Well, the Australian government could pay writers for work scraped by AI bots

Showing all posts about politics

Well, the Australian government could pay writers for work scraped by AI bots

21 September 2026

The Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, appears to have watered down a commitment to compensate Australian creatives whose work is being copied by AI companies. In a speech given at the University of Sydney, in July this year, Albanese undertook to enshrine, in law, copyright protection for all Australian artists and writers:

Australian writers, musicians, artists and journalists must retain ownership and control of their work. Our laws will spell that out, plain as day. An artist’s creative endeavour is their work and their property. No company should use Australian books, music, art or news to build or train AI without the artist’s control.

Online content, which includes the work of bloggers among others — and surely low-hanging fruit in the eyes of the AI companies — now seems to sit in a separate category. Under new proposals, when it comes to accessing work published online, AI companies only need to negotiate with enough copyright holders, not all:

AI companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic would be allowed to train their models on online content without paying its creators as long as they struck deals with enough rights holders, under one copyright reform plan put forward in government documents seen by the ABC.

How to interpret that? If enough copyright holders agree content they published online can be used to train agents, it sounds like AI companies can use any content they can find. But what is the precise definition of enough copyright holders in the first place? Only the big players, the large media outlets? Will independent, smaller, publishers be pushed aside?

The policy revisions come as a result of concerns AI companies have that they will be breaking copyright laws. This might mean they will withhold investment in Australian AI infrastructure, something the Australian government does not want.

I’m not sure how many Australian creatives, particularly independents publishing content online, are surprised by the apparent change in the government’s position.

Like others, I wondered how the AI companies, who have considerable political clout, would react to being dictated to in such a fashion. Particularly as they’ve been able to help themselves to whatever material they can get their hands on for several years anyway.

Of course the Australian government still has the option to compensate local creatives themselves, and be seen, to some degree, to be keeping their word to uphold copyright protection. Skim off some of the tax take from the AI companies, and give a little to Australian writers and artists, whose work has been gratuitously plundered.

But, in case you thought I was serious, no, you can be sure that’s not going to happen.

About The Souffle, a film about homelessness by Jacob Hazeldine

17 September 2026

Here’s something I only discovered recently: someone can still be homeless, even if they are not sleeping rough, or on the street. Couch surfing, living in temporary or emergency accommodation, and boarding houses or caravan parks, are also considered forms of homelessness in Australia.

This even though a person has a roof over their head for the night.

Connor van Helsing (Instagram link), a resident of Darwin, in Australia’s Northern Territory (NT), has experienced all forms of homelessness, including sleeping rough.

van Helsing has collaborated with Australian filmmaker Jacob Hazeldine (Instagram link), to bring his lived experience of homelessness to the big screen in About The Soufflé (trailer).

In terms of rental accommodation, the NT comes second only to Australia’s most populous state, New South Wales (NSW), in terms of cost.

This means a single person in the NT, earning only the minimum wage, is presently priced out of the rental market. And if people here don’t have friends or family they can call on when something goes wrong, they may all to quickly find themselves homeless.

About The Soufflé, which was filmed on a shoe-string budget of just fifteen-hundred Australian dollars, premiered at the Darwin International Film Festival, last week, on Friday 11 September 2026.

I’m not sure if the film will screen outside the film-festival circuit, meaning it may be hard to see in cinemas, but perhaps it be available through streaming instead.

My Feed My Way will make Instagram feeds overwhelming says Adam Mosseri

14 September 2026

Ange Lavoipierre, writing for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), quoting Adam Mosseri, Head of Instagram (IG):

“If you go to a chronological feed, it ends up getting overwhelmed with content from companies, brands, and publishers. Creators get drowned out, and then your friends get drowned out even more.”

These are the words of the Head of Instagram. Can it be Mosseri has no idea how the platform he oversees, works?

Australia’s proposed My Feed, My Way laws give local IG users a choice. They can either see content posted only by the people they follow, in their main feed, or elect to see what the algorithm presents.

If IG users choose to only see what the people they follow publish, how is anyone supposed to see what is posted by “companies, brands, and publishers”, if they’re not following them?

Of course creators — a dubious use of the term in the first place, given the quality of some of their content — who sit squarely in the companies, brands, publishers, and influencers category, will be drowned out: that’s the idea.

As for friends, how do they “get drowned out even more”, if they are the only people an IG user follows? Their content is the entirety of what anyone opting for the “friends only” feed will see. With the possible exception of ads, I imagine.

But if someone is only following two people, both of whom maybe only post something twice daily, how could they feel their feed was overwhelming?

Mosseri is clearly unhappy with the proposed My Feed, My Way laws.

So displeased that he seems to be losing sight of what’s what. He continues to believe the platform is not addictive, while also conceding IG “is too complicated”. In saying that, Mosseri is trying to suggest adding a button somewhere, giving users the choice of what they see, will clutter — clutter even further — IG’s interface.

The last time I looked at the IG app, before deleting it from my phone, there was an option to select “following” or “favourites”. In theory, choosing “following” meant someone would mainly see posts only from those whom they followed. This was only somewhat effective though, provided another option, “snooze suggested posts”, was enabled.

Suggested posts, being content by the aforementioned companies, brands, publishers, and influencers, were slipped into an IG member’s main feed, if the algorithm deemed this was somehow of interest. But the “snooze suggested posts” setting only did so for thirty-days at a time.

Disabling suggested posts also required drilling down through several levels of the settings menu to find. Indeed Mosseri is correct when he says IG “is too complicated”. The Australian government proposal aims to make this a one-step, lasting, action.

Mosseri can take consolation though from Anika Wells, the Australian communications minister, who thinks, as I wrote last week, most IG users will stick with the algorithm:

“The reality is that lots of people will want to choose the algorithm.”

Anyone hoping an unintended, or unspoken consequence, of the My Feed, My Way laws, would result in people spending less time looking at screens, will be disappointed.

But to each their own. I spend quite a bit of time using my phone, while say on a public transport trip. Typically I’ll be reading or sending emails, organising work schedules, or reading news.

And I’m often grateful for the chance to do so during so-called downtime, as it leaves time for doing nothing later on. But I don’t look at any Meta social media/network apps, as I removed them.

But I’m still at a loss to recall what I used to do on a train trip during the pre-smartphone era. Likely I starred out the window and daydreamed, something I still do once I’ve finished using my phone.

Proposed Australian laws allow social media users to opt-out of algorithms

9 September 2026

It’s almost enough to entice me back onto social media. But not quite.

The Australian government is proposing to give local social media users the choice to opt out the algorithms that determine the content they see.

If the laws eventuate, social media companies will be obliged to allow their members to only see content posted by the people they follow, if that’s what they choose.

Anika Wells, the Australian communications minister, thinks however most social media users will elect to keep the algorithm. It seems to me, seeing the content of only those they’re following might feel like going cold turkey for some people, who are accustomed to non-stop algorithm content.

The proposed new laws, which are currently being considered by the Australian parliament, will also compel social media companies, search engines, and AI chatbots, to withhold “harmful” content:

For Australians aged under 18, platforms must take steps to prevent content that promotes eating disorders, misogynistic content, pornography, glorification of crime, bullying and abuse, and any other material that could inflict “serious harm” on children.

In relation to adults, the harms are confined to existing crimes including child abuse, sexual violence, menacing or harassment intended to cause serious harm, support for terrorist organisations or encouraging suicide.

Some people are concerned these provisions may result in curbs on free speech, given the communications minister will have the power to add to the “harmful” content categories.

As of the time of writing, I’ve not heard reactions from the big tech companies to the proposed laws, but I doubt we’ll be waiting long.

Linux, open source operating systems, users exempt from age-verification, in California

31 August 2026

Luke James, writing for Tom’s Hardware:

California’s legislature has passed Assembly Bill 1856, exempting open-source operating systems from the State’s Digital Age Assurance Act months before the law is due to take effect on January 1, 2027.

It’s good news, but Linux, and other open source operating systems, are just, you know, too weird, and probably no one uses them, so, like, why bother with age-verification.

SteamOS is a Linux distribution favoured by gamers, some of whom might be minors. How long that stays on the exemption list remains to be seen though.

Humanity is not a monoculture, and nor is Australia

14 August 2026

I’m still reading through Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s recently published vision of an AI future, but this paragraph jumped out at me:

Humanity is not a monoculture. People’s diverse values represent different tradeoffs they would make on important issues. There is no technological solution that can align with everyone’s opposing interests and values at once. Any singular superintelligence would have to prioritize some values over others and in the process would be incapable of being benevolent to everyone.

In this context, I think Zuckerberg is discussing the challenges of developing a so-called superintelligence that could comprehend the values of the world’s many varied, disparate, cultures.

Superintelligence, sometimes referred to as Artificial Superintelligence (ASI), sits above Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), which in turn sits above AI. A go to example (for me) of AGI is the HAL 9000 computer, AKA Hal, from Stanley Kubrick’s movie 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Hal appears to be conscious, and is capable of thinking and reasoning as a human would.

It seems to me ASI, which is (theoretically) vastly superior to AGI, should be able to extend its “benevolence” to all the people of the Earth, because understanding each of their cultures would surely be something that level of technology is easily capable of. Meta however is developing what they describe as superintelligence, which may vary from ASI.

But I digress.

I doubt Australian politician, and leader of a far-right party called One Nation, Pauline Hanson, would agree with Zuckerberg’s view that humanity is not a monoculture. Because during her recent appearance at the National Press Club, she declared Australia must exist as a “monocultural society”.

Yes, Australia, the place where people from just about every culture in the world, reside.

Surprisingly, Hanson views AI favourably, although she did call for stronger government regulation of the technologies. But technologies that may recognise humanity, and by extension, the people of Australia, are not monocultural? Can that be tolerated?

No doubt Hanson will be calling for the very strict regulation of that sort of technology.

Sydney municipal council wants shop signs to be in English

13 August 2026

Strathfield is a suburb located in the west of Sydney, Australia. I don’t know many people living in the area, so I’m not there often, but have occasionally wandered the streets near the railway station. About a third of residents were born in Australia, while a reasonable number of people hail from Nepal, China, India, South Korea, and Vietnam.

This diversity is reflected in the restaurants, supermarkets, and other shops, located near the train station, where the shop signage of many of these businesses are usually composed in the first language of their respective owners. Something, of course, seen elsewhere in Sydney, and in other English speaking countries across the world.

I can only comprehend some of these shop signs, but the nature of the business is usually quite apparent. The local municipal council, Strathfield City Council, however, does not think this is sufficient, and wants all shop signage to appear in English. I can’t see how this will improve anything, nor do I see a problem with the status quo.

The proposal does not entirely come out of the blue though. In 2018, the council tried doing the same thing, apparently without success. But eight years later the idea has surfaced again. Someone there seems determined to make this happen.

AI here to stay, accept it, says Australian government, vows artist copyright protection

17 July 2026

Anthony Albanese, the Australian Prime Minister, says he wants to make Australia an “attractive destination” for investment in AI development, during a speech delivered on Wednesday.

Albanese also wants to balance the opportunities and risks presented by the technologies, particularly concerns that AI uptake will result in widespread job losses.

AI will take away jobs, he said, but will also create new and different lines of work.

Among proposals is a coordinated national framework, rather than a state-by-state approach, that will oversee matters including the construction of AI data centres.

In short, data centres will be required to generate their own power, by way of renewable energy sources, and minimise water consumption.

During his speech, Albanese also gave an undertaking to protect the intellectual property of Australian writers, musicians, artists and journalists:

An artist’s creative endeavour is their work and their property. No company should use Australian books, music, art or news to build or train AI without the artist’s control. That includes the artist’s control of the price and value of their work. Anything less, is theft.

These are words Australian artists and creatives wanted to hear.

Protections will doubtless be included in upcoming legislation, but after rampant marauding of creative material by AI scraper bots in recent years, the move might come too late.

The proposed laws might protect work created in the future, but what of copyrighted content that has already been copied, and digested, by AI agents?

Will AI companies who used creative work in the past be required to offer retrospective remuneration? Will these entities, many of whom are based outside Australia, be the slightest bit concerned by these proposals?

Australian government proposes AI national framework, standards

16 July 2026

Clare Armstrong, writing for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC):

Australia will seek to harness the benefits of artificial intelligence without losing control of it by tackling challenges such as data centres, copyright, and jobs through a new national framework.

Buoyed, no doubt, by the… success of the social media ban for Australians aged under sixteen, the Australian government is setting its sights on AI.

But I shouldn’t be so cynical.

An Office of AI will be established within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and will be tasked with drafting standards guiding development and deployment of the technologies.

Substack reportedly asking Australian users to verify their age

2 February 2026

According to a Reddit thread, that was re-posted at Marginal Revolution, the online publishing platform is requesting users in Australia submit to an age verification process.

Substack, as of the time I type, is not on the list of websites, or services, that Australians under the age of sixteen cannot access, so I’m not sure why Substack would be doing this. If indeed they are.

On a visit to Substack, again, as of the time I write this, I was able to access, and move around the site without hindrance. I was not logged in, but was using an Australian ISP.

Evidently some people are having difficulty though. Possibly age verification only applies to people in Australia who are logging in to gain access. I might try doing this another time.

But Substack is a platform, and who knows, may one day be added to the banned list. This is precisely why online writers should be publishing from their own, independent website, and not a platform.

And this is before addressing the concerns many people have with Substack in the first place.

« older posts