treblecleft personal page - To The Moon

treblecleft

treblecleft

No personal profile

4Follow

0Followers

0Topic

0Badge

2021-06-25

Hi

Facebook rejects talks with Australia publisher, testing world's toughest online law

2021-06-25

Good

Sorry, the original content has been removed

Go to Tiger App to see more news

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"userPageInfo":{"id":"3586405690822232","uuid":"3586405690822232","gmtCreate":1623313891333,"gmtModify":1624608645228,"name":"treblecleft","pinyin":"treblecleft","introduction":"","introductionEn":null,"signature":"","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d57a02c24b27d3c6e376161fd18ff7a1","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":0,"headSize":4,"tweetSize":2,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":999,"accountStatus":4,"level":{"id":1,"name":"萌萌虎","nameTw":"萌萌虎","represent":"呱呱坠地","factor":"评论帖子3次或发布1条主帖（非转发）","iconColor":"3C9E83","bgColor":"A2F1D9"},"themeCounts":0,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":0,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":"success","userBadges":[{"badgeId":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493-2","templateUuid":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493","name":"Senior Tiger","description":"Join the tiger community for 1000 days","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0063fb68ea29c9ae6858c58630e182d5","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/96c699a93be4214d4b49aea6a5a5d1a4","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/35b0e542a9ff77046ed69ef602bc105d","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2024.03.12","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001},{"badgeId":"a83d7582f45846ffbccbce770ce65d84-1","templateUuid":"a83d7582f45846ffbccbce770ce65d84","name":"Real Trader","description":"Completed a transaction","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2e08a1cc2087a1de93402c2c290fa65b","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4504a6397ce1137932d56e5f4ce27166","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4b22c79415b4cd6e3d8ebc4a0fa32604","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100}],"userBadgeCount":2,"currentWearingBadge":null,"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"location":null,"starInvestorFollowerNum":0,"starInvestorFlag":false,"starInvestorOrderShareNum":0,"subscribeStarInvestorNum":0,"ror":null,"winRationPercentage":null,"showRor":false,"investmentPhilosophy":null,"starInvestorSubscribeFlag":false},"baikeInfo":{},"tab":"post","tweets":[{"id":122158014,"gmtCreate":1624606452138,"gmtModify":1703841567438,"author":{"id":"3586405690822232","authorId":"3586405690822232","name":"treblecleft","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d57a02c24b27d3c6e376161fd18ff7a1","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3586405690822232","idStr":"3586405690822232"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/122158014","repostId":"2146274410","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2146274410","pubTimestamp":1624603105,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2146274410?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-25 14:38","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Facebook rejects talks with Australia publisher, testing world's toughest online law","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2146274410","media":"Reuters","summary":"SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australia's competition watchdog is looking into a claim that Facebook Inc refuse","content":"<p>SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australia's competition watchdog is looking into a claim that <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/FB\">Facebook</a> Inc refused a publisher's request to negotiate a licensing deal, the regulator told Reuters, setting the stage for the first test of the world's toughest online content law.</p>\n<p>The Conversation, which publishes current affairs commentary by academics, said it asked Facebook to begin talks as required under new Australian legislation that requires the social media firm and Alphabet Inc's Google to negotiate content-supply deals with media outlets.</p>\n<p>Facebook declined without giving a reason, The Conversation said, even though the publisher was among the first in Australia to secure a similar deal with Google in the lead-up to the law in 2020.</p>\n<p>The knockback could present the first test of a controversial mechanism unique to Australia's effort to claw back advertising dollars from Google and Facebook: if they refuse to negotiate licence fees with publishers, a government-appointed arbitrator may step in.</p>\n<p>In a statement responding to Reuters questions, Facebook's head of news partnerships for Australia, Andrew Hunter, said the company was \"focused on concluding commercial deals with a range of Australian publishers\".</p>\n<p>Hunter did not answer specific questions concerning The Conversation, but said Facebook was planning a separate initiative \"to support regional, rural and digital Australian newsrooms and public-interest journalism in the coming months\", without giving details.</p>\n<p>\"If Google's done a deal with them, I can't see how Facebook should argue that they shouldn't,\" Rod Sims, the chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), said in an interview.</p>\n<p>\"The question of designation might need to come into play,\" he noted, using the term for assigning an arbitrator.</p>\n<p>Under the law, the decision to designate a Big Tech firm for intervention was made by the treasurer, which is advised by the ACCC, noted Sims, but \"an absolute 'no' for an organisation that should be getting a deal is something we'll look into.\"</p>\n<p>The Conversation was \"exactly what we had in mind with the Code\", he said.</p>\n<p>Governments around the world are introducing laws to make the tech giants compensate media companies for the links that drive readers - and advertising revenue - to their platforms. But Australia is the only country where the government may set the fees if negotiations fail, a factor that drove Facebook to block newsfeeds in the country just before it was passed.</p>\n<p>Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, who earlier this year negotiated with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg over the laws, was not immediately available for comment.</p>\n<p>\"SCRATCHING OUR HEADS\"</p>\n<p>The case also paints a less rosy picture of the law's impact on the industry than has been widely reported. Since it took effect, a handful of the country's biggest media players, from <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/NWSAL\">News Corp</a> to the Australian Broadcasting Corp, have struck deals with the tech giants.</p>\n<p>But some small and independent publishers whose content helps draw four-fifths of Australia's 25 million population to the Facebook site said the law had created a two-tier industry where rival titles that were owned by large parent companies secured deals while others missed out.</p>\n<p>Nelson Yap, publisher of Australian Property Journal, which is on a government register of media businesses covered by the law, said he was in early discussions with Google but had emailed Facebook twice with no response.</p>\n<p>He said he read Facebook's public statements about talking to publishers and \"I'm sitting here going, with whom? Not with us. Despite reaching out, we haven't heard anything. We're all scratching our heads, trying to work out what to do next.\"</p>\n<p>A Facebook spokesperson did not answer a question about any contacts with the Property Journal. Country Press Australia, a regional newspaper industry group, said it was holding constructive talks with Facebook on behalf about 140 publishers.</p>\n<p>The Conversation editor Misha Ketchell said that \"obviously we are disappointed that we haven't been able to engage in negotiations with Facebook so far, but we remain optimistic that we will be able to reach an agreement\".</p>\n<p>The ACCC's Sims said the deal pipeline had \"gone quieter than I would have envisaged\" but urged smaller publishers to be patient.</p>\n<p>\"On the <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a> hand I'm concerned that people aren't getting a response to the emails, on the other hand I have seen it before and then things change and deals get done,\" he said.</p>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Facebook rejects talks with Australia publisher, testing world's toughest online law</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFacebook rejects talks with Australia publisher, testing world's toughest online law\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-25 14:38 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-facebook-rejects-talks-australia-062825621.html><strong>Reuters</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australia's competition watchdog is looking into a claim that Facebook Inc refused a publisher's request to negotiate a licensing deal, the regulator told Reuters, setting the stage...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-facebook-rejects-talks-australia-062825621.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-facebook-rejects-talks-australia-062825621.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2146274410","content_text":"SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australia's competition watchdog is looking into a claim that Facebook Inc refused a publisher's request to negotiate a licensing deal, the regulator told Reuters, setting the stage for the first test of the world's toughest online content law.\nThe Conversation, which publishes current affairs commentary by academics, said it asked Facebook to begin talks as required under new Australian legislation that requires the social media firm and Alphabet Inc's Google to negotiate content-supply deals with media outlets.\nFacebook declined without giving a reason, The Conversation said, even though the publisher was among the first in Australia to secure a similar deal with Google in the lead-up to the law in 2020.\nThe knockback could present the first test of a controversial mechanism unique to Australia's effort to claw back advertising dollars from Google and Facebook: if they refuse to negotiate licence fees with publishers, a government-appointed arbitrator may step in.\nIn a statement responding to Reuters questions, Facebook's head of news partnerships for Australia, Andrew Hunter, said the company was \"focused on concluding commercial deals with a range of Australian publishers\".\nHunter did not answer specific questions concerning The Conversation, but said Facebook was planning a separate initiative \"to support regional, rural and digital Australian newsrooms and public-interest journalism in the coming months\", without giving details.\n\"If Google's done a deal with them, I can't see how Facebook should argue that they shouldn't,\" Rod Sims, the chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), said in an interview.\n\"The question of designation might need to come into play,\" he noted, using the term for assigning an arbitrator.\nUnder the law, the decision to designate a Big Tech firm for intervention was made by the treasurer, which is advised by the ACCC, noted Sims, but \"an absolute 'no' for an organisation that should be getting a deal is something we'll look into.\"\nThe Conversation was \"exactly what we had in mind with the Code\", he said.\nGovernments around the world are introducing laws to make the tech giants compensate media companies for the links that drive readers - and advertising revenue - to their platforms. But Australia is the only country where the government may set the fees if negotiations fail, a factor that drove Facebook to block newsfeeds in the country just before it was passed.\nTreasurer Josh Frydenberg, who earlier this year negotiated with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg over the laws, was not immediately available for comment.\n\"SCRATCHING OUR HEADS\"\nThe case also paints a less rosy picture of the law's impact on the industry than has been widely reported. Since it took effect, a handful of the country's biggest media players, from News Corp to the Australian Broadcasting Corp, have struck deals with the tech giants.\nBut some small and independent publishers whose content helps draw four-fifths of Australia's 25 million population to the Facebook site said the law had created a two-tier industry where rival titles that were owned by large parent companies secured deals while others missed out.\nNelson Yap, publisher of Australian Property Journal, which is on a government register of media businesses covered by the law, said he was in early discussions with Google but had emailed Facebook twice with no response.\nHe said he read Facebook's public statements about talking to publishers and \"I'm sitting here going, with whom? Not with us. Despite reaching out, we haven't heard anything. We're all scratching our heads, trying to work out what to do next.\"\nA Facebook spokesperson did not answer a question about any contacts with the Property Journal. Country Press Australia, a regional newspaper industry group, said it was holding constructive talks with Facebook on behalf about 140 publishers.\nThe Conversation editor Misha Ketchell said that \"obviously we are disappointed that we haven't been able to engage in negotiations with Facebook so far, but we remain optimistic that we will be able to reach an agreement\".\nThe ACCC's Sims said the deal pipeline had \"gone quieter than I would have envisaged\" but urged smaller publishers to be patient.\n\"On the one hand I'm concerned that people aren't getting a response to the emails, on the other hand I have seen it before and then things change and deals get done,\" he said.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":194,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":122151314,"gmtCreate":1624606374438,"gmtModify":1703841566629,"author":{"id":"3586405690822232","authorId":"3586405690822232","name":"treblecleft","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d57a02c24b27d3c6e376161fd18ff7a1","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"authorIdStr":"3586405690822232","idStr":"3586405690822232"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/122151314","repostId":"1136977070","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":263,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":122151314,"gmtCreate":1624606374438,"gmtModify":1703841566629,"author":{"id":"3586405690822232","authorId":"3586405690822232","name":"treblecleft","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d57a02c24b27d3c6e376161fd18ff7a1","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3586405690822232","authorIdStr":"3586405690822232"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Good","listText":"Good","text":"Good","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/122151314","repostId":"1136977070","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1136977070","pubTimestamp":1624604005,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1136977070?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-25 14:53","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Apple’s Car Obsession Is All About Taking Eyes Off the Road","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1136977070","media":"Bloomberg","summary":" -- At first glance, the forays Apple Inc., Google and other technology giants are making into the world of cars don’t appear to be particularly lucrative.Building automobiles requires factories, equipment and an army of people to design and assemble large hunks of steel, plastic and glass. That all but guarantees slimmer profits. The world’s top 10 carmakers had an operating margin of just 5.2% in 2020, a fraction of the 34% enjoyed by the tech industry’s leaders, data compiled by Bloomberg sho","content":"<p>(Bloomberg) -- At first glance, the forays Apple Inc., Google and other technology giants are making into the world of cars don’t appear to be particularly lucrative.</p>\n<p>Building automobiles requires factories, equipment and an army of people to design and assemble large hunks of steel, plastic and glass. That all but guarantees slimmer profits. The world’s top 10 carmakers had an operating margin of just 5.2% in 2020, a fraction of the 34% enjoyed by the tech industry’s leaders, data compiled by Bloomberg show.</p>\n<p>But for Apple and other behemoths that are diving into self-driving tech or have grand plans for their own cars, that push isn’t just about breaking into a new market — it’s about defending valuable turf.</p>\n<p>“Why are tech companies pushing into autonomous driving? Because they can, and because they have to,” said Chris Gerdes, co-director of the Center for Automotive Research at Stanford University. “There are business models that people aren’t aware of.”</p>\n<p>A market projected to top $2 trillion by 2030 is hard to ignore. By then, more than 58 million vehicles globally are expected to be driving themselves. And Big Tech has the means — from artificial intelligence and massive data, to chipmaking and engineering — to disrupt this century-old industry.</p>\n<p>What’s at stake, essentially, is something even more valuable than profitability: the last unclaimed corner of consumers’ attention during their waking hours.</p>\n<p>The amount of time people spend in cars, especially in the U.S., is significant. Americans were behind the wheel for 307.8 hours in 2016, or around six hours a week, according to the latest available data by the American Automobile Association.</p>\n<p>That’s a fair chunk of someone’s life not spent using apps on an iPhone, searching on Google or scrolling mindlessly through Instagram. Any company that’s able to free up that time in a meaningful way will also have a good chance of capturing it.</p>\n<p>The world’s inexorable shift toward intelligent cars that are better for the environment is impossible to miss. If governments haven’t already declared plans to be carbon neutral by, in some cases, the end of this decade, there’s plenty of research that shows combustion-engine cars are going the way of the dinosaurs.</p>\n<p>BloombergNEF’s annual Electric Vehicle Outlook, published earlier this month, sees global oil demand from all road transport peaking in just six years, assuming no new policy measures are introduced. By 2025, EVs hit 10% of global passenger vehicle sales, rising to 28% in 2030 and 58% in 2040. Eventually, autonomous vehicles will reshape automotive and freight markets entirely.</p>\n<p>Against that backdrop, it’s unsurprising that after years of chipping away at self-driving cars, tech companies have been stepping up their activities and investments in earnest.</p>\n<p>Autonomous cars are only as good as the human drivers they learn from — so the people who teach these systems need to be excellent drivers themselves.</p>\n<p>Over the past several months, Apple has prioritized plans for the “Apple Car” after previously focusing on making an autonomous driving system, Bloomberg has reported. That’s fueled intense speculation over which automakers and suppliers the company behind the iPhone may partner with to realize its vision. While Apple has recently lost multiple top managers on the project, it still has hundreds of engineers in its larger car group.</p>\n<p>There’s also Waymo, which is in talks to raise as much as $4 billion to accelerate its efforts. Founded in 2009, the business that was formerly Google’s self-driving car project was the first to have a fully autonomous ride on public roads. It became an independent company in 2017 under Google parent Alphabet Inc., launched an autonomous ride-hailing service in Phoenix in 2018 and last year began testing self-driving trucks in New Mexico and Texas.</p>\n<p>Microsoft Corp., too, is backing several autonomous initiatives, partnering with Volkswagen AG on self-driving car software, possibly with a view to creating offices-on-the-go.</p>\n<p>Amazon.com Inc., meanwhile, has thrown its weight behind Rivian Automotive Inc., which is making electric trucks, and last year bought driverless startup Zoox Inc. It may look to include autonomous rides as part of its Prime membership program.</p>\n<p>“Each of these companies, including Facebook, want to be a part of or even control and dominate, every part of citizens’ lives,” said Professor Raj Rajkumar, who leads the robotics institute at Carnegie Mellon University. “From their business point of view, if you don’t, somebody else can and probably will, and eventually your current domain of influence fades away.”</p>\n<p>Although Apple has dominated phones, tablets and smartwatches and put up a decent fight over computers for the past few decades, it’s been a laggard in the artificial intelligence, voice and smart-speaker spaces, areas now led by Google and Amazon.</p>\n<p>The company would benefit from the release of a breakthrough new product. While it’s had successes with the watch, released in 2015, and services, such as Apple TV, Apple Arcade and Apple Music, which are now a major new source of revenue, nothing has come close to the success of the iPhone, which has redefined entire industries and become Apple’s most lucrative product since its 2007 release.</p>\n<p>At Google, executives have long framed investments in autonomous cars, along with moonshots in biotech and drones, as risks that venture capital and less deep-pocketed firms don’t, or won’t, take. Waymo has discussed potential business models around taxi services and long-haul logistics.</p>\n<p>The onslaught has automotive incumbents girding for battle. Industry titans such as Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co. and Toyota Motor Corp. have stepped up their own rival efforts in self-driving. The Japanese automaker is building an entire city around autonomous driving at the base of Mount Fuji while South Korea’s Hyundai Motor Co. is committing $7.4 billion to make EVs in the U.S. and develop unmanned flying taxis.</p>\n<p>In China, it’s the biggest tech companies throwing their hats in the ring. Giants from Huawei Technologies Co. to Baidu Inc. have pledged to plow almost $19 billion into electric and self-driving vehicle ventures this year alone. Smartphone giant Xiaomi Corp. and even Apple’s Taiwanese manufacturing partner Foxconn have joined the fray, forging tie-ups and unveiling their own carmaking plans.</p>\n<p>Automakers defending their turf is understandable but Takehito Sumikawa, a partner at McKinsey &amp; Co.’s Tokyo office who advises on future mobility, says it’s a “natural extension” for tech providers to enter the autonomous driving space. “They’re betting they can do a better job at disrupting the industry.”</p>\n<p>The existing businesses of Amazon, Apple and Google already require them to become proficient at AI, handling massive amounts of data and designing complex systems. Essentially, they’ve made the upfront investment in core technologies needed to design and build driverless cars, and they now have legions of engineers eager to solve more complex problems, not to mention an appetite for disruption.</p>\n<p>But perhaps one of the clearest examples of a tech company with the ability to change up its own stomping ground is Amazon. The web retailer would benefit hugely from the lower costs of delivering packages to homes using cars that drive themselves.</p>\n<p>Amazon also has a habit of transforming its own tools into businesses that can be sold to a wider swath of customers, much like it did with cloud computing, which was originally created to support the company’s online retail operations. Having morphed it into a computing and data-storage platform used by Netflix Inc., the U.S. government and others, Amazon Web Services is now a $45.4 billion enterprise.</p>\n<p>While the coronavirus pandemic put a temporary damper on consumers’ appetite for new cars, demand has roared back. A semiconductor shortage means many traditional players can’t keep production lines moving fast enough. This year alone, the global automotive market is projected to rebound by 9.7% to $2.7 trillion, according to IBIS World.</p>\n<p>“Even for companies like Apple and Google, this is a massive market,” Rajkumar said. “CFOs and CEOs literally drool, since first movers are likely to have a major edge. Each of these companies wants to be the predator, and not become the prey.”</p>","source":"lsy1612507957220","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Apple’s Car Obsession Is All About Taking Eyes Off the Road</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nApple’s Car Obsession Is All About Taking Eyes Off the Road\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-25 14:53 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-tech-car-obsession-taking-160005986.html><strong>Bloomberg</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>(Bloomberg) -- At first glance, the forays Apple Inc., Google and other technology giants are making into the world of cars don’t appear to be particularly lucrative.\nBuilding automobiles requires ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-tech-car-obsession-taking-160005986.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"GOOG":"谷歌","AAPL":"苹果","AMZN":"亚马逊"},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/big-tech-car-obsession-taking-160005986.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1136977070","content_text":"(Bloomberg) -- At first glance, the forays Apple Inc., Google and other technology giants are making into the world of cars don’t appear to be particularly lucrative.\nBuilding automobiles requires factories, equipment and an army of people to design and assemble large hunks of steel, plastic and glass. That all but guarantees slimmer profits. The world’s top 10 carmakers had an operating margin of just 5.2% in 2020, a fraction of the 34% enjoyed by the tech industry’s leaders, data compiled by Bloomberg show.\nBut for Apple and other behemoths that are diving into self-driving tech or have grand plans for their own cars, that push isn’t just about breaking into a new market — it’s about defending valuable turf.\n“Why are tech companies pushing into autonomous driving? Because they can, and because they have to,” said Chris Gerdes, co-director of the Center for Automotive Research at Stanford University. “There are business models that people aren’t aware of.”\nA market projected to top $2 trillion by 2030 is hard to ignore. By then, more than 58 million vehicles globally are expected to be driving themselves. And Big Tech has the means — from artificial intelligence and massive data, to chipmaking and engineering — to disrupt this century-old industry.\nWhat’s at stake, essentially, is something even more valuable than profitability: the last unclaimed corner of consumers’ attention during their waking hours.\nThe amount of time people spend in cars, especially in the U.S., is significant. Americans were behind the wheel for 307.8 hours in 2016, or around six hours a week, according to the latest available data by the American Automobile Association.\nThat’s a fair chunk of someone’s life not spent using apps on an iPhone, searching on Google or scrolling mindlessly through Instagram. Any company that’s able to free up that time in a meaningful way will also have a good chance of capturing it.\nThe world’s inexorable shift toward intelligent cars that are better for the environment is impossible to miss. If governments haven’t already declared plans to be carbon neutral by, in some cases, the end of this decade, there’s plenty of research that shows combustion-engine cars are going the way of the dinosaurs.\nBloombergNEF’s annual Electric Vehicle Outlook, published earlier this month, sees global oil demand from all road transport peaking in just six years, assuming no new policy measures are introduced. By 2025, EVs hit 10% of global passenger vehicle sales, rising to 28% in 2030 and 58% in 2040. Eventually, autonomous vehicles will reshape automotive and freight markets entirely.\nAgainst that backdrop, it’s unsurprising that after years of chipping away at self-driving cars, tech companies have been stepping up their activities and investments in earnest.\nAutonomous cars are only as good as the human drivers they learn from — so the people who teach these systems need to be excellent drivers themselves.\nOver the past several months, Apple has prioritized plans for the “Apple Car” after previously focusing on making an autonomous driving system, Bloomberg has reported. That’s fueled intense speculation over which automakers and suppliers the company behind the iPhone may partner with to realize its vision. While Apple has recently lost multiple top managers on the project, it still has hundreds of engineers in its larger car group.\nThere’s also Waymo, which is in talks to raise as much as $4 billion to accelerate its efforts. Founded in 2009, the business that was formerly Google’s self-driving car project was the first to have a fully autonomous ride on public roads. It became an independent company in 2017 under Google parent Alphabet Inc., launched an autonomous ride-hailing service in Phoenix in 2018 and last year began testing self-driving trucks in New Mexico and Texas.\nMicrosoft Corp., too, is backing several autonomous initiatives, partnering with Volkswagen AG on self-driving car software, possibly with a view to creating offices-on-the-go.\nAmazon.com Inc., meanwhile, has thrown its weight behind Rivian Automotive Inc., which is making electric trucks, and last year bought driverless startup Zoox Inc. It may look to include autonomous rides as part of its Prime membership program.\n“Each of these companies, including Facebook, want to be a part of or even control and dominate, every part of citizens’ lives,” said Professor Raj Rajkumar, who leads the robotics institute at Carnegie Mellon University. “From their business point of view, if you don’t, somebody else can and probably will, and eventually your current domain of influence fades away.”\nAlthough Apple has dominated phones, tablets and smartwatches and put up a decent fight over computers for the past few decades, it’s been a laggard in the artificial intelligence, voice and smart-speaker spaces, areas now led by Google and Amazon.\nThe company would benefit from the release of a breakthrough new product. While it’s had successes with the watch, released in 2015, and services, such as Apple TV, Apple Arcade and Apple Music, which are now a major new source of revenue, nothing has come close to the success of the iPhone, which has redefined entire industries and become Apple’s most lucrative product since its 2007 release.\nAt Google, executives have long framed investments in autonomous cars, along with moonshots in biotech and drones, as risks that venture capital and less deep-pocketed firms don’t, or won’t, take. Waymo has discussed potential business models around taxi services and long-haul logistics.\nThe onslaught has automotive incumbents girding for battle. Industry titans such as Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co. and Toyota Motor Corp. have stepped up their own rival efforts in self-driving. The Japanese automaker is building an entire city around autonomous driving at the base of Mount Fuji while South Korea’s Hyundai Motor Co. is committing $7.4 billion to make EVs in the U.S. and develop unmanned flying taxis.\nIn China, it’s the biggest tech companies throwing their hats in the ring. Giants from Huawei Technologies Co. to Baidu Inc. have pledged to plow almost $19 billion into electric and self-driving vehicle ventures this year alone. Smartphone giant Xiaomi Corp. and even Apple’s Taiwanese manufacturing partner Foxconn have joined the fray, forging tie-ups and unveiling their own carmaking plans.\nAutomakers defending their turf is understandable but Takehito Sumikawa, a partner at McKinsey & Co.’s Tokyo office who advises on future mobility, says it’s a “natural extension” for tech providers to enter the autonomous driving space. “They’re betting they can do a better job at disrupting the industry.”\nThe existing businesses of Amazon, Apple and Google already require them to become proficient at AI, handling massive amounts of data and designing complex systems. Essentially, they’ve made the upfront investment in core technologies needed to design and build driverless cars, and they now have legions of engineers eager to solve more complex problems, not to mention an appetite for disruption.\nBut perhaps one of the clearest examples of a tech company with the ability to change up its own stomping ground is Amazon. The web retailer would benefit hugely from the lower costs of delivering packages to homes using cars that drive themselves.\nAmazon also has a habit of transforming its own tools into businesses that can be sold to a wider swath of customers, much like it did with cloud computing, which was originally created to support the company’s online retail operations. Having morphed it into a computing and data-storage platform used by Netflix Inc., the U.S. government and others, Amazon Web Services is now a $45.4 billion enterprise.\nWhile the coronavirus pandemic put a temporary damper on consumers’ appetite for new cars, demand has roared back. A semiconductor shortage means many traditional players can’t keep production lines moving fast enough. This year alone, the global automotive market is projected to rebound by 9.7% to $2.7 trillion, according to IBIS World.\n“Even for companies like Apple and Google, this is a massive market,” Rajkumar said. “CFOs and CEOs literally drool, since first movers are likely to have a major edge. Each of these companies wants to be the predator, and not become the prey.”","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":263,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":122158014,"gmtCreate":1624606452138,"gmtModify":1703841567438,"author":{"id":"3586405690822232","authorId":"3586405690822232","name":"treblecleft","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/d57a02c24b27d3c6e376161fd18ff7a1","crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3586405690822232","authorIdStr":"3586405690822232"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/122158014","repostId":"2146274410","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2146274410","pubTimestamp":1624603105,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2146274410?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-06-25 14:38","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Facebook rejects talks with Australia publisher, testing world's toughest online law","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2146274410","media":"Reuters","summary":"SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australia's competition watchdog is looking into a claim that Facebook Inc refuse","content":"<p>SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australia's competition watchdog is looking into a claim that <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/FB\">Facebook</a> Inc refused a publisher's request to negotiate a licensing deal, the regulator told Reuters, setting the stage for the first test of the world's toughest online content law.</p>\n<p>The Conversation, which publishes current affairs commentary by academics, said it asked Facebook to begin talks as required under new Australian legislation that requires the social media firm and Alphabet Inc's Google to negotiate content-supply deals with media outlets.</p>\n<p>Facebook declined without giving a reason, The Conversation said, even though the publisher was among the first in Australia to secure a similar deal with Google in the lead-up to the law in 2020.</p>\n<p>The knockback could present the first test of a controversial mechanism unique to Australia's effort to claw back advertising dollars from Google and Facebook: if they refuse to negotiate licence fees with publishers, a government-appointed arbitrator may step in.</p>\n<p>In a statement responding to Reuters questions, Facebook's head of news partnerships for Australia, Andrew Hunter, said the company was \"focused on concluding commercial deals with a range of Australian publishers\".</p>\n<p>Hunter did not answer specific questions concerning The Conversation, but said Facebook was planning a separate initiative \"to support regional, rural and digital Australian newsrooms and public-interest journalism in the coming months\", without giving details.</p>\n<p>\"If Google's done a deal with them, I can't see how Facebook should argue that they shouldn't,\" Rod Sims, the chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), said in an interview.</p>\n<p>\"The question of designation might need to come into play,\" he noted, using the term for assigning an arbitrator.</p>\n<p>Under the law, the decision to designate a Big Tech firm for intervention was made by the treasurer, which is advised by the ACCC, noted Sims, but \"an absolute 'no' for an organisation that should be getting a deal is something we'll look into.\"</p>\n<p>The Conversation was \"exactly what we had in mind with the Code\", he said.</p>\n<p>Governments around the world are introducing laws to make the tech giants compensate media companies for the links that drive readers - and advertising revenue - to their platforms. But Australia is the only country where the government may set the fees if negotiations fail, a factor that drove Facebook to block newsfeeds in the country just before it was passed.</p>\n<p>Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, who earlier this year negotiated with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg over the laws, was not immediately available for comment.</p>\n<p>\"SCRATCHING OUR HEADS\"</p>\n<p>The case also paints a less rosy picture of the law's impact on the industry than has been widely reported. Since it took effect, a handful of the country's biggest media players, from <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/NWSAL\">News Corp</a> to the Australian Broadcasting Corp, have struck deals with the tech giants.</p>\n<p>But some small and independent publishers whose content helps draw four-fifths of Australia's 25 million population to the Facebook site said the law had created a two-tier industry where rival titles that were owned by large parent companies secured deals while others missed out.</p>\n<p>Nelson Yap, publisher of Australian Property Journal, which is on a government register of media businesses covered by the law, said he was in early discussions with Google but had emailed Facebook twice with no response.</p>\n<p>He said he read Facebook's public statements about talking to publishers and \"I'm sitting here going, with whom? Not with us. Despite reaching out, we haven't heard anything. We're all scratching our heads, trying to work out what to do next.\"</p>\n<p>A Facebook spokesperson did not answer a question about any contacts with the Property Journal. Country Press Australia, a regional newspaper industry group, said it was holding constructive talks with Facebook on behalf about 140 publishers.</p>\n<p>The Conversation editor Misha Ketchell said that \"obviously we are disappointed that we haven't been able to engage in negotiations with Facebook so far, but we remain optimistic that we will be able to reach an agreement\".</p>\n<p>The ACCC's Sims said the deal pipeline had \"gone quieter than I would have envisaged\" but urged smaller publishers to be patient.</p>\n<p>\"On the <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a> hand I'm concerned that people aren't getting a response to the emails, on the other hand I have seen it before and then things change and deals get done,\" he said.</p>","source":"yahoofinance","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Facebook rejects talks with Australia publisher, testing world's toughest online law</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nFacebook rejects talks with Australia publisher, testing world's toughest online law\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-06-25 14:38 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-facebook-rejects-talks-australia-062825621.html><strong>Reuters</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australia's competition watchdog is looking into a claim that Facebook Inc refused a publisher's request to negotiate a licensing deal, the regulator told Reuters, setting the stage...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-facebook-rejects-talks-australia-062825621.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{},"source_url":"https://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-facebook-rejects-talks-australia-062825621.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/5f26f4a48f9cb3e29be4d71d3ba8c038","article_id":"2146274410","content_text":"SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australia's competition watchdog is looking into a claim that Facebook Inc refused a publisher's request to negotiate a licensing deal, the regulator told Reuters, setting the stage for the first test of the world's toughest online content law.\nThe Conversation, which publishes current affairs commentary by academics, said it asked Facebook to begin talks as required under new Australian legislation that requires the social media firm and Alphabet Inc's Google to negotiate content-supply deals with media outlets.\nFacebook declined without giving a reason, The Conversation said, even though the publisher was among the first in Australia to secure a similar deal with Google in the lead-up to the law in 2020.\nThe knockback could present the first test of a controversial mechanism unique to Australia's effort to claw back advertising dollars from Google and Facebook: if they refuse to negotiate licence fees with publishers, a government-appointed arbitrator may step in.\nIn a statement responding to Reuters questions, Facebook's head of news partnerships for Australia, Andrew Hunter, said the company was \"focused on concluding commercial deals with a range of Australian publishers\".\nHunter did not answer specific questions concerning The Conversation, but said Facebook was planning a separate initiative \"to support regional, rural and digital Australian newsrooms and public-interest journalism in the coming months\", without giving details.\n\"If Google's done a deal with them, I can't see how Facebook should argue that they shouldn't,\" Rod Sims, the chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), said in an interview.\n\"The question of designation might need to come into play,\" he noted, using the term for assigning an arbitrator.\nUnder the law, the decision to designate a Big Tech firm for intervention was made by the treasurer, which is advised by the ACCC, noted Sims, but \"an absolute 'no' for an organisation that should be getting a deal is something we'll look into.\"\nThe Conversation was \"exactly what we had in mind with the Code\", he said.\nGovernments around the world are introducing laws to make the tech giants compensate media companies for the links that drive readers - and advertising revenue - to their platforms. But Australia is the only country where the government may set the fees if negotiations fail, a factor that drove Facebook to block newsfeeds in the country just before it was passed.\nTreasurer Josh Frydenberg, who earlier this year negotiated with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg over the laws, was not immediately available for comment.\n\"SCRATCHING OUR HEADS\"\nThe case also paints a less rosy picture of the law's impact on the industry than has been widely reported. Since it took effect, a handful of the country's biggest media players, from News Corp to the Australian Broadcasting Corp, have struck deals with the tech giants.\nBut some small and independent publishers whose content helps draw four-fifths of Australia's 25 million population to the Facebook site said the law had created a two-tier industry where rival titles that were owned by large parent companies secured deals while others missed out.\nNelson Yap, publisher of Australian Property Journal, which is on a government register of media businesses covered by the law, said he was in early discussions with Google but had emailed Facebook twice with no response.\nHe said he read Facebook's public statements about talking to publishers and \"I'm sitting here going, with whom? Not with us. Despite reaching out, we haven't heard anything. We're all scratching our heads, trying to work out what to do next.\"\nA Facebook spokesperson did not answer a question about any contacts with the Property Journal. Country Press Australia, a regional newspaper industry group, said it was holding constructive talks with Facebook on behalf about 140 publishers.\nThe Conversation editor Misha Ketchell said that \"obviously we are disappointed that we haven't been able to engage in negotiations with Facebook so far, but we remain optimistic that we will be able to reach an agreement\".\nThe ACCC's Sims said the deal pipeline had \"gone quieter than I would have envisaged\" but urged smaller publishers to be patient.\n\"On the one hand I'm concerned that people aren't getting a response to the emails, on the other hand I have seen it before and then things change and deals get done,\" he said.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":194,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}