABC were not even included in original draft, so might get ripped off.

At least ABC bloke raised more moderation which I agree with, this really matters!

Now SBS, interesting. SBS have 4 women at the table for this hearing, looks good

SBS supports of course. As they should, they need more money.

Mentions their covid info and how had it in 50 languages, which is seriously bloody good!! They deserve more kudos than they get for this

Good point about how taxpayers have already paid too!

Though again, adding they pretty much want the data held by digital platforms - so they can best serve their public - yeah... nah... sorry!

This push from all of them for ad revenue share, I get, but the data, bad enough with Google & Facebook, don't trust media at all.

Now talking about about algorithms changing and how much time & money spent meeting those requirements when no warning of changes.

Well Duh! How do you think the rest of us cope, like the millions of small businesses

Gallacher first up, asking ABC about regional Australia. Asking how seeing algorithms will help.

They think they should be told every 12 months what the algorithms are?

As someone who works with the interwebz, this makes me nervy, coz, umm IP

Gallacher now asking about intended consequences. ABC dude is more concerned about things not in the bill like not including tools to moderate user comments on Facebook?

Huh? They can on their own sites?

Also not happy about not getting enough data.

Geez they want that data.

ABC dude obviously not concerned about Google & Facebook taking a hike?

Now asking same question to SBS.

They are pretty much on same page as ABC.

Asking now about 14 day warning for algorithm changes. SBS don't think that is enough time for them.

FMD! privileged to get any bloody warning.

SBS think coz of complexity of news they need more like 28 days.

Gallacher asking what impact bill would have on their revenue.

ABC say difficult to determine as not enough information.

Shorter: We have no idea but we want more money! Just like all the other media orgs.

At least both SBS & ABC agree that extra money would go to public interest journalism and creating more positions for regional journalists in case of ABC.

This I could support.

Now McDonald is up. Asking ABC to define "local and regional" - as in their promise they would spend any of the moolah they score.

Think McDonald is concerned about the 'local' aspect as not wanting it spent on cities.

Good question from McDonald, asking if revenue would also be spent on supporting the journalism in regional Australia, graphics people, support staff etc.,

Know for a fact they are sorely needed. Hope ABC would exclusively use extra cash in regions and on what is 'needed'.

OK weird, McDonald wanting to know how code will allow 'other' regional journalism, papers etc., to thrive in regional areas?

Who cares? That is not the problem or issue of the ABC FFS!?

SIGH! just when thought Susan McDonald had gotten a clue.

Now back to a better question. Asking if ABC would consider putting more journalists and content makers out of city and into regional areas.

He says they want to get 75% out of Ultimo. So yeah... iffy on it being regional, could be more just outer suburbs.

She also wants definition of 'content maker', old mate will supply that to her later.

Old mate Rex up now. Assume ABC has had no negotiations with Google & Facebook, coz of 'late inclusion' in bill.

Rex asking if ABC view others as competitors.

ABC bloke refers to charter.

imo dunno why Rex is concerned, ABC is always flogging commercial entities instead of their own people, like regional areas etc.,

Rex is worried that payment might tempt ABC to flick their 'purist' view to engage in 'clickbait' themselves for financial returns.

FMD! Has old mate Rex not looked at ABC, Insiders, QandA tweets and headlines, that boat floated a long time ago

SBS being asked same question.

Thankfully SBS don't play the clickbait game from I have seen, so doubt would be 'tempted' to clickbait to scam more cash.

Their answer is a tad more honest, doubt would change content & they have original content.

SHY now up. Asking if ABC & SBS were not subject to this code, would they be concerned that Oz taxpayers funding content but a multi-national gets to make profit of it.

ABC obviously concerned, why they argued to be included.

Think SHY is just trying to point out how if bill is legit about needing a 'fair share' and is for 'public interest journalism' then ABC & SBS need to be included.

SHY raising all the 'business model' talk and wanting to talk about 'public interest journalism' and needs regs.

Wonder if SHY saw a heap of tweets at lunch of many dissing this hearing coz of the cynical use of 'public interest journalism', when big media orgs were really only interested in ad share.

Rex asking is ABC prepared if Google leaves the Australian market.

ABC dude is admitting would be a significant impact, he thinks they might just go directly to ABC/SBS but no doubt in short-term would be disruptive, have not war-gamed it.

SBS also admit they use Google & Facebook to reach more people.

They hope will be ok with code. They think they will get a huge increase to their own platforms if Google & Facebook take a hike.

SBS woman thinks ABC & SBS provide balance on platforms like Facebook with misinformation.

yeah... SBS maybe, not so sure about ABC some days.

Bragg has no questions, coz, not commercial I suppose

ACCC on after this short break

Back, the big boy Rod Sims himself has turned up, plus an offsider.

Old mate Rod is an old hand at these hearings. He is all about the bargaining 'imbalance', for 'fair commercial deals', so yeah... if that is the first comment, nothing to do with 'public interest journalism'

Reckons will help smaller & regional publishers to bargain under the code.

First mention today I have heard about small publishers? Everyone has been very light on how they will be helped, unless to be used as a reference to make out like this is not just a mercenary bill

Sims having a whinge about the fact he reckons they did deal with platforms and made changes and platforms still not bowing down.

As you can tell, I am paraphrasing big time

Sims doesn't accept the argument that he is trying to break the internet.

This sounds a lot more like Sims just hitting back and defending what Google & Facebook have said. Which is a fair call, but doesn't really help with better understanding of the code.

Sims reckons Google Showcase only exists because of threat of regulation.

He is probably right.

Sims doesn't think Showcase addresses the imbalance in bargaining power.

First good question, why was it changed from a voluntary code to a mandatory code.

Sims didn't think a voluntary code would achieve what the Government wanted to achieve.

Government wanted to achieve?

Sims saying the offers under voluntary were not going to "meet the governments needs".

Gallacher up and asking why no deal could be organised after so much time. Sims reckons is just coz Google & Facebook like to do things on their own terms.

he is not wrong.

Sims of course thinks it is workable. Sims looking rather pleased with himself, likes to say "Google & Facebook don't want", think he thinks he is a bit of a hero here?

Shame he doesn't put this effort into monopolies that actually hurt punters

Yep, they really want that code. Raised a few times then.

Kind of weird. They think this is OK? I mean code is intellectual property? Imagine expecting any other business to hand over their propriety information that earns them money?

Sims obviously thinks this code is the only way they can get commercial deals - like the code is the big stick.

Sims can't give a figure on percentage it would help journalism either.

Amazing, they all want a share, but can't say how would help journalism?

FMD! Sims reckons will even get more diversity in media with this bill.

Geezus, more journos, more diversity, this bill is magic.

Note! I will keep this tweet and look at 12 months after deal is done. Anyone want to take bets NO extra journos?

Sims not surprised Google & Facebook saying they will take a hike.

He doesn't seem very concerned.

Senator Gallacher seems only person concerned they might piss off and serious unintended consequences in Australia.

Sims open to "sensible" changes to be made. Though sounds like he not really, thinks Google & Facebook just don't want code and don't want the arbitration. (remember it is final offer arbitration, so sort of get that).

Now asking about French Google deal.

Gallacher asking if this is just brinkmanship to get a deal?

Sims reminiscing about back in the day and deals always about brinkmanship in serious negotiation. But he does not know what Google & Facebook are going to do.

Sims thinks the code is pretty much perfect.

Senator McDonald is up now. Starts with flattering of Sims. Now asking for purposes of the record what the 'failed marketplace' is in Australia for journalists.

Sims saying media can't NOT engage with Google or Facebook.

This is false. They can stop their pieces being indexed whenever they like, they don't have to submit their journalism to them at all. Can just advertise for direct visitors in many other formats.

Damaging lie

Have to say, really disappointed in Sims there.

Yeah Google and Facebook are powerful, no denying that, but to say on one hand, media have no choice but to engage with them but then shrug off them moving out of the country does not equate.

Hard to take all words on faith now.

Sims trying to 'define the market', being charming. Think Senator McDonald has a bit of a crush on him.

Rex is up now. Concerned about Google & Facebook leaving the market.

Rex asking if there is a move on internationally to do what we are doing here in Australia?

Sims said our model is to address a bargaining imbalance. A very much Australian approach.

A lot of countries recognize the issues and are looking at doing something.

Deals have been done in France. Under a copyright law that covered search. Sims says similar to what we are doing here.

umm yeah.. not really https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/google-french-publishers-sign-copyright-news-payment-deal-rcna232

Rex more concerned about Google/Facebook leaving. Sims is not. Refers to other countries and their engagement with regulators. All about evening up 'commercial arrangements'.

We are more advanced in our dealings in this matter.

Sims doesn't seem to think would close down.

Rex now asking about negotiation and arbitration. How Facebook cash goes to Ireland so how can you determine value when there is complete opaqueness from these big players?

Sims reckons Final Offer Arbitration will answer that.

Shorter Sims, our big stick of Final Offer Arbitration will get us any answers we want.

Rex concerned because of business structures to avoid tax how can media even negotiate when can't see what is earned in revenue?

Good question.

Rex asking if ACCC could determine what Facebook revenue was to Ireland.

Female offsider said they did public some figures of revenue generated in Australia, but Rex can't work out if that was revenue that was hooked into Ireland.

Sims now explaining you can approximate what revenue is for likes of Facebook.

Rex now asking about the Google 'experiment'. That really has them all rattled. Sims says was no breach of the law.

Rex reckons algorithm could cause harm in the Australian market.

You mean like the Robodebt algorithm?

Anyhow, Rex is concerned about preferential algorithms etc., and can ACCC audit them to check this is not happening?

Sims reckons from a competition point of view they are fine with powers they can check with algorithms.

Again, all about protecting the businesses like News Corp, not so much punters who could be affected with shitty algorithm that say skews to right wing crap.

Rex really wanting more info on ACCC auditing the algorithms. Wonder why so obsessed about it?

Sims seems to think they have enough powers to act and not concerned.

Senator Bragg now up. Asking Google & Facebook can do deals outside the code?

Sims reckons only if the code is there are if media companies can fall back on it, they will be able to get deals done.

Google blackmailing us coz of our blackmail seems to be my take

Now back to Google Showcase.

Sims doesn't know how Showcase would work in Australia, they don't really seem to be able to address Bragg's question. ACCC has not seen a live version of it.

Sims saying Showcase is not suited to arbitration, only search is. He is open to doing a deal on Showcase, but only with threat of arbitration in the background.

Bragg keeps breaking up which is really annoying.

Bragg trying to work out how much money should flow to media companies. Sims saying various suggestions from media, like Nine put it at 600 million dollars.

No-one seems to know

Asking about Apple paying to media outlets. AKA Apple News...

Bragg trying to compare Apples & Oranges here - yes I know bad pun

Anyhow Apple News is a revenue share product and subscription based.

Now Bragg wanting to know about Facebook and commercial value to Facebook of having 'credible' news on their platform.

Earlier today Facebook said was not a discernible value in it.

Sims disagrees obviously

Sims reckons half of what you get is perceived as news and gets more people on the platform.

I disagree from what I have seen in my limited use of Facebook & FFS! why would you want people getting news from Facebook with stats like this? https://twitter.com/FacebookTop10AU/status/1351363016973959170?s=20

Bragg now asking how both Google & Facebook could not support the code and the 8 points why they would not support it and have they been addressed?

Sorry, gotta pause ARGH!

You can continue to listen to Senate, Economics Legislation Committee (Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2020) Live yourself on https://www.aph.gov.au/news_and_events/watch_parliament

btw @joshgnosis has been tweeting this hearing too and they are updating as they go along at The Guardian: https://twitter.com/joshgnosis/status/1352413520139227138?s=20

Back, YAY! SHY finally asking a good question to Sims about helping AAP if this is supposed to be about "public interest journalism".

Sims is waffling a lot, saying they care etc., but code is not their for that.

Shorter Sims, doesn't help only outlet that actually does job

So really, this abandoning of AAP and them not being helped by this code, really does illustrate that this code has nothing to do with "public interest journalism" at all.

Is just to make it easier for commercial entities to deal with big tech

All over red rover.

1st of February there will be more hearings.

I'm pretty depressed about it. Can't stand Google & Facebook but also hate being played for a sap. Honestly can't see this helping 'public interest journalism' at all when probably could have