Google & Facebook laws just a back rub for News and Nine

by | Jan 30, 2021 | Government

Google threatens to withdraw search from Australia and Facebook to remove news posts. These are not idle threats. Is propping up old media with grants gouged from Google good public policy? It delivers cash for Rupert Murdoch but does it serve consumers? Kim Wingerei reports.

​It’s hard to pinpoint the exact moment when the decline of old media started. Was it the founding of an online search company, Backrub, by a couple of software engineers in 1998? Or when NewsCorp sold MySpace for $US35 million in 2011, writing off an investment of $US580 million. Or maybe the seminal moment was the public listing of Facebook in 2012 for a seemingly ridiculous valuation of $US90 billion?

Backrub was renamed Google, Myspace became dead space and Facebook now has a market capitalisation of $US720 billion. No wonder the former giants of media in Australia are aggrieved – News Corp and Nine that is. Since 2012, the two dominant media companies, Nine Media (formerly Fairfax) and the newspaper arm of News Corp, have lost billions of dollars in market value.

The old media are now tiny by comparison; the market value of News Corp and Nine at $14.8bn and $4.1bn vis-a-vis Google and Facebook at $1.62 trillion and $964bn respectively.

And what do most corporations do when the value of their business is in steep decline and profits are down? When the “hidden hand of the market” is actually working? Run to the Government for help, of course. Nine and News complained to the ACCC that these big, bad global companies had stolen their advertising revenue! “All we want to do is provide quality journalism and we can no longer afford to,” they cried.

Internet’s founder, US officials slap down News and Nine’s crusade on Google

That Facebook and Google have too much power is clear. However, the proposed legislation being debated in Parliament does nothing to protect consumers from the search and social media giants. Nor does it serve the lofty purpose of supporting quality journalism.

All it is designed to do, is to direct a small fraction of the money earned by the Internet giants to old media.

The legislation doesn’t tackle the critical issue of of how the social media platforms, in particular Facebook, continue to distribute fake news and hate speech, how it continues to be a platform for misinformation and wild conspiracy theories and how it generally turbo-charges the polarisation of public debate. All in the mistaken name of free speech.

Nor does the legislation tackle Google’s search dominance.

These companies pose a global challenge so there are limits to what Australia can do. (Although we could start by taxing them properly.) Google’s threat to leave the local market is real, and that would hurt consumers and small independent media immeasurably more than it would hurt News and Nine. Facebook threatening not to accept links to news content will primarily hurt online independent media such as this site, as well as consumers.

And this is the strange paradox. Google drives traffic to the news sites such as this website, which is free. However it also drives traffic to the paywalled websites of News and Nine.

Elsewhere, the US has launched anti-trust actions against Google and Facebook, claiming both companies have used their market power to curb competition. These cases will take many years to resolve. By way of comparison, the Federal Trade Commission’s cases against Microsoft’s dominance over the PC industry took nine years from the first investigation in 1992, to when it was ultimately settled in 2001.

The European Union has been more effective in their actions against market dominance, at least in a fiscal sense. Google has been fined almost $US10 billion in various cases over the past five years. Yet little has changed as Google remains totally dominant in search.

Facebook has also faced scrutiny and has been fined over its privacy breaches – most notably after the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2016. Cambridge obtained without consent the personal data of millions of Facebook users, primarily for political advertising purposes. But Facebook’s behaviour hasn’t changed much either.

And as ignorant Parliamentarians, Rod Sims of the ACCC and mainstream media executives huff and puff, the stark reality is that Australia cannot curb their market power merely by punitive financial means. They are just too big, too wealthy and frankly, they don’t give a damn.

But there are other options.


The Internet is, in effect, a broadcasting platform. To broadcast TV and radio in Australia (and most other countries) you need a licence. Licenses cost money and come with conditions around what the owners can and cannot do, regulated by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The rules cover content, advertising and state that news and stories must be presented in a balanced way. ACMA is a forum for complaints, regulate gambling and gaming sites and the rules also impose restrictions on foreign ownership.

As a sovereign nation we have a right and an obligation to regulate media. It can’t be a “one size fits all” approach, but in light of the overwhelming power of online media giants, it seems an obvious starting point that companies that operate search engines and publish online in Australia should have a license and abide by the rules under penalty of forfeiting that licence.


The licensing of search engines would be breaking new ground, but the licensing of social media platforms is relatively straightforward. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and the rest are publishers, however much they deny the fact. Publishing used to be the domain of established writers and journalists working for organisations. But now everybody can be, or pretend to be, either of those things by sharing their words, videos, podcasts or pictures online.

The social media platforms cannot claim content neutrality and should therefore be subject to most of the same laws and regulations as other publishers, including defamation and minimum standards of truth and proof.

Know thy source

Social media postings have taken over from letters to the editor as the primary means for the general public to make their voices heard. Reputable newspapers do not publish letters without knowing who they are written by – and this publication is no different. There are always reasons for stories to be attributed to an anonymous writer, but the publisher must still know who the writer is.

Social media should be compelled to do the same, demanding ID checks the way a bank or government agency does in return for services or participation. If MrPotatoHead or MsQanonRules doesn’t have an ID, tough luck. This, of course, can only work if current privacy practices are turned on their head, giving users confidence and protection.


One of the most egregious aspects of social media is that they have been allowed to get away with flouting privacy principles. We, the consumers, gave them that right by saying yes to using their platform for free in return for access to personal data,  including our usage history. And now we pay the price as our collective data has become someone else’s asset.

Social media must be compelled to guard our data in the same way banks guard our money, and our ID must be stored entirely separate from our meta- and usage-data. Any identifiable data cannot be shared and our data sold without express consent. Currently consent is basically assumed unless one has opted out, if that option is even available.

These measures are not trivial, will take time to implement and will also meet with plenty of resistance from Google, Facebook et al. And it will cost them to implement. Whether it will cost them more or less than what the cost of sharing a portion of their advertising revenues, is anybody’s guess. But this is a better use of their money than simply giving it to the old and failing media behemoths.

Meanwhile, Google’s dramatic threat to leave Australia is real. It would be a last resort though. The platforms are immensely profitable in Australia so court actions would come first. 


Kim Wingerei

Kim Wingerei

Kim Wingerei is a businessman turned writer and commentator. He is passionate about free speech, human rights, democracy and the politics of change. Originally from Norway, Kim has lived in Australia for 30 years. Author of ‘Why Democracy is Broken – A Blueprint for Change’. 


  1. Avatar

    News corp especially, and to a slightly lesser degree Fairfax, have made themselves irrelevant.

    They have taken onboard millennials who spew out nothing but leftist, greenie, progressive viewpoints, and lead into them with highly sensationalist click bait headlines.

    They’ve lost their traditional (older) eaders, and the younger generation aren’t looking to start reading their papers any time soon either.

    • Avatar

      Are you calling the Australian media left-leaning? Oh boy..

      • Avatar

        yep, 100%

        I don’t bother reading them these days, if google didn’t index them, no one would notice.

      • Avatar

        it shows you don’t read them

    • Avatar

      Sorry u are very wrong!” Newscorp is right wing not leftist! lol

    • Avatar

      If you think things like Sky News and The Australian are leftist, I shudder to think what your idea of right-wing is…

      You’re not wrong about highly sensationalist headlines though; that’s all they have since they don’t report anything factual let alone balanced.

  2. Avatar

    An excellent, balanced explanation of the situation here.

    News Corp and Nine’s monopolies and the threat of another ‘wreck-the-NBN-to-prop-up-Foxtel’ thing is undeniable, but Google and Facebook aren’t exactly in the clear either.


  3. Avatar

    An excellent dissection of the issues. This legislation is solving a problem that doesn’t exist, badly. There are multiple issues with near-monopoly power vested in various on-line platforms and services, but the paradigm-shift extinction of the buggy-whip industry isn’t one of them. To pretend that Australia is suddenly concerned about a plurality of independent, quality journalism should raise a horse laugh when you’ve witnessed the slow strangulation of the fourth estate by 9/Fairfax and more notably Murdoch. Different problem, self- or rather politician- inflicted.

  4. Avatar

    Open barn doors and stampeding horses come to mind.

  5. Avatar

    Kim’s churning out nothing but hits keep up the great work!

    Very interesting concept to use licence arrangements with the internet. Understandably very difficult to implement this late in the game but could prove extremely effective.

  6. Avatar

    Thankyou Kim wonderful piece.. what worries me is most of those making decisions at cabinet level really do not have an understanding of both Facebook’s and Google’s Business models and with regard to Google the myriad range of services that do help small and mid sized businesses tick along around the world . To be honest i don’t care about news and nine they are dead parrots and have been for a decade and are only part of the argument because of the perverted male mateship still pedalled by an increasingly irrelevant but sadly powerful elite in Australia that will up inevitably as proud boys mark2 .. supporting a brand of journalism that in the main is despicable. As you say we should keep our eye on the prize and have an intelligent discussion on how a sovereign nation can manage increasingly less benign multinationals in the space. I note that Morisson and his gang of halfwits now think Bing is their solution – frying pan…. fire etc etc !

    • Avatar

      Given that Microsoft bills everyone out of Singapore to avoid tax, I think that should rule them out.

  7. Avatar

    Note to Google – buy out the newspapers and close them down. Problem solved.

    • Avatar

      Or hire a team of journalists and make a news desk and remove all other news from your site.

  8. Avatar

    a thoughtful article .The one fascinating thing to me is that they are not liable in defamation this seems to be a privilege they have not earnt yet exercise censorship powers which is a real issue they allow Iran and China to say whatever and not others . The debate needs to had as well as payment of taxes which they do not like

  9. Avatar

    Your licensing and publishing laws can be easily circumvented if so desired. If someone puts their business in Singapore so outside the reach of our laws but still easily accessible by the viewers/readers what do you do then? The only option is a Chinese style great firewall and even that isn’t guaranteed to work.

Secret Rich List

Secret Rich List banner

Tax Dodgers

Rortswear by Slush


Case for Federal ICAC

Quad Erat Demonstrandum

Revolving Doors

Revolving Doors

Video Channel

The West Report

Support Us

subscribe to michael west media
Rortswear and ClimateCards
The West Report Banner
Michael West Email

Get Our Weekly Newsletter

Unsubscribe anytime.

Thank you! We'll also confirm via email.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This