Social media gorged itself on a free lunch of news. The buffet could be over

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has decided to take on big US tech companies in the interests of Team Australia for the second time in as many months.

But while Albanese was on safe ground placing a minimum 16-year age requirement on kids using social media – a policy welcomed by many parents fed up fighting their children on screen time – taking the fight to big tech for local publishers carries greater risks.

In 2021, former treasurer Josh Frydenberg led the negotiations with Google and Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, that created the news media bargaining code.

Meta fought hard, briefly pulling news from its products in Australia. But it eventually buckled, tipping about $200 million a year into Australian journalism along with Google.

The deal was hailed as a world first.

It was the Australian government’s first attempt to force the companies, who have gorged themselves on a daily free lunch of news provided by legacy media outlets for more than a decade, to pay for at least a portion of the content that has drawn millions of users to their platforms.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is attempting to bring Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta to heel.Credit: Bloomberg, Oscar Colman

But Meta, in particular, did not like the code and after Canada tried to copy Australia’s laws, the company was ready. It removed all news from its platform and announced there would be no more deals with Australian media companies.

Now the Albanese government is having a second stab at ending the free lunch for social media companies.

The timing is notable: despite the prime minister’s recent complaint to cabinet about News Corp pursuing the government, even the Rupert Murdoch-owned media company welcomed the election-year policy.

Albanese’s news bargaining incentive, a tweak to the code, will attempt to force social media companies with revenue of more than $250 million to strike deals with publishers – or pay a levy higher than the cost of the deals.

Though the policy will win favour with the news organisations (including Nine Entertainment, publisher of this masthead) who used at least some of the first $200 million in annual deals to hire journalists, it’s not immediately apparent that most Australians care much about the future of news.

Media companies and journalists are not up there with teachers and nurses among the most respected and trusted professions, after all.

But Australians should care.

In an age when hot-takes and “feelpinions” abound, the federal government’s levy on social media giants is designed to shore up the future of news outlets across the country. In regional areas in particular, where local newspapers are part of the fabric of small communities, the measure could slow or halt their retreat.

At their press conference announcing the policy, Rowland and Jones argued it was vital that Australians who accessed news through social media had access to “fact-checked information”.

One need only look at the spread of dis- and misinformation about vaccines during the pandemic to see why.

In the dispute between social and legacy media, it’s clear the government has picked a winner. Now the ball is in Meta’s court to respond.

Cut through the noise of federal politics with news, views and expert analysis. Subscribers can sign up to our weekly Inside Politics newsletter.