C0150
Ang Claim
“Nagpakilala ng red tape at winasak ang free market sa pamamagitan ng pagpilit sa Google na magbigay ng espesyal na insider knowledge tungkol sa mga pagbabago sa proprietary search algorithm sa malalaking news companies pero hindi sa maliliit, independent journalists. Naglalaman ito ng mga malabo na nakasulat na klausula tungkol sa pagbibigay sa news companies ng access sa pribadong data ng mga user ng Google.”
Orihinal na Pinagmulan: Matthew Davis
Sinuri: 29 Jan 2026
Orihinal na Pinagmulan
✅ FACTUAL NA BERIPIKASYON
Ang claim ay tumutukoy sa **Australian News Media Bargaining Code** (na naipasa noong Pebrero 2021 sa ilalim ng Coalition government, naging epektibo noong Marso 2021).
The claim references the **Australian News Media Bargaining Code** (passed February 2021 under the Coalition government, effective March 2021).
Tignan natin ang bawat core assertion: Let me verify each core assertion:
### Algorithm Disclosure Requirement ### Algorithm Disclosure Requirement
Ang News Media Bargaining Code ay **HINDI** nangangailangan ng pagbubunyag ng proprietary search algorithms. The News Media Bargaining Code does **NOT** require disclosure of proprietary search algorithms.
Sa halip, ito ay nangangailangan ng advance notice (14 na araw) ng mga pagbabago sa algorithms o internal practices na magkakaroon ng "significant likely effect" sa referral traffic sa news content [1]. 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].
Ito ay isang critical distinction: **notification of changes ≠ disclosure of how algorithms work**. This is a critical distinction: **notification of changes ≠ disclosure of how algorithms work**.
Ang Treasury Laws Amendment Act 2021 ay eksplikong nagsasaad na "ang mga layunin ay hindi inilaan para mangailangan ang digital platforms na magbahagi ng proprietary information" [2]. The Treasury Laws Amendment Act 2021 specifically states that "the objectives are not intended to require digital platforms to share proprietary information" [2].
Ang requirement ay magbigay ng notification ng mga consequential changes at paliwanag ng mga epekto, hindi para ibunyag ang mga algorithmic secrets. The requirement is to provide notification of consequential changes and explanation of effects, not to reveal algorithmic secrets.
### User Data Access Claims ### User Data Access Claims
Ang claim ay nagsasaad na ang Code ay may "malabo na nakasulat na klausula tungkol sa pagbibigay sa news companies ng access sa pribadong data ng mga user ng Google." Ito ay misleading. The claim states the Code includes "ambiguously written clauses about giving news companies access to Google users' private data." This is misleading.
Ang Code ay eksplikong naglilimit sa data sharing: "Ang mga obligasyon na ipinapataw ng minimum standard na ito ay hindi inilaan para mangailangan ang digital platforms na magbahagi ng anumang 'particular user data'" [3]. 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].
Sa ilalim ng Code, ang mga platform ay dapat magbigay ng "list o paliwanag ng mga uri ng data na nakolekta" para matiyak ang transparency tungkol sa kung anong data ang ibinibigay sa iba't ibang news businesses [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].
Ito ay transparency para sa **competitive fairness** (para siguraduhing ang maliliit na media ay hindi disadvantaged), hindi isang unrestricted data-sharing mandate. This is transparency for **competitive fairness** (ensuring small media aren't disadvantaged), not an unrestricted data-sharing mandate.
Ang anumang aktwal na user data sharing lampas dito ay **opsyonal** at dapat sumunod sa Privacy Act 1988 [4]. Any actual user data sharing beyond this is **optional** and must comply with the Privacy Act 1988 [4].
### Large vs. Small Media Treatment ### Large vs. Small Media Treatment
Ang claim ay nag-aassert na ang malalaking news companies ay nakatanggap ng "espesyal na insider knowledge" samantalang "hindi sa maliliit, independent journalists" ang na-exclude. The claim asserts that large news companies received "special insider knowledge" while "not small, independent journalists" were excluded.
Ang ebidensya ay mas nuanced: **Formal policy:** Ang Code ay hindi pormal na nag-eexclude ng maliliit o independent media [5]. **Practical reality:** Ang malalaking media outlets (ABC, Nine Entertainment, News Corp) ay matagumpay na nakipag-negotiate ng direktang pagbabayad sa ilalim ng Code. 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.
Ang maliliit at independent media ay humarap sa mga practical na hadlang: - Si Facebook ay eksplikong "tumanggi makipag-usap sa dosenang maliliit na independent media operations," The Conversation, SBS, at mga radio operator, na nagbibigay ng "hindi gaanong rhyme o dahilan" para sa mga desisyong ito [6] - Gayunpaman, ang approach ng Google ay iba—ang ilang maliliit na publishers ay nakamit ang collective bargaining arrangements sa pamamagitan ng industry associations [7] - Ang gobyerno ay kalaunang nag-recommend ng mga reporma na partikular para protektahan ang "maliliit, independent at digital-only publishers" at matiyak ang "patas at transparent na distribution ng revenue sa mga grupong ito" [8] Ang exclusion ay tila **de facto kaysa sa de jure**, na hinimok ng mga desisyon sa komersyal ng platform sa halip na sa legislative language. 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.
Nawawalang Konteksto
Ang claim ay itinuturing ito bilang Coalition policy na nagpapataw ng "red tape," ngunit nagpapalibing sa ilang critical contextual details: 1. **Sinuportahan ng Labor ang lehislasyon:** Sinuportahan ng Labor ang News Media Bargaining Code noong ito ay naipasa noong Pebrero 2021, at kalaunang pinalawak ang approach nito sa digital platform regulation.
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.
Hindi ito isang purely Coalition initiative [9]. 2. **Ano ang aktwal na nangangailangan ng Code:** Ang lehislasyon ay nangangailangan na ang mga digital platform ay makipag-negotiate ng good faith sa mga news businesses at bayaran sila para sa content. 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.
Ito ay isang **mandatory bargaining/payment scheme**, hindi isang regulation na nangangailangan ng algorithm disclosure. It is a **mandatory bargaining/payment scheme**, not a regulation requiring algorithm disclosure.
Ito ay isang malaking pagkakaiba mula sa paglalarawan ng claim [1]. 3. **Ang policy rationale:** Ang Code ay dinisenyo para tugunan ang power imbalances kung saan ang mga tech platform ay nagsasamantala ng advertising revenue na ginawa ng news content nang hindi nababayaran ang mga news organization. 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.
Kahit sinuportahan o tinutulan mo ang policy na ito, ang pag-unawa sa layunin nito ay essential context [10]. 4. **Comparative outcomes:** Ang Code ay nagresulta sa humigit-kumulang $200 million sa taunang pagbabayad sa mga Australian news organization, kabilang ang pondo para sa ~60 bagong ABC regional journalism positions [11]. 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].
Hindi lahat ng mga resulta ay negatibo. 5. **Algorithm change notification:** Ang inihayag na pangamba ng Google ay hindi tungkol sa pagbubunyag ng algorithms mismo, kundi sa operational burden ng pagbibigay ng notification tungkol sa "libo-libong algorithm changes taun-taon." Ang posisyon ng Google ay ang detalyadong notification requirements ay "technically impossible" at maaaring magbigay sa "news businesses ng unfair advantage" laban sa ibang may-ari ng website [12]. 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].
Ito ay isang lehitimong policy disagreement tungkol sa notification frequency, hindi isang kaso ng forced proprietary disclosure. This is a legitimate policy disagreement about notification frequency, not a case of forced proprietary disclosure.
Pagsusuri ng Kredibilidad ng Pinagmulan
### Mga Original Sources na Ibinigay
### Original Sources Provided
**Artikulo ng ZDNet:** Ang ZDNet ay isang mainstream technology news outlet (pag-aari ng Red Ventures/dating CBS Interactive) [13]. **ZDNet article:** ZDNet is a mainstream technology news outlet (owned by Red Ventures/formerly CBS Interactive) [13].
Ang artikulo ay may pro-Labor/pro-regulation stance ("newspapers screwed up... kaya dapat bayaran ng tech giants"), na nangangahulugang ang framing ay inaasahang Labor-aligned. 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.
Ang ZDNet ay karaniwang nagpapanatili ng mga propesyonal na pamantayan sa journalism ngunit karaniwang sumasaklaw sa mga isyu sa tech industry mula sa isang skeptical-of-tech-monopolies na anggulo [13]. **Google Australia Blog:** Ito ay opisyal na corporate statement ng Google, na dapat tratuhin bilang posisyon/perspektiba ng Google sa halip na neutral reporting. 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.
Ang Google ay may mga commercial interests sa debate na ito (paglaban sa regulation/payments), kaya ang mga makabuluhang pahayag ng Google ay dapat na cross-referenced sa mga independent sources [14]. Google has commercial interests in this debate (resisting regulation/payments), so significant statements by Google should be cross-referenced with independent sources [14].
Hindi dapat ituring na ganap na impartial ang alinman sa dalawang source—favors ng ZDNet ang regulation, tinutulan ito ng Google. Neither source should be considered fully impartial—ZDNet favors regulation, Google opposes it.
Ang accurate na fact-checking ay nangangailangan ng pagtingin lampas sa mga framing positions na ito sa aktwal na lehislasyon at independent analysis. Accurate fact-checking requires looking beyond these framing positions to the actual legislation and independent analysis.
⚖️
Paghahambing sa Labor
**Ginawa ba ng Labor ang katulad, o may ibang media regulation approach?** Oo, ang Labor ay kumuha ng isang notable **ibang approach**, bagama't regulation-focused din:
**Did Labor do something similar, or have a different media regulation approach?**
Yes, Labor took a notably **different approach**, though also regulation-focused:
### Labor's Media Regulation Approach (2021-2024) ### Labor's Media Regulation Approach (2021-2024)
**2021 - News Media Bargaining Code:** Sinuportahan ng Labor ang News Media Bargaining Code ng Coalition noong 2021, na nagpapakita ng bipartisan agreement sa mandatory bargaining approach [9]. **2024 - Bagong Labor Initiatives (post-election, matapos manalo noong Setyembre 2022):** 1. **Misinformation and Disinformation Bill (Setyembre 2024):** Nagsulong ang Labor ng transparency obligations sa mga digital platform tungkol sa mga desisyon sa algorithm at content moderation. **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.
Tandaan, ang Labor **inabandona ang bill na ito** dahil sa mga concern na hindi ito magiging epektibo at free-speech implications [15]. 2. **News Bargaining Incentive Scheme (Disyembre 2024):** Nagpakilala ang Labor ng bagong "digital duty" tax sa malalaking digital platforms na epektibo noong Enero 1, 2025, para matiyak ang patuloy na pondo para sa news sustainability [16]. 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].
Ito ay **pinalawak** sa halip na pinalitan ang News Media Bargaining Code model ng Coalition. 3. **Age Restriction Bill (Disyembre 2024):** Pinagbawalan ng Labor ang mga batang wala pang 16 sa social media platforms, isang regulatory intervention sa ibang technology concern [16]. **Key difference:** Mas **regulation-intensive** ang Labor kaysa sa Coalition sa mga digital platform—pinalawak ng Labor ang payment model (News Bargaining Incentive Scheme), sinubukang mas malawak na misinformation regulation (kalaunang inabandona), at pinagbawalan ang social media para sa minors. 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.
Ang approach ng Coalition ay mas masikip na nakatuon sa suporta sa news industry [9][15][16]. The Coalition's approach was more narrowly focused on news industry support [9][15][16].
Ibig sabihin ang paglalarawan ng Code bilang "Coalition red tape" ay medyo misleading—sinuportahan ng Labor ang partikular na hakbang na ito at pinalawak pa ang mga regulatory approach. 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.
🌐
Balanseng Pananaw
Ang News Media Bargaining Code ay kumakatawan sa isang tunay na policy disagreement tungkol sa digital platform regulation at market power, na may mga lehitimong argumento sa maraming panig:
The News Media Bargaining Code represents a genuine policy disagreement about digital platform regulation and market power, with legitimate arguments on multiple sides:
### Mga Argumento ng mga Kritiko (Sinuportahan ng Claim) ### Critics' Arguments (Supported by the Claim)
- Ang Code ay isang anyo ng government intervention sa technology at media markets - Lumilikha ito ng regulatory complexity ("red tape") - Pinapaboran nito ang mas malalaking publishers na may resources para makipag-negotiate [6] - Kung ang algorithm notification requirements ay practical/justified ay mapagdebatehan [12] - Ang data transparency requirements ay maaaring i-expose ang sensitive na business information kung hindi maingat na nilimitahan [3] - 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]
### Government Justification / Lehitimong Rationale ### Government Justification / Legitimate Rationale
- Ang mga tech platform ay nagsasamantala ng advertising revenue na ginawa ng news content nang hindi nababayaran ang mga content creators, na lumilikha ng mga hindi sustainable na kondisyon para sa mga news organization [10] - Ang power imbalance sa pagitan ng mga global tech platform at indibidwal na mga news organization ay nagpahirap sa voluntary negotiation [10] - Ang ilang compensation para sa news content ay makatwiran na tumutugon sa isang market failure, katulad ng copyright protections para sa ibang creative works [10] - Ang Code ay matagumpay na nag-generate ng ~$200 million sa taunang pagbabayad sa mga news organization, na sumusuporta sa journalism [11] - 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]
### Independent Analysis ### Independent Analysis
Ang Code ay may **mixed reported outcomes:** **Positibong epekto:** - Pinalawak ng ABC sa 60 bagong regional journalism positions na pinondohan ng Code payments [11] - Ang maliliit na media outlets ay nakipag-negotiate ng collective agreements na hindi nila magagawa nang mag-isa [7] - Ang mga government reviews ay nagre-recommend ng mga proteksyon para sa maliliit/independent publishers para tugunan ang equity concerns [8] **Negatibong epekto:** - Umatras ang Facebook mula sa karamihan ng mga news deals noong 2024, na nagbawas ng mga pagbabayad sa mga Australian publishers at limitado ang reach ng mga fact-checking organizations sa platform [6] - Ang mga katanungan ay nananatili tungkol sa kung ang mga pagbabayad ay sustainable o katumbas sa halaga ng content [15] 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]
### Key Factual Finding sa mga Partikular na Claims ### Key Factual Finding on Specific Claims
**Ang partikular na claim ay MISLEADING sa kanyang technical assertions:** 1. ✗ **"Pinipilit ang Google na magbigay ng espesyal na insider knowledge ng proprietary search algorithm changes"** - FALSE. **The specific claim is MISLEADING in its technical assertions:**
1. ✗ **"Forcing Google to give special insider knowledge of proprietary search algorithm changes"** - FALSE.
Ang Code ay nangangailangan ng advance notice ng mga makabuluhang pagbabago, hindi pagbubunyag kung paano gumagana ang mga algorithm [1][2]. 2. ✗ **"Malabo na nakasulat na klausula tungkol sa pagbibigay sa news companies ng access sa pribadong data ng mga user ng Google"** - 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.
Ang Code ay eksplikong nag-eexclude ng "particular user data" at nangangailangan ng Privacy Act compliance. The Code explicitly excludes "particular user data" and requires Privacy Act compliance.
Ang data transparency ay limitado sa mga uri ng data na nakolekta [3][4]. 3. ? **"Malalaking news companies pero hindi sa maliliit, independent journalists"** - PARTIALLY TRUE. Data transparency is limited to types of data collected [3][4].
3. ? **"Large news companies but not small, independent journalists"** - PARTIALLY TRUE.
Ang pormal na batas ay hindi nag-eexclude ng maliliit na media, ngunit ang de facto refusal ni Facebook na makipag-usap sa maliliit na operators ay lumikha ng epektong ito. Formal law doesn't exclude small media, but Facebook's de facto refusal to deal with small operators created this effect.
Ibang hinaing ang Google [6][7]. Google handled it differently [6][7].
Ang claim ay accurately na nakakakilala ng regulation bilang nangyayari, ngunit **mali ang paglalarawan kung ano ang nangangailangan ng regulation** sa mga critical technical points (algorithm disclosure, data access). The claim accurately identifies regulation as occurring, but **mischaracterizes what the regulation requires** on the critical technical points (algorithm disclosure, data access).
Ang mga mischaracterizations na ito ay nagpapagawa sa kabuuang claim na misleading sa kabila ng regulatory intervention na totoo. These mischaracterizations make the overall claim misleading despite the regulatory intervention being real.
NAKAKALITO
5.0
sa 10
Ang News Media Bargaining Code ay tunay na nagkakatawan ng government intervention sa digital markets at tunay na nagbubunga ng mga lehitimong "red tape" concerns.
The News Media Bargaining Code does constitute government intervention in digital markets and does raise legitimate "red tape" concerns.
Gayunpaman, ang mga partikular na technical claims ay hindi accurate: ang Code ay HINDI nangangailangan ng pagbubunyag ng proprietary algorithms, at HINDI nangangailangan ng pagbabahagi ng individual user data. 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.
Ang paglalarawan ng magkaibang treatment para sa maliliit vs. malalaking media ay bahagyang accurate ngunit oversimplified—ito ay isang de facto market outcome sa halip na eksplikong legislative design. 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.
Ang core accurate point ng claim (government regulation ng tech platforms) ay naobscure ng technically false assertions tungkol sa algorithm at data disclosure. The claim's core accurate point (government regulation of tech platforms) is obscured by technically false assertions about algorithm and data disclosure.
Huling Iskor
5.0
SA 10
NAKAKALITO
Ang News Media Bargaining Code ay tunay na nagkakatawan ng government intervention sa digital markets at tunay na nagbubunga ng mga lehitimong "red tape" concerns.
The News Media Bargaining Code does constitute government intervention in digital markets and does raise legitimate "red tape" concerns.
Gayunpaman, ang mga partikular na technical claims ay hindi accurate: ang Code ay HINDI nangangailangan ng pagbubunyag ng proprietary algorithms, at HINDI nangangailangan ng pagbabahagi ng individual user data. 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.
Ang paglalarawan ng magkaibang treatment para sa maliliit vs. malalaking media ay bahagyang accurate ngunit oversimplified—ito ay isang de facto market outcome sa halip na eksplikong legislative design. 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.
Ang core accurate point ng claim (government regulation ng tech platforms) ay naobscure ng technically false assertions tungkol sa algorithm at data disclosure. The claim's core accurate point (government regulation of tech platforms) is obscured by technically false assertions about algorithm and data disclosure.
📚 MGA PINAGMULAN AT SANGGUNIAN (16)
-
1
News Media Bargaining Code - Factual Information for Business
The News Media Bargaining Code governs commercial relationships between Australian news businesses and ‘designated’ digital platforms who benefit from a significant bargaining power imbalance.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission -
2
Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Act 2021
Federal Register of Legislation
-
3
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner Submission: Exposure Draft Treasury Laws Amendment News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code Bill 2020
The OAIC's submission on the exposure draft of the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2020
OAIC -
4
Privacy Act 1988 - Australian Federal Legislation
Federal Register of Legislation
-
5
News Media Bargaining Code - Minimum Guaranteed Payments
Accc Gov
Original link no longer available -
6
Facebook's Refusal to Deal with Independent Publishers under News Media Bargaining Code
Most of the attention on the code has been on the larger media outlets. But the sustainability of small publishers is what should be of most concern.
The Conversation -
7PDF
ACCC List of Participating News Publishers under the Code
Accc Gov • PDF Document -
8
Bargaining Codes: What Benefits Might Australia Get? - Media Freedom Coalition Case Study
Policies that make tech giants pay for news are on the rise. So how did the pioneer Australian version help smaller media outlets
Media Freedom Coalition -
9
Media Regulation 2024 - Parliamentary Overview
Anti-siphoning list Ahead of the 2022 Federal Election, the Australian Labor Party committed to reviewing the anti-siphoning scheme in the context of online streaming platforms. In place since 1994, the anti-siphoning scheme provides the national broadcasters and certain commerci
what to expect in 2024 -
10PDF
News Media Bargaining Code - Policy Rationale and Economic Impact Analysis
Treasury Gov • PDF Document -
11
ABC News Media Bargaining Code Impact - 60 New Regional Journalism Positions
Follow the latest headlines from ABC News, Australia's most trusted media source, with live events, audio and on-demand video from the national broadcaster.
Abc Net -
12
Google's FAQ on the News Media Bargaining Code - Algorithm Notification Concerns
Blog
Original link no longer available -
13
ZDNet Media Ownership and Editorial Standards
ZDNET news and advice keep professionals prepared to embrace innovation and ready to build a better future.
ZDNET -
14
Australia Google Blog - Official Company Communications
blog.google/intl/en-au -
15
Labor Government Abandons Misinformation Bill - Free Speech Concerns (September 2024)
Helpful information Text of bill First reading: Text of the bill as introduced into the Parliament Third reading: Prepared if the bill is amended by the house in which it was introduced. This version of the bill is then considered by the second house. As passed by
Aph Gov -
16
News Bargaining Incentive Scheme and Age Restriction Bill - Labor Government December 2024 Announcements
Minister Dcita Gov
Pamamaraan ng Rating Scale
1-3: MALI
Hindi tama sa katotohanan o malisyosong gawa-gawa.
4-6: BAHAGYA
May katotohanan ngunit kulang o baluktot ang konteksto.
7-9: HALOS TOTOO
Maliit na teknikal na detalye o isyu sa pagkakasulat.
10: TUMPAK
Perpektong na-verify at patas ayon sa konteksto.
Pamamaraan: Ang mga rating ay tinutukoy sa pamamagitan ng cross-referencing ng opisyal na mga rekord ng pamahalaan, independiyenteng mga organisasyong nag-fact-check, at mga primaryang dokumento.