I have already answered this twice.
Let me try again, using more words, because you seem to have missed the ones I've already used.
1. A link is not a news story. It's a reference. It's no different than "Strunk and White, Elements of Style, Page 23." or "1060 W Addison St, Chicago, IL 60613", or "Innula Zenovka, post: 152407, member: 81". It's not a news story or "stealing clicks". It doesn't redirect a penny of ad revenue, you still have to go to the original source to read the story and once you're there it doesn't matter whether you started at Google or the Times home page. Now that you have to pay to reference a source, then where does it stop?
2. This is a precedent that you can be forced to pay just to refer to a news story. This will be copied and made broader. Because that how laws work.
3. This will be used to force payment for reference to basically any content, as that content is reframed as "news". Bad actors are already abusing overly broad laws like this to silence critics and extort money, and they are already licking their lips at the opportunities these new laws will provide.
Sorry, I don't understand how a law passed in one country can be "a precedent" for anything, still less "a precedent" for something that happens in another country.
For example,
the recent decision by the UK's Supreme Court about the legal status of Uber drivers is certainly a precedent, because it's a decision handed down by a superior court, it's a precedent that's binding only within the UK's jurisdiction, so while other people in other countries may well watch the outcome with interest, and certainly the EU is apparently considering legislation to regulate the gig economy, so they'll presumably want to see how things develop, the only people it directly affects are Uber itself and Uber's British drivers and their passengers.
So while I can see how the Australian legislation affects Facebook in Australia, and Facebook's Australian users, I don't see how it follows "This will be copied and made broader. Because that how laws work." It's not like the way laws necessarily work in the case of the US, which has notably failed to copy gun control legislation anywhere else, or legislation setting up a National Health Service, or that laws in China or Iran relating to the internet are necessarily adopted elsewhere. Why's this any different?
The most that can happen, it seems to me, is that other countries will look at Australia's experience, or the UK's experience with Uber, and conclude it's a good idea or it isn't, or it's a good idea but there are clearly pitfalls to be avoided. The outcome will doubtless influence other countries in some way, as an example to be studied, adapted, emulated or avoided, but that's all it can be.
And I'm still no clearer as to how the law affects anyone other than Facebook Australia and its customers -- if an Australian user of VVO posts a link to a news story here, are you saying that under this law someone comes after Cristiano with a bill, or whoever posted the link, or what? Or does it affect only links posted on domains registered in Australia, or what?
Lots of us post links here in VVO. Does this law affect that in any way? If it does, how? If it doesn't, is that because Cristiano is based in the US, or the site is registered there, or because most, if not all, of us live outside Australia or what?
What specifically happens, as a result of this new law, if some Australian blogger posts links to CNN or the BBC in their blog? I ask because I don't know. Do they get a bill from someone and, if so, from whom? Has anyone actually received such a bill?
Do you have a link to an interview or article by someone in Australia not connected with Facebook explaining how they are adversely affected by this? If it's a genuine issue, I'd like understand how, from someone directly affected.
And why does it affect anyone outside Australia any more than does, for example, that country's policy on asylum seekers affect people outside Australia who aren't in some way directly involved (which the UK, for example, recently toyed with the idea of adopting before rejecting it out of hand)?
Because this looks to me more like a powerful multinational which notoriously lacks any sense of social responsibility squealing like a stuck libertarian at any attempt to regulate it than it does anything else.