Instead, it mandates advance notice (14 days) of changes to algorithms or internal practices that would have a "significant likely effect" on referral traffic to news content [1].
The Treasury Laws Amendment Act 2021 specifically states that "the objectives are not intended to require digital platforms to share proprietary information" [2].
The Code explicitly limits data sharing: "The obligations imposed by this minimum standard are not intended to require digital platforms to share any 'particular user data'" [3].
Under the Code, platforms must provide "a list or explanation of the types of data collected" to ensure transparency about what data is being provided to different news businesses [3].
The evidence is more nuanced:
**Formal policy:** The Code does not formally exclude small or independent media [5].
**Practical reality:** Large media outlets (ABC, Nine Entertainment, News Corp) successfully negotiated direct payments under the Code.
Small and independent media faced practical barriers:
- Facebook explicitly "refused to deal with dozens of smaller independent media operations," The Conversation, SBS, and radio operators, providing "not a lot of rhyme or reason" for these decisions [6]
- However, Google's approach was different—some small publishers achieved collective bargaining arrangements through industry associations [7]
- The government later recommended reforms specifically to protect "small, independent and digital-only publishers" and ensure "fair and transparent distribution of revenue among these groups" [8]
The exclusion appears to be **de facto rather than de jure**, driven by platform commercial decisions rather than legislative language.
The claim frames this as Coalition policy imposing "red tape," but omits several critical contextual details:
1. **Labor supported the legislation:** Labor backed the News Media Bargaining Code when it passed in February 2021, and subsequently expanded its approach to digital platform regulation.
This was not a purely Coalition initiative [9].
2. **What the Code actually requires:** The legislation mandates that digital platforms negotiate in good faith with news businesses and pay them for content.
This is a significant difference from the claim's characterization [1].
3. **The policy rationale:** The Code was designed to address power imbalances where tech platforms were capturing advertising revenue generated by news content without compensating news organizations.
Whether one supports or opposes this policy, understanding its purpose is essential context [10].
4. **Comparative outcomes:** The Code resulted in approximately $200 million in annual payments to Australian news organizations, including funding for ~60 new ABC regional journalism positions [11].
Not all outcomes are negative.
5. **Algorithm change notification:** Google's stated concern was not about revealing algorithms per se, but about the operational burden of notifying about "thousands of algorithm changes annually." Google's position was that detailed notification requirements would be "technically impossible" and could give "news businesses an unfair advantage" over other website owners [12].
The article takes a pro-Labor/pro-regulation stance ("newspapers screwed up... so tech giants should pay up"), which means the framing is expected to be Labor-aligned.
ZDNet generally maintains professional journalism standards but typically covers tech industry issues from a skeptical-of-tech-monopolies angle [13].
**Google Australia Blog:** This is Google's official corporate statement, which should be treated as Google's position/perspective rather than neutral reporting.
Google has commercial interests in this debate (resisting regulation/payments), so significant statements by Google should be cross-referenced with independent sources [14].
**Did Labor do something similar, or have a different media regulation approach?**
Yes, Labor took a notably **different approach**, though also regulation-focused:
**2021 - News Media Bargaining Code:** Labor **supported** the Coalition's News Media Bargaining Code, demonstrating bipartisan agreement on the mandatory bargaining approach [9].
**2024 - New Labor Initiatives (post-election, after winning September 2022):**
1. **Misinformation and Disinformation Bill (September 2024):** Labor proposed transparency obligations on digital platforms regarding algorithm decisions and content moderation.
Notably, Labor **abandoned this bill** due to concerns it wouldn't be effective and free-speech implications [15].
2. **News Bargaining Incentive Scheme (December 2024):** Labor introduced a new "digital duty" tax on large digital platforms effective January 1, 2025, to ensure ongoing funding for news sustainability [16].
This **extends** rather than replaces the Coalition's News Media Bargaining Code model.
3. **Age Restriction Bill (December 2024):** Labor restricted children under 16 from social media platforms, a regulatory intervention on a different technology concern [16].
**Key difference:** Labor is **more regulation-intensive** than the Coalition on digital platforms—Labor extended the payment model (News Bargaining Incentive Scheme), attempted broader misinformation regulation (later abandoned), and restricted social media for minors.
This means the characterization of the Code as "Coalition red tape" is somewhat misleading—Labor both supported this specific measure and expanded regulatory approaches even further.
The News Media Bargaining Code represents a genuine policy disagreement about digital platform regulation and market power, with legitimate arguments on multiple sides:
- The Code is a form of government intervention in technology and media markets
- It creates regulatory complexity ("red tape")
- It favors larger publishers who have resources to negotiate [6]
- Whether algorithm notification requirements are practical/justified is debatable [12]
- Data transparency requirements could expose sensitive business information if not carefully limited [3]
- Tech platforms were capturing advertising revenue generated by news content without compensating content creators, creating unsustainable conditions for news organizations [10]
- The power imbalance between global tech platforms and individual news organizations made voluntary negotiation unlikely [10]
- Some compensation for news content arguably addresses a market failure, similar to copyright protections for other creative works [10]
- The Code successfully generated ~$200 million in annual payments to news organizations, supporting journalism [11]
The Code has **mixed reported outcomes:**
**Positive effects:**
- ABC expanded to 60 new regional journalism positions funded by Code payments [11]
- Small media outlets negotiated collective agreements they couldn't have achieved individually [7]
- Government reviews recommend protections for small/independent publishers to address equity concerns [8]
**Negative effects:**
- Facebook withdrew from most news deals in 2024, reducing payments to Australian publishers and limiting fact-checking organizations' platform reach [6]
- Questions remain about whether payments are sustainable or proportionate to content value [15]
**The specific claim is MISLEADING in its technical assertions:**
1. ✗ **"Forcing Google to give special insider knowledge of proprietary search algorithm changes"** - FALSE.
The Code requires advance notice of significant changes, not disclosure of how algorithms work [1][2].
2. ✗ **"Ambiguously written clauses about giving news companies access to Google users' private data"** - FALSE.
Data transparency is limited to types of data collected [3][4].
3. ? **"Large news companies but not small, independent journalists"** - PARTIALLY TRUE.
The claim accurately identifies regulation as occurring, but **mischaracterizes what the regulation requires** on the critical technical points (algorithm disclosure, data access).
However, the specific technical claims are inaccurate: the Code does NOT require disclosure of proprietary algorithms, and does NOT require sharing of individual user data.
The characterization of different treatment for small vs. large media is partially accurate but oversimplified—it's a de facto market outcome rather than explicit legislative design.
The claim's core accurate point (government regulation of tech platforms) is obscured by technically false assertions about algorithm and data disclosure.
However, the specific technical claims are inaccurate: the Code does NOT require disclosure of proprietary algorithms, and does NOT require sharing of individual user data.
The characterization of different treatment for small vs. large media is partially accurate but oversimplified—it's a de facto market outcome rather than explicit legislative design.
The claim's core accurate point (government regulation of tech platforms) is obscured by technically false assertions about algorithm and data disclosure.