Relationship status: it’s complicated
感情狀態：一言難盡
Facebook and Australia both claim victory as they end their spat
臉書與澳洲結束爭吵 都自稱勝利
The social network coughs up, but wriggles out of the obligations it had feared most. 社交網路巨擘雖勉強掏錢，但避開了最恐懼的義務。
FEBRUARY 24, 2021
AFTER UNFRIENDING each other last week, Facebook and Australia are pals again. On February 23rd the world’s largest social network announced that it would reverse its decision to switch off the sharing of news on its site in Australia, as well as the sharing of Australian news sources globally. For its part, the Australian government said it would amend its proposed News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code, which had so upset Facebook.
在上周彼此解除好友關係之後，臉書和澳洲又再度和睦相處。在2月23日，全球最大的社交網路宣布將撤銷決定，不再封鎖在澳洲站點的新聞分享，以及全球性分享澳洲新聞來源。對此，澳洲政府表示，相對地，澳洲政府表示，將修改「新聞媒體和數位平台強制議價法規」提案，該法案令臉書備感不安。
Both sides claim victory. The government points to the fact that news will soon be restored to the platform, and that Facebook has agreed to make payments to Australian media companies. Yet the last-minute amendments will allow Facebook and other tech companies to avoid the code’s most exacting terms if they are deemed to be contributing enough. The upshot is that big tech will be able to sidestep regulation if it is willing to pay off its media critics—an outcome that suits both parties, if not necessarily consumers.
雙方都聲稱勝利。澳洲政府指出「新聞很快將重新出現在臉書平台」的事實，並且臉書已同意向澳洲媒體公司付款。但最後關頭的條文修改，將使臉書和其他科技公司能避開該法規最嚴格的條款，只要被認定貢獻夠多。結局是，如果科技巨頭願意付錢給批評他們的媒體，就能夠規避監管--這結果讓雙方皆大歡喜，對消費者卻未必如此。但最後的條文修改，將使臉書和其他科技公司如果被視為貢獻夠多，則可以避開該法規最嚴格的條款。結局是，如果科技巨頭願意向媒體評論員支付報酬的話，他們將能夠規避監管-這一結果適合雙方，但並不意味著適合消費者。
The central idea of the code, which was approved by Australia’s Senate on February 24th and is expected to go through the House of Representatives the next day, is that tech platforms benefit unfairly from content created by others. Companies like Google and Facebook make money from ads, which sit alongside links to news articles, among other things. The publishers of those articles say they deserve a share of the ad revenue.
法規於2月24日獲澳洲參議院的批准，並有望在第二天通過眾議院。其中心思想是，科技平台從他人創造的內容中取得不公平收入，如Google和臉書等公司都是透過廣告賺錢，這些廣告就設在新聞報導的連結旁邊。這些文章的發表人說，他們有權分享廣告收入的一部分。
The tech platforms retort that, on the contrary, publishers benefit from the traffic referrals they get when their content is shared online. If publishers disagree, they are under no obligation to post their stories to social networks or have them listed by search engines. Paying for link-sharing threatens freedom of speech—and, more worrying to tech bosses, their entire business model. If Google or Facebook must pay for displaying links to news, what is to stop them being forced to pay for the billions of other pieces of content they link to?
相對地，科技平台則反駁，發布者的內容一旦在線上被分享，轉介的流量就會讓他們從中受益。 發表人若是不同意，就不必將新聞報導上傳到社交網絡，或讓搜索引擎列出。為分享連結付費，會威脅到言論自由，而令科技公司老闆更擔心的是，整個商業模式都會受威脅。如果Google或臉書必須為展示新聞連結而付費，那麼他們連結的數十億則別的內容，憑什麼可以不付費？
科技平台反駁，發表人的內容在線上被分享時，會從他們獲流量轉載中受益。如果發表人不同意，則他們沒有義務將發布他們的故事到社交網絡上，或被搜索引擎列出。為分享連結付費會威脅到言論自由，並且科技公司老闆更加擔心整個商業模式。如果Google或臉書必須為陳列出新聞連結而付費，那麼什麼可以停止他們被迫付費給數十億其他的連結內容呢？
Australia’s code looks particularly fearsome. If an online platform and a media company are unable to reach a deal, an official arbiter will make a binding decision. Rather than splitting the difference between bids, it will choose between each side’s final offer. If it sides with the newsmen, platforms could be on the hook for hefty sums.
澳洲的法規看起來特別可怕，如果線上平台和媒體公司無法達成交易，則官方仲裁將做出具有約束力的決定。與其斤斤計較雙方出價間的差異，不如在雙方的最終出價之間進行選擇。如果法規支持新聞工作者，那麼平台可能要花上大把鈔票。
The concessions made by Australia’s government remove these risks, for a price. The high-stakes arbitration mechanism will be preceded by a two-month mediation period, giving platforms a chance to strike more palatable deals. Non-differentiation provisions, which would have forced platforms to pay all media companies on an equal basis, have been scrapped. Most important, the decision on whether the code should apply to a tech platform at all must now take into account whether the platform “has made a significant contribution to the sustainability of the Australian news industry through reaching commercial agreements with news media businesses”. In other words, if they dish out enough money, Facebook and others can avoid being subject to the code altogether.
澳洲政府的讓步消除了這些風險，但這要付出代價。澳洲政府對價格的讓步消除了這些風險。高風險的仲裁機制事先將有兩個月的調解期，使平台有機會達成更多可接受的的交易，原本迫使平台一視同仁，對所有媒體公司付款的無差異化條款，已被撤銷。最重要的是，如今決定此法對於科技平台是否適用時，必須考量該平台是否「透過與新聞媒體企業達成商業協議，為澳洲新聞業的永續發展做出重大貢獻」。 換句話說，如果付的錢夠多，臉書和其他公司可以完全避開法規約束。
銷毀原本迫使平台一視同仁，向所有媒體公司付款的無差別條款。最重要的是，在決定是否將法規完全適用於科技平台時，現在必須考慮該平台是否「透過與新聞媒體企業達成商業協議，為澳洲新聞業的永續發展做出重大貢獻」。換句話說，如果他們付足了錢，臉書和其他公司最終可以避開法規的約束。
Tech platforms are already making such payments, in a bid to ward off regulation. Last year Google launched its “News Showcase”, under which it plans to distribute $1bn over three years to publishing companies around the world. Facebook’s “News Tab” shares advertising revenues in a similar way (The Economist is a participant). Currently operating in America and Britain, it is to be launched in more countries. On February 24th Facebook announced that it too would dole out $1bn for journalism over the next three years.
為了避開法規，科技平台已支付相當的金額。去年Google啟動「新聞櫥窗」，計劃在三年內向全球出版公司分發10億美元。 臉書的「新聞標籤」以類似的方式分享廣告收入，《經濟學人》是參與者，目前在英美推行，之後將在更多國家推出。 2月24日，Facebook也宣布將在未來三年撥款10億美元給新聞業。
The question is whether this will be enough to placate other governments. Canada is drafting its own code on the matter, expected to be published later this year. Last week Steven Guilbeault, the minister in charge, said: “I suspect that soon we will have five, ten, 15 countries adopting similar rules…Is Facebook going to cut ties with Germany, with France?” Britain is also drawing up new rules, as is the European Union. Microsoft, whose unloved search engine, Bing, stands to benefit from anything that hurts Google, is working with publishers’ associations in Europe to put together a blueprint for an arbitration mechanism.
問題是，這是否足以安撫其他政府。加拿大正在起草自家的相關法規，預計將於今年稍晚時公布。上周負責相關草案的部長吉爾伯特（Steven Guilbeault）說：「我認為很快我們將有五個、十個、15個國家採用類似的規則…臉書是否會與德國、法國斷絕關係？」英國和歐盟也在制定新規。微軟正與歐洲出版商協會合作，為仲裁機制擬定藍圖。凡是有損Google的事，對微軟備受冷落的搜尋引擎Bing都有益。微軟不受歡迎的搜尋引擎Bing從損害Google任何事中受益。微軟Bing正在與歐洲的出版商協會合作，為仲裁機制制定藍圖。
Discretionary pay-offs to old media companies look as if they will become part of tech firms’ business in more and more countries. That is something the tech platforms, not short of money, can live with. The bigger risk would be any law that imposed a systematic obligation to pay for the content around which their business is built, or regulated the way in which that content is presented. They have managed to ward off this threat for now, by getting out their wallets.
酌情支付給舊媒體公司，看似將成為科技公司在愈來愈多國家業務的一部分。這是不缺錢的科技平台可忍受的。更大的風險將是任何立法強加的系統性義務，必須為其事業賴以為基礎的內容付費，或依照內容呈現方式受監管。目前，他們已經拿出錢包，藉此避開了這種威脅。更大的風險將是任何法律強加的系統性義務，為所建業務中環繞的內容付費，或規範已存在內容的呈現方式。他們現在已經設法拿出錢包，阻止這種威脅。
https://outline.com/pD2BGw
沒有留言:
張貼留言