We probably all know that Mark Zuckerberg - the founder of Facebook- is not someone to be trifled with, but this time his open defiance shocked the world again, especially Australians.
人們或許早就知道，臉書創辦人馬克（Mark Zuckerberg）是個不能隨便招惹的狠角色，但這次他的「公開示威」行為，依舊震驚了全世界，尤其是澳洲的百姓。
Sparked by a bill that would make tech giants pay for news in Australia, the leading social media firm blocked all the local and global media content, along with some essential services and official coronavirus information, as a gesture of refusal.
身為社群媒體龍頭，臉書在某天一舉封鎖了所有澳洲當地與國際媒體提供的新聞內容，就連一些重要服務，及官方發布有關新冠病毒的資訊都一併消失，其中的導火線，來自於一項澳洲當局提出的草案，其內容將使科技巨擘不得再刊登免費新聞內容，而要向新聞業者付費。
The move soon drew harsh criticism from Australian governing authorities.
隨後，針對臉書大動作的反抗行為，澳洲政府予以嚴厲批評。
“Facebook's actions to unfriend Australia today [February 18] were as arrogant as they were disappointing,” Australian prime minister Scott Morrison posted on social media.
「今天（2 月 18 日），臉書對澳洲做出的「刪好友」行為，極度傲慢並令人感到失望，」澳洲總理 Scott Morrison 在社群媒體上發文表示。
“They're behaving more like North Korea than an American company,” Western Australian State Premier Mark Mcgowan also said, “I would urge the American Government to assist us here in resolving this matter.”
「他們的行為不像美國公司，更像北韓，」西澳大利亞州總理說：「我在此敦促美國政府出口協助我們解決此事件。」
Later, Facebook's Asia-Pacific executive represented the company to apologise for its behaviour but indicated that it would only restore the blank pages if the country changed the rule.
事發不久，臉書的亞太地區執行長代表公司出面道歉，但仍堅持除非澳洲改變草案規條，否則臉書不會恢復內容遭封鎖而導致的空白頁面。
On 25 February, Australia eventually passed the law with revisions agreed by Facebook, who then revealed plans of deals with some local media.
直到 2 月 25 日，澳洲才終於與臉書協商並達成共識，依據其提議通過修正版的草案，臉書也因此釋出消息，表示願意與當地的媒體合作。
Meanwhile, Google - despite its initial statement that threatened to close the search engine in Australia - had gotten ahead of the legislation and announced some cooperation with news outlets.
同時，曾威脅關閉澳洲地區服務的搜尋引擎巨擘 Google，也在草案通過前，率先宣布將與某些新聞媒體簽約。
Though the enforcement of this new code was meant to bring a positive result to the country, some critics point out that this might deteriorate the news industries' reliance on these powerful Big Tech firms.
雖然這個新法案旨在帶來正面效果，有些評論家卻指出，此規定只會惡化新聞業者對科技企業的過度依賴。
But whether the majority think leading digital platforms should pay for journalism or not, the only thing that can be sure is, the dispute between Facebook and Australia has certainly raised more questions on how news media possibly survive in a digital age.
不過，不論多數人認為這些數位平台龍頭該為新聞內容付費與否，唯一可以確定的事情是，這場臉書與澳洲當局的「爭鬥」，已經掀起了更多疑問：到底新聞媒體該如何在數位時代下生存？
Rather than talking about what measures the news industries can take - a topic that is out of my league to give advice on and was covered in many opinion pieces already, I would simply like to share my thoughts on why this is not a crisis facing by the media alone; but a reminder for all of us, readers and information receivers in this digital age, to support good journalism.
與其談論新聞業者該採取什麼措施，一個超越我能力範圍可以給予意見、又有許多文章已討論過的話題，我想分享的是，為什麼這並非媒體需獨自面對的危機，而是給眾人的一個提醒：身為讀者與數位時代下的資訊接收者的我們，應該挺身支持「優質新聞」。
Firstly, why did Australia want tech giants to pay for news? Was it necessary?
首先，為什麼澳洲會打算向科技巨擘們收費？真的有必要嗎？
For most news companies, selling display advertising on their websites is one of the crucial revenue sources. The more direct web traffic they gain, the more businesses interested in having their ads posted.
對大部分的新聞產業來說，販售他們網頁上的展示型廣告，是公司的重要收入來源之一，若新聞網站獲得的直接流量愈多，愈多業者願意掏錢投放廣告。
In other words, it works much better for those well-known international media, not the small and local ones. Yet, the emergence of other platforms - notably social media - has further divided the market and even become the main source of news for most people, particularly those in the younger generation.
換句話說，這個商業模式比較適合知名度高的國際媒體，而非規模較小的地方媒體，然而，其他平台的興起，像是社群媒體，更進一步的瓜分了市場，甚至成為大部分人，尤其是年輕世代的主要新聞來源。
Therefore, it's perhaps not too surprising that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) found an imbalance in power between these online-dominating platforms and the media companies. And it further posed a threat to the viability of news industries.
因此，當澳洲競爭與消費者委員會（ACCC）公開調查報告時，其結果並不令人驚訝，他們指出：霸佔網路市場的主要平台與新聞業者，在雙方競爭力的天秤上已然失衡，而這對新聞產業的經營與執行造成了極大的威脅。
As the Guardian reports, “digital behemoths took the lion's share of advertising revenue away from traditional media: for every $100 of online advertising spend, $53 goes to Google, $28 to Facebook and $19 to everyone else.”
根據英國《衛報》報導，數位科技的巨獸們將絕大部分的廣告收入都從傳統媒體上奪走了：在線廣告每支出 100 美元，Google 獲得其中的 53，臉書獲得 28，而其他人分剩餘的 19 美元。
Local media in Australia, therefore, started to argue that other platforms were making a fortune from the free content produced by news companies. So, the bill that would make Facebook and Google pay for news was ACCC's attempt to fix the problem and ensure journalism was reasonably subsidised.
因此，澳洲當地的媒體開始抗議，表達對各大網路平台的不滿，認為他們正透過新聞業者產出的內容賺取免成本的暴利。而這項迫使臉書與 Google 付費的法案，其實就是ACCC在嘗試解決問題，並確保新聞有被合理的支持。
But the crisis facing news companies is not as simple as a government-funding issue, nor an Australia-limited phenomenon. It's a challenge facing the media as a whole all over the world.
但這個新聞業者面臨的危機，並不是簡單的政府補助問題，更不是澳洲獨有的狀況，而是一個全球媒體都需要面對的挑戰。
“Subscription” is another way for the media to ask for payment, but is it working?
「訂閱制」是另一項媒體要求使用者付費的機制，但其成效如何？
In order to find a way out of being financially dependent on advertising and web traffic, nearly all the prestigious western media chose to build a paywall, a subscription or membership system that made readers pay for access to their news articles and features.
為了不再財務上過度依賴廣告與流量，幾乎所有的名聞遐邇的西方媒體都搭建了一座「付費牆」，它是一種訂閱或會員的制度，讀者必須付費才能閱讀文章或專題報導。
According to the Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2020, those who have already subscribed to some news outlet tend to be satisfied with their decisions and continue the deal, thereby the biggest challenge is how to engage more readers and create new subscribers.
根據《路透社》的2020年數位新聞報告分析，已訂閱的讀者通常對他們的選擇感到滿意，並願意續訂，最困難的挑戰，其實在於如何吸引新的訂閱戶。
But unfortunately, it's another level of difficulty for Taiwan's media, and few local news publications are doing it because consumers here are not only used to a flood of free content on the Internet - a situation similar to other countries - but also less aware of the value and importance of good journalism.
但不幸的是，對台灣的媒體而言，又是另一個層次的困境。如同大部份的國家一樣，消費者已經習慣了網路上唾手可得的海量免費資訊，再加上國內較無意識到優質報導的價值與重要性，因此很少地方新聞業者端出訂閱制。
In Taiwan, 59% of people use social media as their main news source, a figure expected to surge constantly, whereas the number of those who access news via print has dropped rapidly to 21%.
在台灣，59% 的人以社群媒體作為主要的新聞來源，且數值預計會繼續上升，反觀以閱讀紙媒為主的人口比例，則逐年下降，於去年跌至 21%。
And the top three popular online news brands among Taiwanese are Yahoo! News, ETtoday online, and TVBS News online. The first one aggregates articles from different sources, while all of them are free and home to breaking news.
而其中三大最受歡迎的網路新聞頻道為雅虎新聞、東森新聞雲及TVBS網路新聞。第一個是整合平台，匯集了各家媒體的文章，不過它們的共通點，是全部內容皆免費取得，並以提供即時新聞為主要服務。
It's obvious that slow journalism, which is the news that takes journalists a longer time to complete so that the content includes close attention and depth, seems not so popular among Taiwanese.
很明顯地，需要花較多時間產出、含有深度與焦點的「慢新聞」，在台灣並不受歡迎。
I didn't mean skimming through the news on social media to keep oneself updated on what has happened in the world is not good - except for the algorithms that work to feed us content with the same viewpoints repeatedly - since breaking news definitely has a role to play in this respect.
我並不是認為人們不該使用社群媒體快速瀏覽新聞事件、了解周遭發生的大小事（除了要留意被演算法不斷餵食同樣觀點、類似資訊的情況），即時新聞確實有它可扮演的角色。
But something deeper is needed.
但更深入的內容是不可或缺的。
Good journalism - by this, I mean news stories with unique angles, testified content and deep discussion over a certain issue - can be a long-form feature, magazine, or documentary, whatever format of news that provides in-depth content.
我所謂的優質新聞，是內含獨特切入點、內容經過查證，並針對特定議題進行深入討論的新聞報導，它可以是長篇文章、專題、雜誌或紀錄片，任何能提供深度內容的新聞作品。
As for western news media, the subscription is optional. Most of their articles published online are accessible to everyone; only some will have a limited number of free reports to read on a daily or weekly basis.
至於西方的新聞媒體，訂閱制通常是非強制性的。意即大部分發表在網路上的文章，都是完全開放給大眾閱讀的，但還是有一些媒體會限制每日或每週的閱讀篇數。
Though this made readers able to evaluate the content and further decide whether or not they would like to become a subscriber, it also means there's no necessary need to pay because there are plenty of free news articles, good and bad, out there.
雖然這樣做的好處是，讀者能在確實評估內容後，再決定是否訂閱，但這同時也意味著，即使不付錢也有許多免費文章可供閱讀，縱使品質參差不齊。
So, why are there a lot more subscribers in the west willing to pay for news?
既然如此，為什麼在西方國家，還有許多人願意「花錢買新聞」、成為訂閱戶呢？
As the Reuters' report reveals, most British and American readers did so because of three reasons: (1) Better quality than I can get from free sources; (2) I want to help fund good journalism; (3) Convenient package of news and information.
根據《路透社》的報導，大部分的美國與英國讀者選擇訂閱特定新聞媒體，出自三大原因：1. 付費新聞品質大於免費平台 2. 想以金錢支持優質新聞 3. 能一次取得多樣報導與資訊。
To put it simply, they think good journalism deserves it.
簡單來說，他們認為「好新聞」值得付費。
In Taiwan, most people have lost their trust in the media due to sensational headlines and press partisanship related to political ideology. But in recent years, more and more professionals in the field have started to make changes.
然而，由於聳動的標題、帶有政黨意識形態的報導，大部分的台灣人都對媒體失去了信任。直到近年來，愈來愈多新聞界的專業人士開始推動改變。
Currently, there are digital news media that care about truth and authenticity, producing features to make neglected issues surface, for example, The News Lens, The Reporter… and so on; there are also news publishers who have online platforms but still stick to the print work, dedicated to giving consumers the irreplaceable quality of traditional ways of reading with insightful articles, such as the CommonWealth Magazine, Business Next, FoodNEXT, VERSE… you name it.
現今，有在乎真相與事實的網路新聞業者，透過專題報導讓被忽略的議題浮上檯面，例如：關鍵評論網、報導者等；也有新聞出版業者，在推出網路平台後，仍致力於平面作品，期望帶給讀者無可取代的傳統閱讀品質與獨具觀點的文章，像是天下雜誌、數位時代、食力、VERSE 等，不勝枚舉。
I believe, more or less, there has been some progress in the news environment in Taiwan, but the quality of news isn't determined by the media themselves but by readers too, whose preference can make a profound difference.
我相信或多或少，台灣的新聞產業已有所進步，但新聞報導的品質並不單單取決於媒體本身，讀者也是重要關鍵之一，因為讀者的偏好能帶來莫大的改變與影響。
Although in Taiwan the subscription system is not common yet, there are other ways to support good journalism: (1) visit the news site directly to explore more content instead of clicking on links via social media; (2) less breaking news, more slow journalism (e.g., read features or investigative news; purchase magazines).
雖然訂閱制在台灣尚未普及，還是有許多方法能支持「優質新聞」：1. 直接到新聞平台探索更多內容，而非透過社群媒體點擊文章連結。2. 減少即時新聞，增加慢新聞的攝取量（例如：閱讀專題或調查性報導；購買雜誌）。
The so-called “Fourth Estate” has always been vital to a democratic country but is even more so after the internet emerged, which made fake news and biased coverage easily spread.
所謂的第四權，即媒體具有監督政府的功能，在民主國家一直都是極為重要的存在，但如今其重要性更甚以往，因為網路興起後，假新聞與偏頗報導能輕易的四處傳播。
To quote what the Guardian said on its website, “the more readers funding our work, the more questions we can ask, the deeper we can dig, and the greater the impact we can have.”
英國《衛報》在其官網上寫道：「愈多讀者願意付費支持我們，我們能提出的疑問就愈多、能挖掘的議題也愈深、最終能帶出的影響力愈大。」
Instant news, out-of-context headlines and social media posts are capable of giving information on an event, incident or conflict. But these messages will only be like scattered pieces of knowledge compiled in our head without any meaning and connection.
即時新聞、斷章取義的標題與社群媒體上的貼文，或許足以提供一件事情、意外或衝突的發生資訊，但這些訊息就像散落一地的知識碎片，在人們的腦中堆疊，卻缺乏意義與連結性。
In contrast, good journalism, on which critical thinking and media literacy are built, is supposed to provide more context and make readers feel, think, and care.
相對來說，理應提供更多完整資訊的優質新聞，才能真實建立起「批判性思考」與「媒體識讀」的能力，幫助讀者去感受、去思考、去關切。
In a word, without the public awareness of how important it is to support news industries dedicated to independence, we - readers and citizens in democracies - will suffer the biggest loss.
總而言之，若大眾沒有意識到付費支持優質新聞的重要性，身為讀者與民主國家一員的我們，會是虧損最大的一方。
So, before the tech giants tighten their grip on the news industry, take action to financially support the media you respect and trust, value the good work they put into, and never take good stories for granted.
因此，在科技巨擘進一步強化他們對新聞產業的掌控之前，採取行動付費支持你所信賴的媒體、看重他們致力產出的內容，並絕不要把優質報導視為理所當然。
執行編輯：蔡文晴
核稿編輯：林欣蘋
