Myanmar: Outline of Rules Affecting Freedom of Expression One approach, adopted in Australia, has been to require certain large technology companies – mainly Facebook and Google – to negotiate agreements with media outlets to compensate them for revenue generated from their content, with a requirement to enter arbitration proceedings in case agreement cannot be reached.16 The Australian model is a novel approach to addressing a pressing issue but remains controversial for various reasons, including the fact that only media outlets which meet certain requirements, including mandatory registration with the Australia Communications and Media Agency and minimum income thresholds, are eligible for compensation,17 thereby disadvantaging smaller media outlets. An alternative model is a ‘tax and spend’ approach, whereby taxes on digital services which are provided in a given jurisdiction18 could be used to help finance direct government subsidies to independent news outlets. Whatever model is used to support journalism in the digital age, States should ensure that funding is distributed equitably according to clear and transparent rules which aim to promote media diversity. 3.1.3. Commercial Issues Undue concentration of media ownership weakens freedom of expression in various ways. It has a strong tendency to undermine diversity, as uniform perspectives are promoted within the ownership group, and the same programmes are syndicated among different media in the group. As a result, international law requires States to put in place measures to prevent concentration of media ownership, both within a given sector – such as print or broadcast media – and between different media sectors. It may be noted that while general anti-concentration measures are aimed primarily at ensuring a competitive market, for which a limited number of competitors – say three or four – is normally enough, anti-concentration measures for the media have a far loftier and more challenging goal, namely ensuring that the public can receive a wide range of different views and perspectives on matters of public debate. It is, therefore, recognised that special, more stringent, anti-concentration measures are needed within the media sector than what is needed simply to ensure competition. digital age, 13 February 2019, section 12(c), https://search.coe.int/cm/pages/result_details.aspx?objectid=090000168092dd4d. See also Joint Declaration on media independence and diversity in the digital age, note 4. 16 News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code, 24 February 2021, https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r6652_aspassed/toc_pdf/20177b01.pdf;file Type=application%2Fpdf. 17 Ibid., section 52. 18 Until recently, those jurisdictions often failed to capture any tax revenues on services being provided in their jurisdictions. See, for example, Fernando Heller, “Spain’s new Google and Tobin taxes to generate about €1 billion this year”, Euractiv, 18 January 2021, https://www.euractiv.com/section/digital/news/spains-new-google-and-tobin-taxes-to-generate-about-e1billion-this-year/. The Centre for Law and Democracy is a non-profit human rights organisation working internationally to provide legal expertise on foundational rights for democracy. 14