 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| 5 from the wing on debut wrote: | | So you would ban Australians from Facebook ? Set up Scomobook instead? |
I'm not suggesting banning anyone from anything. Facebook are the ones deciding to limit functionality for Australian users in order to blackmail the government into backing down. Clearly the government doesn't want that to happen, and neither does anyone who supports this policy.
Having said that, if this ends up leading to them totally taking their bat and ball and going home and we do end up needing to look for alternative social media platforms to use, I wouldn't exactly be devastated. We probably would, in the long run, be better off without them.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I agree entirely, David.
| David wrote: | | Good news, although this article puts the amount more at $42 million: |
My $200,000,000 was the total of Government advertising per year David. The last year I saw exact figures for was a couple back and it was in the high 100s - $181 million or something like that - and these things never go down so I wrote it down as $200,000,000, which would be pretty much right.
The $42,000,00 in the New Daily is digital only. I don't know how old that is but it sounds out of date. No sane advertising manager would spend less than a quarter of a total advertising budget on digital.
Of course, now I am assuming that the government is sane. Not so smart of me.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | 5 from the wing on debut wrote: | | So you would ban Australians from Facebook ? Set up Scomobook instead? |
I'm not suggesting banning anyone from anything. Facebook are the ones deciding to limit functionality for Australian users in order to blackmail the government into backing down. Clearly the government doesn't want that to happen, and neither does anyone who supports this policy.
Having said that, if this ends up leading to them totally taking their bat and ball and going home and we do end up needing to look for alternative social media platforms to use, I wouldn't exactly be devastated. We probably would, in the long run, be better off without them. |
I was referring to your comment about corporations not being allowed to have that much power. For Facebook, which I don't use, isn't it one platform which is based overseas and anyone can register from anywhere? Can you think of another way to limit its power other than refusing the right of people to register? |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
It's created a system where it provides a "free" product to people that many have now began to treat as a public utility and makes a shitpile of money while doing it.
The power it has is in it's ability to impact millions of lives with a change of policy. How can you practically disallow it?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 5 from the wing on debut wrote: | | I was referring to your comment about corporations not being allowed to have that much power. For Facebook, which I don't use, isn't it one platform which is based overseas and anyone can register from anywhere? Can you think of another way to limit its power other than refusing the right of people to register? |
Well, regulation seems like the most natural place to start. There's been a lot of talk overseas about the idea of breaking up and/or nationalising these big platforms, which I'm inclined to support. Antitrust laws are probably the first port of call to look into in that context.
While that's beyond Australia's jurisdiction, it's not inconceivable that we could limit its operations here in certain respects without needing to block the site. We could also do a lot more in the way of enforcing higher tax contributions (though I think that would require an international effort to crack down on tax havens and the like). But beyond that, our options are pretty limited and I think what we're seeing now is a rare opportunity.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| 5 from the wing on debut wrote: | | For Facebook, which I don't use, isn't it one platform which is based overseas and anyone can register from anywhere? Can you think of another way to limit its power other than refusing the right of people to register? |
Off the top of my head - just the first things I happened to think of, there will be lots and lots of others -
- Block it the same way we block kiddie porn sites
- Block it by default but allow people to opt in
- Apply an "offshore tax" - say 30% of local turnover - to companies that dodge Australian income tax. (I'm looking at YOU Facebook.)
- Make Facebook advertising by Australian business non-tax deductable (hit Facebook where it hurts)
- Stop all government advertising on Facebook.
- Require that publically-funded organisations (such as the ABC) avoid promoting and patronising private-interest commercial networks and keep all communications open and public. (They should do this anyway.)
- Prevent money transfers from Australia to Facebook. (Banks and credit card companies already have extensive lists of overseas accounts that they will not send money to, just add one more.)
- Legislate to require that a certain percentage of advertising aimed at Australian consumers must be spent in Australia. (Similar to local content laws on TV.)
- Introduce real data protection and consumer privacy standards. Require, for example, that:
- * Collected data on Australian citizens must be stored in Australia and not exported to other countries
- * Collected data on Australian citizens gathered without their explicit, informed consent be deleted
- * Collected data on Australian citizens cannot be sold
- * Collected data on Australian citizens cannot be proxy-sold as an advertising incentive or targeting system
- * Collected data on Australian citizens cannot be kept for more than (say) 12 months.
- Place an absolute ban on data collection from individuals who do not have a Facebook account, are not logged in, or are not on Facebook's own site. (Right now, Facebook collects data on everyone, and from practically everywhere.)
- Require that it pay for the news and other content that it steals
- Require that user issues and complaints be dealt with by a responsible, accountable human being within a fixed and reasonable timeframe.
- Require that decisions about content be made by a responsible, accountable human being, not a faceless computer program
- Require that it stop discriminating on grounds of sex (I can show my nipples on Facebook, but female nipples = instant ban)
- Require full disclosure by Facebook, to each individual user, of how much information it has, what this information is, and exactly how much money Facebook has made from this informatipon.
- And so on, and on, and on. There are hundreds of ways to limit Facebook's power.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | Apply an "offshore tax" - say 30% of local turnover - to companies that dodge Australian income tax. (I'm looking at YOU Facebook.) |
Last year, Facebook's Australian profit - not turnover, profit was $1,060,000,000 - yes, you read that right, 1.06 billion dollars. On that, they paid just $17 million in tax. The rest of the 30% tax they owe - that's $312,900,000 - was offshored and avoided.
https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/facebook-pays-less-than-17m-in-tax-in-australia-20200531-p54y1z
https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/google-facebook-s-6b-tax-break-20200904-p55sc3
(Both links require a subscription. Doubtless you clever Nicksters can find the same information elsewhere easily enough. It is based on public accounts after all.)
EDIT: I corrected a typo where I wrote $1.6b meaning 1.06b.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives!
Last edited by Tannin on Mon Feb 22, 2021 5:56 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
KenH
Joined: 24 Jan 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I have found Facebook better without the news content, I don't need to see or share news items on facebook I rather go direct to websites.
_________________
Cheers big ears |
|
|
|
|
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | 5 from the wing on debut wrote: | | For Facebook, which I don't use, isn't it one platform which is based overseas and anyone can register from anywhere? Can you think of another way to limit its power other than refusing the right of people to register? |
Off the top of my head - just the first things I happened to think of, there will be lots and lots of others -
- Block it the same way we block kiddie porn sites
- Block it by default but allow people to opt in
- Apply an "offshore tax" - say 30% of local turnover - to companies that dodge Australian income tax. (I'm looking at YOU Facebook.)
- Make Facebook advertising by Australian business non-tax deductable (hit Facebook where it hurts)
- Stop all government advertising on Facebook.
- Require that publically-funded organisations (such as the ABC) avoid promoting and patronising private-interest commercial networks and keep all communications open and public. (They should do this anyway.)
- Prevent money transfers from Australia to Facebook. (Banks and credit card companies already have extensive lists of overseas accounts that they will not send money to, just add one more.)
- Legislate to require that a certain percentage of advertising aimed at Australian consumers must be spent in Australia. (Similar to local content laws on TV.)
- Introduce real data protection and consumer privacy standards. Require, for example, that:
- * Collected data on Australian citizens must be stored in Australia and not exported to other countries
- * Collected data on Australian citizens gathered without their explicit, informed consent be deleted
- * Collected data on Australian citizens cannot be sold
- * Collected data on Australian citizens cannot be proxy-sold as an advertising incentive or targeting system
- * Collected data on Australian citizens cannot be kept for more than (say) 12 months.
- Place an absolute ban on data collection from individuals who do not have a Facebook account, are not logged in, or are not on Facebook's own site. (Right now, Facebook collects data on everyone, and from practically everywhere.)
- Require that it pay for the news and other content that it steals
- Require that user issues and complaints be dealt with by a responsible, accountable human being within a fixed and reasonable timeframe.
- Require that decisions about content be made by a responsible, accountable human being, not a faceless computer program
- Require that it stop discriminating on grounds of sex (I can show my nipples on Facebook, but female nipples = instant ban)
- Require full disclosure by Facebook, to each individual user, of how much information it has, what this information is, and exactly how much money Facebook has made from this informatipon.
- And so on, and on, and on. There are hundreds of ways to limit Facebook's power.
|
I say refuse to register, then you say block. Are you really John Howard, "it's not a new tax, it's a levy"?
Most of those items you referred to are either going to be ineffective, won't work at all or will lead to my other suggestion, the creation of Scomobook for Australia. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
No, I'm the person who answered the question YOU asked.
Where is your argument to suggest that those measures would be ineffective? Just a blanket claim, or do you have reasons?
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | | Apply an "offshore tax" - say 30% of local turnover - to companies that dodge Australian income tax. (I'm looking at YOU Facebook.) |
Last year, Facebook's Australian profit - not turnover, profit was $1,060,000,000 - yes, you read that right, 1.6 billion dollars. On that, they paid just $17 million in tax. The rest of the 30% tax they owe - that's $312,900,000 - was offshored and avoided.
https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/facebook-pays-less-than-17m-in-tax-in-australia-20200531-p54y1z
https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/google-facebook-s-6b-tax-break-20200904-p55sc3
(Both links require a subscription. Doubtless you clever Nicksters can find the same information elsewhere easily enough. It is based on public accounts after all.) |
It's astonishing, isn't it. And that's just for one calendar year. Facebook has been operating in Australia for well over a decade, and even if their locally acquired profit has increased significantly over that time, that still must be a bill in the multiple billions that they owe us.
So I really can't understand anyone acting as if they're being treated unfairly by being asked to pay a substantially smaller amount of money to struggling newspapers. I don't care if they, through convoluted legislation, ended up being billed to subsidise outback sheep-shearing shows, men's dental appointments, renovation of The Big Pineapple and public nude performance-art projects in Brunswick. If that's what the government is asking for, they can cough up. That money should never have been theirs to begin with.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Indeed David. To be fair, they probably didn't start generating a profit until a few years ago. In the early days they didn't make anything. But it is still a billion or two that they owe us. Not that we will ever get it.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | If you want to collect a tax for journalism and public information, collect a tax for journalism and public information — properly. I would support it as I already do with the BBC because it means professionalising journalism and making it accountable for poor standards like any other serious profession.
But that's too much like hard, unpopular, painstaking work. Imagine working to collect tax through proper, standardised means when there are more fashionable and exciting fists to wave. No selfies and glory in the tax collection business, that's for sure (you should hear the hysteria here over paying a modest TV licence for an often superb and diverse array of content on BBC). |
I must confess to being confused by your argument – it sounds like you agree with the outcome but not the process, even though a different process that "plays by the rules" (i.e. taxing Facebook, which, c.f. Tannin's post above, hasn't exactly been going swimmingly so far) would probably ... not have anything like the desired outcome at all.
Perhaps you're right that the government simply hasn't tried hard enough to get Facebook to pay what it actually owes. But my suspicion is that they couldn't no matter how hard they tried, and that they know that. Governments of all ideological stripes talk big about cracking down on tax havens from time to time, but they ultimately can't do much about it because it's an international problem, and the international appetite to sort this stuff out is lacking.
| pietillidie wrote: | | All tax on sharing and accessing content will do is create sites that publish content freely, allowing sharing on Facebook free of charge. If that's all their heart's desired, it would actually kill them off the old school robber barons. Then, you'll have hunt the free content sites down for undermining 'real' journalism by 'colluding' with the big tech firms, even as the Murdochs of the world start walling off the internet, slicing it into service tiers, and dividing access into licenced regions. |
This seems far-fetched to me. Is there any evidence of anything like this happening? If it were, one might expect Facebook to already adopt a divide-and-conquer tactic that goes after the Murdoch papers et al while letting their cheapskate competitors in the blogosphere and elsewhere – plenty of whom fit your description and already exist – survive, but their scorched-earth response suggests that they have something different in mind.
| pietillidie wrote: | | If that sounds familiar it's because your experiment has already been run. For decades. And yes, even at your new inflated prices, you still end up with the same rubbish being delivered to the same market that cares so little about information that prior to its Facebook News addiction it watched Fox News and read The News of the World. |
Yes, some "journalism" is appalling quality-wise – that's always been the case, and always will be the case in any economy. But I trust that we all understand that good, essential journalism does exist out there, and that throwing the baby (the ABC, The Guardian, sometimes Fairfax and some of the smaller providers like Crikey) out with the bathwater would have a catastrophic impact on our ability to hold governments to account and actually understand what it is we're voting for and what comes of it. But these publications are struggling for survival as much if not more than the News Corp tabloids, so I don't understand why people keep talking about this as if it's just Murdoch vs Facebook. I mean, think of the ex-Fairfax papers in isolation: they're absolutely on their knees, and when they finally die, the only city-specific major news publications in existence – yes, online as well as in print – will be the Murdoch tabloids and the more or less ideologically identical West Australian in Perth. The notion that we shouldn't give them a hand via some sort of industry-wide bail-out because it might also help Murdoch is pretty bizarre logic.
But sure, let's say Fairfax is vestigial and deserves to be snuffed out, and that we need space for new, online competitors to step in to fill the void. Who exactly do you see fulfilling that role? I would personally love to believe that the clickbait sites like Junkee, Pedestrian and BuzzFeed will step in to fill the breach once the quality legacy platforms go under, but does anyone really believe that? Does anyone actually believe that the current internet news economy, built as it is on competition between the mostly paywalled quality press and mostly garbage free sites, can make the kind of journalism we need financially viable without some form of subsidisation? The difference between, say, 70% of published news being rubbish and 90% is, I think, not insignificant, and that seems to be the direction we're currently going.
One more thing: I don't see how you can have a blanket opposition to protectionism and yet support something like the ABC. How is that not, at its heart, a protectionist concept? It's certainly anathema to the most ardent free trade proponents like the IPA. So I would have thought the most sensible position remains a little from each column, and that simply leaving this to the market to resolve is a recipe for disaster.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: |
So I really can't understand anyone acting as if they're being treated unfairly by being asked to pay a substantially smaller amount of money to struggling newspapers. |
You are coming from the viewpoint that they make too much money, they can afford to have some of it taken and redistributed. I reject that argument as socialist rubbish.
They have operated within the current laws. I'm still waiting for a concise explanation of how they've stolen copyrighted material and profited off it.
Just because you and others don't like their business model or how much money they make doesn't mean they're doing anything wrong.
the tax issue, I'm down with. They should be paying tax on profit they make here. FFS, media outlets were actively putting their own content on Facebook, using it as free marketing, and they want Facebook to pay them for the privilege?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The fact they’re ripping us all off to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year suggests they are doing something wrong and will continue to do so for as long as they can get away with it (i.e. forever). So I can’t understand why anyone would oppose them being asked to give some of that amount to a local industry in need. The idea that we should suddenly care about fairness and principles when it comes to how a foreign corporation should be treated, when they clearly don’t respect or play by the rules to begin with, is bewildering to me. Who is the victim here, exactly?
Ours may not be anyone’s idea of a socialist government, but on this issue at least I’d rather have a government that has balls and plays dirty with giant overseas corporations than one that doesn’t dare take them on for fear of upsetting them.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
