I haven't been able to find a source for this (apologies), but my recollection is that before threatening to leave Australia, Google threatened to simply stop linking to news sites in Australia. I believe they were told this would be illegal.
> before threatening to leave Australia, Google threatened to simply stop linking to news sites in Australia. I believe they were told this would be illegal.
This is the most unacceptable aspect of this policy. If you want to say "you must pay to link", that's bad policy that's been bought and paid for, but it at least can be worked around and doesn't compel linking or other association. But "you must pay to link and you must link" is incredibly dangerous policy for which a scorched-earth response is entirely appropriate.
I think there's something to the idea that given google should pay to link, they should not be able to sidestep the regulation through monopoly power.
That said, I strongly disagree with the premise.
I guess Google decided market share was worth more than the cost. I have to admit, I think it would be satisfying to see Australia face consequences for what seems like a pattern of hostility to the open digital world.
It doesn't take monopoly power to sidestep it, just the ability to choose who you do business with. You don't have to be a monopoly to exercise freedom of association.
"Here are the rules for doing business here" with a set of unreasonable rules can be an annoyance, but there's always the choice of not doing business there. "Here are the rules for doing business here, and you must do business here" is absolutely unacceptable, no matter who it targets.
