<div class="text-justify">

I don't know if other people have been watching this, but the Australian government has been working on legislation that will force Google and Facebook to pay for news content that appears on their sites. Google's response so far has been to threaten a removal of services to the Australian users, with the latest supposedly having them pull Google Search out of Australia all together. 

That would be a shame. 

I think that this trend is going to continue, where original content is going to demand to be rewarded for appearing on other platforms, where it is used to generate clicks and therefore profits, with none being returned back to the source. This is of course a large problem for media outlets as a whole and they themselves have been forced into creating paywalls in order generate income, whereas the "free" services can effectively steal content and use it as a hook to hang their advertising revenues upon. 

![tokyo.JPG](https://images.hive.blog/DQmTPf7uesBinKLgbGbjTKSzNLnmS5owVjtmopP9mDEE5Qq/tokyo.JPG)

While I am not overly sympathetic toward media outlets themselves, this does further raise the profile of the pushback against the "free internet", which generates a massive amount of wealth, but doesn't actually distribute much of it back to the people who create the content itself. The web 2.0 model of digital content is highly flawed and it has given rise to the likes of Google and Facebook, giving them a great deal more power than any handful of companies should have. their power not only comes through their ability to generate advertising revenue, it also comes through their ability to finely slice market segments and drive content that makes them more revenue.

It is not that we are just the product, it is that we are also the tool of dissemination and spread, a tool that they do not have to pay for in any way, other than to provide a platform to create and share. While we are encouraged to build our base and share our lives and the content we consider important to us (often suggested content), we are not encouraged to actually take ownership of our experience. 

Some people have in the past not fully grasped what "owning experience" on Hive is, but it means more than just having some stake or choosing which frontend is used, it is about unique account ownership, the ability to build what one wants, full access to the blockchain data and of course, the ability to move "freely" in many ways without having to fear losing content or followership to an authority. The centralized platforms encourage content to be created, but as soon as that content encroaches on their potential to earn, it will be unceremoniously buried, removed and replaced. A user has no recourse because they have no rights, as they do not own their account, therefore, they do not own their experience. 

Essentially however, we are all micro media outlets that are generating some level of activity through our content, which means that if the media outlets get paid for their content, we all should be paid for ours. Of course, this doesn't work for the centralized platforms because their entire business model hinges on getting the majority of their content for free. If they did have to pay even fractions of cents for the content, their model collapses - not because they can't do it, but they lose their ability to generate the kinds of profits that attract investors. 

Profit sharing is great for distribution and far better for a more balanced economy, but it isn't attractive for a passive investment model, when that profit predominantly goes to active participants. If you imagine that a publicly listed company chooses to take 50% of its profits and distribute them to employees, would it provide a high enough ROI for an investor, or will they go elsewhere. 

If you consider that when a company restructures and fires people (with the reasoning of underperformance), the share price actually goes up, it is obvious that most investors do not care for health of the people and economy, they care for ROI for themselves. While sometimes those things are aligned, often they are not, as the incentive for profit outweighs the incentive to generate profit sustainably. If the disincentives were strong enough in what was seen as harmful, the incentive that offered the better ROI will attract the activity. We saw this with the introduction of downvotes and 50/50 curation on Hive, where the disincentive to buy and sell votes, made the incentive to vote content more attractive for ROI. 

Google's move to "ban" access to Google Search is essentially the same thing that a state like Chine might do - "Do what we say, or we will punish you". It is fast becoming a negotiation with *informational terrorists,* but it has to happen and the more countries that start to change legislation to improve the reward model for creators, the better. Of course, this is not the end of the conversation, it is just the beginning. 

Eventually, the discussion has to keep shifting to the point where all content creators have "free access" to earning potential on the internet, rather than a handful of companies being the gateway for all others. The handful of companies will never want to give up that level of control, so the only way to remove their power is to *demonetize them* by cutting off their supply of free content and then, their ability to attract investments. Once this starts, the ROI for investors decreases and they will naturally look for the best alternatives.

those alternatives are investing into decentralized networks that empower communities to build and share content, as well as share the wealth generated. The return might not be as high as a centralized platform was in the past, but that is no longer available as they now have to pay for content, but are still top-heavy organizational structures that are constantly under the pressure of government legislation and lawsuits, was they are themselves trying to attract wealth.

>Google has claimed the legislation would make its Google Search unviable, despite paying just $59m in corporate tax last year while reporting revenues over $4b.

And this is what it all comes down to. A huge part of the profit model of these platforms is the ability to avoid tax, but as the countries start finding ways to better account, they begin to lose their havens. While they can remove service from Australia, a country of only 25 million people, they might be able wear the cost, but how many cuts in profit can they themselves take and, once they do start pulling out of countries, what is going to take their place?

From so many directions now, the big data collectors extracting information and transferring wealth from a million APIs are coming under attack. There is a rebellion taking place and it is only in its infancy, as it gathers momentum and velocity, it starts to increasingly disrupt the solid model they have been able to create and that provides, opportunity. 

The opportunity for us and from us. 

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]



</div>

Posted Using [LeoFinance <sup>Beta</sup>](https://leofinance.io/@tarazkp/for-us-and-from-us)