There's little doubt more transparency on how Facebook and Google's secretive algorithms actually work would be welcomed by publishers. Changes, which typically come with little notice or explanation, can wreak havoc on traffic. But the question the tech giants will be asking, and the rest of us should ponder is : how exactly would News Corp's 'ARB' work? As more and more things in life become powered by algorithms (which are really just lines and lines and lines of code) ensuring they aren't harmful could become be one of the biggest policy challenges of our time. Yet regulating news and information is always a minefield, and governments must tread carefully or risk making the problems Facebook has created even worse. For what its worth, Australia's competition tsar Rod Sims wouldn't rule out News Corp's proposal when I contacted him last week. "It's something we will look at," he said. " We are taking on board and assessing all ideas, and at this stage, blessing none."

In a country like Australia, where we have many politically independent institutions perhaps an algorithm review body could work, at least in theory. But in the hyperpartisan US, I have serious doubts. Put it this way: would it be any improvement if the news and information people were exposed to was decided not by Zuckerberg and Facebook, but by the Trump administration? Newspapers should be "businesses with a commercial purpose and a social purpose": News Corp head Robert Thomson. Credit:Reuters And if the US started doing this, how would it play out in even more fragile democracies with even weaker institutions? In any case, Facebook is certain to fiercely resist any proposals like News' ARB. Among other things, it will argue that regulating its algorithms is unworkable (since everyone's news feed is different, as are the algorithms underpinning them).

Facebook's share price has almost completely recovered from the Cambridge Analytica crisis. The company might be feeling confident again, and ready for a fight. Loading Replay Replay video Play video Play video It's also entirely possible that News Corp's proposal is an elaborate negotiating tactic. The company has made it very clear it thinks Facebook and Google should pay publishers "carriage fees" for running their stories. This would be a similar economic construct to the American cable television industry, where distributors such as Comcast and Time Warner Cable pay programming suppliers such as Murdoch's Fox and Disney to carry their channels. Thomson hinted at discussions with Facebook about this issue on last week's call. "There is no doubt that the company needs trusted publishers to enhance an experience that is being polluted by fake news and ubiquitous ill-informed, sometimes malicious gossip" he said. News Corp may be betting (or hoping) that Facebook will eventually conclude that paying publishers is an easier way out of its current predicament than subjecting itself to uncertain government regulation.