There's a difference between actual journalism & the opinion pieces on YouTube. Actual journalists present fact, not hearsay, rumour, or opinion. what the law is mostly about, is preventing Google & its affiliates from poaching the work of journalists & presenting it on non-news websites in any way they see fit. You, as a watcher of YouTube, would only see the fair & balanced account journalists are supposed to present, if your algorithm decided you want to... which means most devotees of the hard left, or right, or conspiracy theorists, or the ill-informed & under-educated, would never see it - they'd only see the 'news' that fits their profile, according to Google
This doesn't only take revenue away from the media organisations (which aren't that big in Australia & don't have the bottomless well of cash that Fox & other global companies have, simply because of our small population), it also removes the 'news' context of the story... not to mention it can end up on sites that the journalist, or even the media company, don't want it to... & there's nothing they can do about it, let alone get paid for the unregulated redistribution of their work
Google is, of course, upset about this curtailing of its 'freedom'... freedom from paying company taxes in Australia, freedom from responsibility for its content, freedom to perpetuate & actively encourage divisions in society, rather than bringing it together... & freedom from having to pay for anything it wants
People decided that music should be free, until they realised the only way to encourage alternatives to mainstream pop & rock, was to pay the musicians to make it. This is the same thing - the only way to ensure a balanced, nuanced, unbiased & accurate news media, is to pay for it. Otherwise, you'll only be told what you want to hear... or what Google wants you to know
I like the opinion pieces in YouTube, because it is freedom. I don’t like journalism, because mostly today it is propaganda. I don’t like Google, because it is evil, like Facebook or Microsoft. Regarding music, I like idea of P2P like Napster and would like to pay for this kind of service and Napster should pay musicians who made music. However, Napster was killed and now you have branch of streaming giants like Spotify or Apple and they fight till monopoly will win and that it?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2020-08-30 08:25 am (UTC)This doesn't only take revenue away from the media organisations (which aren't that big in Australia & don't have the bottomless well of cash that Fox & other global companies have, simply because of our small population), it also removes the 'news' context of the story... not to mention it can end up on sites that the journalist, or even the media company, don't want it to... & there's nothing they can do about it, let alone get paid for the unregulated redistribution of their work
Google is, of course, upset about this curtailing of its 'freedom'... freedom from paying company taxes in Australia, freedom from responsibility for its content, freedom to perpetuate & actively encourage divisions in society, rather than bringing it together... & freedom from having to pay for anything it wants
People decided that music should be free, until they realised the only way to encourage alternatives to mainstream pop & rock, was to pay the musicians to make it. This is the same thing - the only way to ensure a balanced, nuanced, unbiased & accurate news media, is to pay for it. Otherwise, you'll only be told what you want to hear... or what Google wants you to know
no subject
Date: 2020-08-30 03:05 pm (UTC)