Written by Kotori Tayama-Gannon

Big Tech’s news bill returns 

Australia is again moving to make tech companies pay for news, with draft legislation for the News Bargaining Incentive (NBI) requiring major digital firms to either strike deals with publishers or pay a revenue-based fee. 

Companies like Meta, Google and ByteDance are included. If agreements aren’t reached, fees would be redirected into supporting Australian journalism, closing a loophole that previously allowed firms to avoid deals by removing news content altogether. 

Major media companies have backed the proposal, calling it critical to the industry’s sustainability. The debate is familiar, with digital firms arguing they drive traffic and publishers arguing they are not fairly compensated for the content being used. The policy shifts the pressure point by making opting out more costly rather than compulsory. 

That shift matters on both sides. For tech, it becomes a commercial choice, while for publishers it points to more stable funding. This comes as younger audiences are increasingly getting their news directly through social media, strengthening platform influence and reducing visibility of the journalism behind it. 

Meta doubles down on AI-led growth 

Meta’s latest earnings highlight just how strongly its AI investment is feeding through to growth. The company reported Q1 revenue of $56.3 billion, up 33% year-on-year, with advertising continuing to do most of the heavy lifting. Both ad prices and volumes increased, while impressions rose 19% globally. 

Australia and New Zealand have been flagged as key markets for new AI-powered ad tools. Products like Meta AI for Business and upcoming “ads AI connectors” are designed to plug directly into campaign workflows, allowing advertisers to build, analyse and optimise campaigns through integrated AI tools without complex technical setup. 

Growth also came from WhatsApp paid messaging and subscriptions, with daily users at 3.56 billion, alongside rising profits and increased investment in data centres to support longer-term AI ambitions. 

The broader shift is not just better ad performance, but more control over the full marketing process, from planning through to optimisation, within a single ecosystem. 

For brands, it’s the speed and simplicity that stands out, with everything from setup to optimisation happening in one place. But the trade-off is clear. The more these tools are built into workflows, the harder it becomes to step outside them. It’s a fine line between using a platform to your advantage and developing a reliance on one. 

Putting a price on content 

Influencers and content creators will be able to film and monetise content in Tasmanian national parks for $100 under a new licensing system designed to simplify previous rules and lower costs. 

The Enthusiast Business Licence replaces a more expensive process that required public liability insurance and fees of around $450. It applies to solo creators producing small-scale content on handheld devices, including paid partnerships, sponsorships, and gifted travel or products. Drones are not allowed, and creators must stay on designated tracks. 

The Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service says the change is aimed at reducing red tape while protecting natural areas, supporting responsible promotion without encouraging environmental damage. 

The update reflects a wider shift, with social media now driving visitation to natural sites and raising concerns about over-tourism. 

For creators, it lowers the barrier to entry, but still sets clear limits on how and where content can be captured. The challenge sits in balancing exposure of these landscapes online with the impact that visibility can create on the ground. 

When humour crosses the line 

Spotminders has come under scrutiny after an ad showing a man secretly placing a tracking device in his wife’s wallet was ruled in breach of advertising standards. 

Framed as a light-hearted solution to a forgetful partner, the ad prompted complaints around coercive control and non-consensual surveillance. Regulators agreed, finding the scenario discriminatory, unsafe and suggestive of abusive behaviour. Despite the ruling, the ad has reportedly continued to run. 

Again, we wonder how did this get signed off? Ideas that might feel playful can land very differently once outside the boardroom. For brands, creative risk isn’t just reputational, it’s cultural. Missing that distinction can quickly turn a small campaign into a credibility issue.