Most Australians who played street cricket as kids would be aware that when the rich kid said they were going to take their bat and ball and go home it was a good sign they were losing.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
While it is too soon to say how the tussle over how much internet giants such as Google and Facebook will have to pay for Australian news media content will turn out, this is a fair analogy.
Facebook's response to the ACCC's draft News Media Bargaining Code has been to say if it becomes law users would be blocked from sharing news on its platforms, including Instagram.
Google has indicated it could curtail the level of services it offers if the code becomes law.
Such responses seem to be a dramatic overreaction given the draft code only calls on the tech companies to negotiate with for-profit media businesses in "good faith" to reach an agreement to pay for news content hosted on their platforms.
If negotiations broke down an independent arbiter would make the final decision.
By apparently pre-empting any attempt to reach a "good faith" settlement, Facebook and Google are rejecting the principle they should pay a reasonable amount to host the copyrighted works of Australian journalists and media companies.
It seems ironic that Facebook's Will Easton claims the current, unregulated, situation works more to the advantage of the media companies, who have complained of being ripped off for years, than it does for Facebook. Really?
Facebook and Google fear the code will bring about real change, and create a model for other jurisdictions to emulate.
This is just round one.
On the one hand the IT giants have far too much invested to roll over at the behest of a government. On the other, Australia's "legacy" media companies are in a fight to the finish.
Unless the boundaries and the balance of power is reset, our media landscape will continue to decline.
That would be a tragedy for news consumers, and for democracy.