Do you think Facebook and Google should pay news publishers for providing them with content?

Companies don't pay tax. Customers pay the company the money to pay the tax.

People don't pay income tax. Companies pay their workers the money to pay the tax...

Companies don't pay tax. Customers pay the company the money to pay the tax.

Agree they need to pay more tax but I have to admit the fault in this case lies with the governments of the world, if they frame their tax laws so badly that these companies can drive a coach and horses through the gaps it is the legislators fault for not scrutinising adequately.

Who drafts the tax laws, not you or I, but the companies that are being taxed. And the government officials who are financed by these companies of course do their will. This will only change when business financing of politics ends and the government looks to the greater good for all and not to the vested interests of big firms who give them money.

The last tax law passed in the USA by Trump, who was that written for? Not you that is for sure.

If it's in relation to what's going on in Australia and EU at the moment, the way this question is worded is ridiculous and completely misunderstands the issue. Don't get me wrong, I despise both companies, just not as much as I despise the media warping the issue with half a**ed polls like this.

As far as Facebook is concerned, why should they have to pay for it? Facebook aren't taking anything from the news companies, it's the companies themselves who are posting on the platform to try and drive traffic towards their own sites- that's their own decision.Users also post stories, but you're going to charge Facebook every time Joe Schmo decides to post something, and consequently drive more traffic to the media sites?

As despicable as Facebook is as a company they are right when they say Australia's new laws fundamentally misunderstand the relationship between publishers and the platform, and the Australian Government and Media has been all in to try and drive public support for the laws, from Scott Morrison basically declaring war on the platforms to papers making obscene comparisons and spouting half truths.

As for Google, it's a bit more complicated, but I'd be confident to say Google drives a lot more traffic to those sites then what they'd get without Google and only news readers. The media don't have to be on any of these platforms if they don't want to be, and half of them already shove a crap "subscribe for $9.99 a month" paywall on all their stories (looking at you Japan Times).

Honestly I think the media will have to soon embrace what happened to the music industry, either allowing us to buy access per article or having an aggregate platform like Apple Music or Spotify where we can access (almost) everything for a fixed monthly price.

If I have a shop and I sell at that shop tomatoes, and I have enough customers who buy tomatoes to keep the shop going and make profit, then another person comes to me who wants to sell potatoes at my shop, I let them use small space in my shop for free because the number of customers increased at my shop due to the customers coming to buy potatoes, I got more customers looking and sometimes buying my tomatoes.

now, I should pay to the person who brought the potatoes to my shop and he is selling using my shop?

I think I would give him some services like free space, free shade, free platform,.. but I won't pay him unless there is a competitive shop who also sell tomatoes next to me and offer to pay the potatoes guy if he consider moving to their shop.

unless there is a competitor better or at same level as Facebook and google then they don't need to pay anyone.... in fact they can charge news publishers to publish on their platforms.

I have never looked for news on Facebook as that is not what it is for. If people choose to post news articles on Facebook then they should pay for it, not Facebook. As for Google, they provide links to news not publish them. The whole thing is to get money for something that they are not able to sell themselves. There are many online news providers that do not force you to pay: BBC, Politico, Intelligencer, AP, NBC, The Guardian and I am sure there are many more.

what William said

Yes.

I think the people who create the content should decide if and how payment for that content happens. It shouldn't apply only to google and facebook, but to other organizations equally too.

We have robots.txt files which spell out where we want web crawlers to visit, how often and where we do not what crawlers to go on out sites. Google honors those, unlike some other crawlers. Wouldn't be hard to put micro-payment and rate information into that file too. The people plling the content should register, not the other way around. That way, if ABC or Japan Today pull a story from a site just like google does, they would pay the same.

There are a number of micropayment platforms exiting already.

The last thing we want is for google or fb or visa or amex or any of the big guys to own the entire micropayment platform.

No payment needed is also an option, if the content creator prefers.

News is a product, if you take a product from a shop without paying it’s theft.

Agree they need to pay more tax but I have to admit the fault in this case lies with the governments of the world, if they frame their tax laws so badly that these companies can drive a coach and horses through the gaps it is the legislators fault for not scrutinising adequately.

If WE do it, it IS stealing...

It's just how ya do 'business', no? A valued commodity is provided which adds value to the service, and appropriate payment made. Just because the receivers are psychopaths doesn't mean they get expensive services for free to use to make their own profits. Having no idea why anyone would use FB, I should think that the story's clickbaits might be shown but then the user is taken to the original website. That might be fair, but to use hard won news content in full for your own benefit without recompense, naw, that's stealing.