Oops, header required to advise Mein Gott, a dinkum Groaning and "Ned" lurk therein ...

 

The pond was disappointed by the lack of interest expressed by esteemed correspondents in Mein Gott's revolution ... instead it was just the usual about the bro losing his mind (lost long ago), and a push into the Sydney Push ...

When it comes to the bro, the pond always assumes that pond readers will have done some alternative reading, such as the Bulwark's You're Allowed to Call Trump a Threat to Democracy, or Vance, Trump, and The Politics of Hate.

As for the Gott's dismal showing, never mind, after a quick survey of today's lizard Oz offerings, the pond knew what had to be done ...

Dame Slap bashing the blacks again? Pshaw, show the pond something new. 

Snaps from the BCA's annual dinner on high rotation? That's not what the pond had in mind as new ...

No, Mein Gott had to have the floor with his revolutionary proposals ...things need to be fixed, and preferably quik stix ...

There were a couple of splendid revelatory illustrations to accompany the outing.

Then it was on with the startling insights ...

Don't get the pond wrong. It's totally onside with Mein Gott's attitude to "the internationals". 

It's merely an unfortunate oversight that he didn't mention a few jolly good examples, like this story in Crikey ...News Corp, climate criminals again top in tax dodging stakes.

There was even a splendid accompanying table ...

... with this note on News Corp's contribution to Australia ...

News Corp, for example, saw an increase in declared profits from $140 million in 2020-21 to $180 million in 2021-22 but the foreign-owned political player continued its long history of paying virtually no tax in Australia: since 2015, the company’s entire operations in Australia, including its once-profitable pay-TV holdings, have paid just $8 million in tax (that was way back in 2015), off many billions of dollars in revenue. It paid no tax this financial year.

Sadly, when the pond went to the ATO to see if there'd been an update, the cardigan wearers had left the 2024 cupboard bare ... but the pond is sure that the Emeritus Chairman and his Nevada court spawn have maintained the faith.

Meanwhile, Mein Gott was on fire with inspiration ...

Ah, a Melbourne Mining Club function... what was that other Crikey note?

Woodside paid $176 million in tax on nearly $2 billion in profit — a tax rate of less than 10%. But its efforts were Herculean compared to fellow climate criminal Santos: that company claimed to have earned just $74 million in profit on $4.7 billion in revenue, and paid zero tax. Another four Santos holding companies earned around $1.1 billion in revenue but paid no tax. Global fossil fuel giant ExxonMobil reckoned it only made a little over $1 million in profit off over $15 billion in revenue from its oil and gas holdings.

Shell paid no tax on a profit of $777 million. The Japanese-owned Ichthys gas project claimed no profit off $7.3 billion in revenue and paid no tax.

Energy company AGL recorded a monster surge in revenue over the previous year, from $10 billion to $15 billion, but made no profit and paid nothing. Competitor EnergyAustralia claimed its $400+ million profit of the year before vanished and it too paid nothing. Origin Energy made $316 million in profit and paid nearly 30% tax on it.

And in that handy table above, it's timely to note that Orica Limited's tax rate was a splendid 0%. Oh yes, they know how to give the very best advice ...

And so to Mein Gott's final thoughts ...

Excellent advice, and Mein Gott will no doubt work to transform News Corp from rogue foreign-owned ratbag company to dinkum respected local citizen ... though the pond kept thinking he had about as much chance as Stephen Dillane's Prometheus saving his liver from the nibbling bird in Kaos.

More good news. Having lost out on a decent Groaning yesterday, the pond is pleased to report that Dame Groan was out and about today.

Sadly the pond's "guess the topic" prize was awarded aeons ago, and is now lost in the mysts of mythical time, and anyway, everybody and his or her favourite canine or cat meal knows that it's going to be about those bloody difficult, uppity, intransigent furriners, always ruining the country and Dame Groan's lunch ... (and don't get her started on those furrin students).

There were some outrageously good visual distractions to illustrate the crisis in Dame Groan's mind ...

... and then it was on with the usual hysteria, and shouting at clouds and furriners, though the pond has to admit it's become somewhat impervious to the ranting ...

Ah, the students, yet again, and the solution? Why you only have to read Gina's IPA ...

It goes without saying that Dame Groan herself lives in Woop Woop, some way past the black stump on a ten acre block, and remember, when citing Gina's IPA, it's important not to bring ideology into the mix ... just the Groaning facts ...

Won't someone think of the children? And with that the pond had a splendid vision ... the entire Sydney basin occupied by McMansions on small blocks, while in Melbourne the McMansions stretched from Sunshine to Ballarat ... and with that it was time for the last gobbet of Groaning ...

The pond wishes it could have paused longer to admire Dame Groan's incredible solutions - kick out all the furriners and the students and all will be well - but was pleased that some had bothered to read the bro, even though he'd been stripped of rank, entitlements, screen caps and distracting snaps ... and so the pond thought it might do the same again, with "Ned's" outing this day stripped of snaps and caps.

Don't get the pond wrong. If the pond wants a generalist note on tech, it usually avoids dens of geeks and turns to the likes of John Naughton scribbling By showing Musk's X the red card, has Brazil cored a goal for all democracies, or Telegram chief's arrest sends a clear message: tech titans are not above the law. ... and there's usually some tasty links at the bottom of his pieces.

But the idea of "Ned" scribbling about tech is entirely commendable. As Dr Johnson once said on another misogynist matter, "Ned's" preaching about tech is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well, but you are surprised to find it done at all ... just the header and the hook should be enough of a warning ...

Political war on Big Tech filled with policy hazards, The Australian political system is drawing the battle lines for a multi-front assault on Big Tech – confident public opinion has turned against the digital giants.

Now up on hind legs...

The Australian political system is drawing the battle lines for a multi-front assault on Big Tech – confident public opinion has turned against the digital giants, yet struggling with the problem of how to frame policies that actually work and deliver on their objectives.

There is broad bipartisanship in the approaches of Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton. But the populism of the politics conceals the scope for conflict between Labor and the Coalition over Australia’s resolution, tactics and details as it strives to preserve its sovereignty.

The core issue is the ability of governments to safeguard the citizen interest and regulate the most powerful corporates operating in their jurisdiction. Ultimately, it is a contest over institutional power and democratic accountability. The outcome will affect every Australian in one form or another. Big Tech has penetrated our lives and minds, creating psychological and economic dependencies that are difficult to modify through public policy solutions.

The federal government's crackdown on social media age restrictions is facing delays as big tech companies fight the plan. The Department of Communications will hold a briefing on Wednesday to lock in a trial for Labor's plan. Delays have been exacerbated due to conflict within the Labor Party over the optimal minimum age at which the ban should be enforced. Should they win the election, the Coalition has vowed to solve the age restriction debacle in its first 100 days.

Politicians must address the immediate tests: the need to safeguard young people via an age ban, probably between 14 and 16 years, for social media and digital platform access; the need to hold digital platforms to account for misinformation and disinformation when they refuse to accept responsibility, and; the need to ensure, in the teeth of resistance, that the platforms pay for the news content they use from established media and journalism outlets.

Dutton has signalled his brand. He wants to confront Big Tech and believes Albanese will fight with a wet lettuce. The Big Tech issue has destroyed the usual political alignments. Earlier this year Commonwealth Bank chief executive Matt Comyn, outlining a reform agenda, included a levy on Big Tech raising $5bn a year. So Big Finance wants a tax levy on Big Tech. After all, former treasurer Scott Morrison imposed a levy on the banks.

News Corporation chief executive Michael Miller says Big Tech has changed our lives but “refuses to play by our rules”, while Meta, TikTok and X “operate outside our legal systems” doing damage to our people, to our “businesses, big and small, to our democracy and to our economy”. Traditional media is at war with Big Tech.

But Big Tech’s fatal weakness is the evidence-based harm its platforms and social media have done to a generation of children and youth across the English-speaking world. This argument became a clinching event in the recent book, The Anxious Generation, by American social psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, Professor of Ethical Leadership at the New York University Stern School of Business, with Haidt saying Big Tech had presided over “the rewiring of childhood”, the consequence being recent decisions about how to raise children were “the biggest blunder we have ever made”.

Jonathan Haidt? Oh dear ...

It's easy to see why Meta might be disappointed. The dear possums trotted out their latest attempt at deflection, and it flew right past "Ned" and went straight to the Graudian keeper ...

The pond, which has never used any form of social media - Blogger is such an ancient relic it hardly counts - suspects that "Ned's" familiarity with the likes of Instagram and TikTok might be down there with the pond's ... but he does his best to rise to the challenge ...

The alliance of parents, health experts, educators and, yes, children as well, represents a health-driven compassion industry that will not be denied. Feeling the heat, Mark Zuckerberg said earlier this year there was no established link between social media and young people having worse mental health – useful proof he will lie to protect his corporate interest.

Albanese, under attack for looking unconvincing, badly needs a cause to show his conviction. Enter Big Tech. It is as friendless as it is powerful; its platforms are as irresistible as they are ubiquitous. But fighting with Big Tech comes with big consequences – it may be more safely done from opposition than government.

The most high-profile and difficult assault on Big Tech will be the age limit for social media access. No country in the world has successfully delivered this. Haidt listed his prescription: no smartphones before high school, no social media before age 16, and phone-free schools.

The access ban was highlighted last week by ALP South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas with his path-breaking proposal to ban children under 14 years from social media and require parental consent for those aged 14 and 15 years, with the Premier insisting the legal onus would fall on the tech companies.

“We want to create a big, massive deterrent against these giant companies where they do harm to our children,” Malinauskas said. But how can an effective age-based enforcing responsibility be imposed on the companies? Former High Court chief justice Robert French, advising the Premier, said some users will dodge the system but “the perfect should not be the enemy of the good”.

Having the national government take the lead with uniform national laws makes sense – provided the laws are tough enough. Albanese said he wants kids off devices and on to footy fields and tennis courts and into swimming pools. Sounds great. But that’s a cultural issue, not just a tech issue.

Speaking of cultural issues, the pond was pleased to see that Uncle Leon and the bromancer are both on the same page ...

The full story was at Leaked Records Detail Vast Russian Influence Campaign Targeting Ukraine, EU ...

But tackling Uncle Leon's a bridge too far for "Ned" - his name isn't invoked once ... 

"Ned" is much more comfortable talking about the domestic politics of it all than talking about the way that News Corp is roughly equivalent to the sort of lies you find daily in social media ... (what with Faux Noise cheerfully helping "create" those dog and cat stories with JD).

With Dutton saying last June that he would implement a ban up to age 16 years during the first 100 days of a Coalition government, Australia is heading into world-first territory against Big Tech but confronts the still unresolvable problem: the mechanism to ensure an age verification test for social media. We await Albanese’s answer before the end of 2024 on how this will work.

At the same time, Communications Minister Michelle Rowland last week introduced Labor’s revised crackdown on digital platforms that engage in harmful misinformation and disinformation. Rowland said a “very high threshold” will be set for what constitutes serious harm, giving the example of disinformation being spread after the Bondi stabbing attack earlier this year.

Labor’s draft bill, released last year, was widely attacked and was unacceptable, with shadow minister David Coleman branding as “grotesque” its scope for undermining freedom of speech and capacity to be manipulated for political purposes. Whether Labor’s second effort will satisfy remains doubtful.

Yet the central point cannot be denied – curbing platform and social media abuse is an imperative. Internet abuse is now a massive industry, with huge profits being made from child sex abuse, porn, misogyny, financial cons, fakes and any form of bad behaviour. It needs to be combated. Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones said: “We don’t think the rules of the jungle should apply on social media platforms.”

A civilised society cannot tolerate the debased free-for-any evil that Big Tech tolerates. It must be held to the same standards as the rest of society. In opposing this corrective, populist conservatives are kicking back, but in the list of their doomed and dumb campaigns this is close to the worst. Nobody says this task is easy. But there is no gainsaying the parliament must find a balance between minimising limits on free speeches while moving against rampant abuses on the internet.

Say what? A civilised society cannot tolerate the debased free-for-any-evil that News Corp and Faux Noise tolerates?

The pond is always misreading "Ned's" words, but does recollects that when it presented the bromancer unplugged, the pond took the chance to break up the text with a few 'toons ... so here we go ...

Then there was just one gobbet of text to go, and here "Ned" discreetly avoids mentioning the intense suffering of News Corp, which has always loved a subsidy or a grant as a fine part of its business model ...

Finally, Meta has defiantly boasted it will not renew the media bargaining code deals under which it pays media companies for their content – following the 2021 decision by parliament that Meta should pay. If challenged, Meta says it will terminate news from its platforms. It has already done so in Canada – and, ultimately, it could even walk away from Australia.

Who would lose in that final resort? Indeed, many would say “Good riddance”. But governments cannot think like that. It’s not the sort of confrontation Labor wants pre-election.

Minister Rowland pledged earlier to take the steps necessary to uphold the media bargaining code. But there is now a split between Labor and some of the media companies – Labor fears the bargaining code, while important, is losing its leverage while Miller, speaking for News Corporation, said it is vital the government uphold the principle at stake: payment by Big Tech for use of news content.

Meanwhile, Treasury officials confirm the government is considering the option of a levy on Big Tech. That has an appeal for Labor but it is tricky. It would mean the government, having collected the revenue, would then distribute the revenue to media companies on some agreed formula. That’s problematic.

What’s not problematic is that Big Tech won’t compromise in good faith. Albanese can’t afford to look weak but needs policies that deliver.

Is there a hint of irony in "Ned's" talk of "good faith", coming as it does from an organisation which conspicuously refuses to offer good faith in its commentary and reporting?

Perhaps, but the pond is just here to report so that others can decide, and it's time to wrap up proceedings with the immortal Rowe and infallible Pope of the day ...