It’s generous of you to assume that laws are passed and repealed based on benefit.

We already had a natural experiment, in which Australian publishers were free not to share their content on fb.

This is probably the only reason why as an Australian resident, I’m not in a rush to get the law changed.

I’m not sure how discoverability is going to be effected and that may take a while to see the effects given how locals probably know the locals news sources.

Facebook can say a lot of things, but I bet the publishers also have their own numbers and they are the ones who pushed for this deal.

I can't see how you could possibly take Facebook's self-serving claims at face value. How does it compare to the revenue that has shifted away from news organizations to Facebook? How can you verify Facebook's claims when Facebook controls the platform and the data?

The market dominance of a couple platforms is exactly the problem here. No organization is in a good bargaining position against them and so soon there will be regulation.

It's already working. Google is busy making deals. Facebook will do the same eventually.

Is it really any additive value? News companies and consumption certainly existed before social media.

They weren't getting it anyway. Both Google and Facebook represented poor deals for news media and their market power made it impossible to get a better deal.

Miraculously, after the Australian government gets involved, Google is now making deals with news media. Facebook will do the same eventually.

Under these new restrictions, Australians can't read or share even international news on Facebook.