
Google: Open Letter to Australians - skissane
https://about.google/intl/ALL_au/google-in-australia/an-open-letter/
======
discordance
Google evil etc etc aside, they have been decent custodians of their users
data. I don't really want to trust Google, but they behave much better than
the Australian government, who recently admitted they spy on their citizens
[0], can coerce citizens and companies to install backdoors into their
companies software [1].

I trust Murdoch less than the government, and much much less than Google.
Remember when Murdoch institutions illegally wiretapped celebrities,
politicians, royal family members and relatives of dead British soldiers [2]?

0: [https://www.theguardian.com/australia-
news/2020/aug/06/peter...](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-
news/2020/aug/06/peter-dutton-confirms-australia-could-spy-on-its-own-
citizens-under-cybersecurity-plan)

1: [https://www.wired.com/story/australia-encryption-law-
global-...](https://www.wired.com/story/australia-encryption-law-global-
impact/)

2:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacki...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hacking_scandal)

~~~
BLKNSLVR
In regards to parent commenters [0] link, this is the story that got a
journalist's home raided by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) because she
received leaked information (that turned out to be 100% correct) that the
Department for Home Affairs was planning to allow the Australian Signals
Directorate (ASD) to spy on Australian citizens.

Directly quoting from the linked article:

 _ASD powers have been a source of controversy for the government, after the
AFP raided News Corp journalist Annika Smethurst’s home in June 2019 over a
news report suggesting the home affairs department was seeking power for ASD
to spy on Australians. Dutton had claimed the story was nonsense despite
publicly confirming its substance._

The straight-up lying by one of Australia's highest ranked politicians bodes
poorly, and goes hand-in-hand with Federal Police raiding a journalists home.
Yet this seems to be the Government that the Australian people want.

~~~
sthnblllII
> this seems to be the Government that the Australian people want.

I can assure you it’s not. The problem with Republics is that “one man one
vote” does not translate into the majority getting what it wants. The loudest
and most well organized political forces will get their way, even ones small
in number or popular support. State security services have a long history of
involvement in politics and media in the Anglo-sphere.

~~~
smcl
Australia is not (yet?) a Republic

~~~
eru
That was probably the least useful thing to criticise in the comment you
replied to.

I know, I know, pedantry is fun. But I don't think the Queen makes much of a
difference to Australia's problems one way or another.

~~~
opinologo
Indeed she did make a difference in 1975 when her representative fired no
other than the Prime Minister.

Source:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitution...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis)

~~~
eru
Yes, every once in a while. Hence my qualification with 'much of a
difference'.

~~~
opinologo
sure, we also have a couple of atomic bombs only. Not much difference there
either.

------
dannyw
Australian here. Fuck News Corp, one of the most corrupt entities in Australia
that directly collude and interfere with our elections for the benefit of
themselves and Big Coal.

I hope Google don’t fuck around.

~~~
Polylactic_acid
>corrupt entities in Australia

They have also seriously damaged the media in the US and the UK. Its no wonder
all 3 countries are having serious issues with news.

~~~
thu2111
That's an anglo-centric perception. Which countries has Google News been
banned in? Spain. China. Germany briefly until Google told the news orgs
they'd never pay, so could license their content for free or disappear from
News and search.

Newspapers trying to screw Google out of money by pressuring politicians is
not an Australia or News Corp specific problem. It's happening everywhere.
Really, all it reveals is how cravenly controlled by journalists supposedly
independent politicians really are. We always "knew" it, but now we _know_ it.

~~~
thelastname
I don't know why this gets a so downvoted, it's correct. There was/is a huge
pressure made by French and German media owners.

~~~
blaser-waffle
You're not wrong, but News Corp doesn't hold a lot of power in FR or DE.

Meanwhile Fox News is still poisoning minds in the US, and basically calling
the shots in Australia. Plus all the UK hacking, etc.

I'll give a shit about what AFP or Deutsche Welle are doing when they start
becoming a tool of the US GOP that openly pushes for invading Iran.

------
wombatmobile
Obviously the Australian government is trying to make google pay just because
Murdoch told it to. But the pretense is bizarre - that google has to pay
Murdoch because it steals his content.

Google doesn't republish News Corp content! It just lists headlines with URLs
that readers click to go through to News Corp! Google is giving News Corp 70%
of its traffic.

Bizarre.

What's to stop google from simply ceasing to index News Corp at all?

The fact that it doesn't, and instead runs a scary PR campaign, tells me
there's something going on that I don't understand. But what?

~~~
sjy
Not indexing news content in order to avoid submitting to the proposed new law
is itself prohibited under the new law.

~~~
wombatmobile
Link to the new legislation or description thereof?

~~~
sjy
Concepts paper and draft legislation published by the ACCC:
[https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-
platforms/news-m...](https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-
platforms/news-media-bargaining-code)

HN discussed this when the draft legislation was published:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24006150](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24006150)

~~~
thu2111
This law is the latest iteration of newspaper's attempts to turn Google into
an ATM for the industry.

The first attempt was in Germany. The law said search engines must pay
newspapers to index their content. However it didn't specify what the price
should be, so Google simply negotiated a fee of zero and the law was in effect
nullified.

The second attempt was in Spain. It is the same law, but this time they added
a clause that said the fee can't be zero. So Google News was shut down in
Spain and the law was in effect nullified again.

The third attempt is in EU and Australia. In Australia it's the same law, but
this time it says the fees both cannot be zero and that you aren't allowed to
shut down your service. In the EU the assumption is Google can't pull out, so
if a Spain-style law is passed at the Commission level then Google have to pay
up.

What comes next? My guess - either this is the point where Google breaks or
they pull out of Australia completely. They did it on principle for China,
once, and that was a drastically larger market. But it's not the same company
it once was.

It may be that Google/FB just decide indexing news isn't worth it. Bing can
serve loss-making news queries. Or someone would set up a news-focused search
engine in the USA that doesn't have any legal presence anywhere else. Indexing
news is a much more tractable problem than indexing the entire web especially
with advances in AI-driven NLP. However, there's the question of how to get
people to pay for it.

edit: apparently the law is a bill of attainder and names who it applies to
specifically, note these laws are unconstitutional in the USA (at least
theoretically).

~~~
rokweom
How can government tell you what services you must provide? That's ridiculous.

~~~
ath0
In the Americans with Disabilities Act, US law states that if you're going to
create a place of public accommodation, there are certain minimum standards
you must adhere to, to support those with disabilities. So you must install
ramps and elevators for the mobility-impaired, offer audio-only interfaces for
the blind, sign for the hearing impaired, and so on. These apply pretty
broadly.

We can argue whether Australia's legislation is a good thing, but "if you are
going to operate here, these are the standards you must follow" is not beyond
the pale.

~~~
rokweom
There's a difference between having to comply to certain standards when
opening a new service, and being forced by government to retain a service that
is unprofitable.

------
Mandatum
And surprisingly, not one mention of Murdoch.

Let's be honest - this is old media trying to push their weight to keep
margins. Facebook and Google have effectively replaced both clickbait and
tabloid news sources, as well as the well-resourced, quality journalism by
taking ad revenue off their hands.

Google could easily setup a news sourcing hub themselves and self-cite news
rather than relying on their external data feeds.

This is political. Neither Google or Facebook is going to be paying a cent
here.

I find Google citing data safety annoying.

~~~
h0l0cube
> And surprisingly, not one mention of Murdoch.

"The law would force us to give an unfair advantage to one group of businesses
- news media businesses - over everyone else who has a website, YouTube
channel or small business."

This wording doesn't suggest that Murdoch would have a better advantage than
any other 'news media business'. Is there anything in the new laws to suggest,
apart from capital/resources, that this is set to benefit any particular
Australian media business over another?

> Google could easily setup a news sourcing hub themselves and self-cite news
> rather than relying on their external data feeds.

So they'd be paying for news content from established media enterprise, or
paying journalists to write their own - as opposed to leaching off them. Seems
like a win?

~~~
cyphar
I agree with your broader point, though it should be noted that public
broadcasters (namely ABC and SBS) will not be able to make use of certain
rights under the new legislation (namely the forced arbitration system). So it
does give slightly more favour to private media organisations -- though you
could argue allowing the ABC or SBS to exercise those powers would violate
their own charters (their duty is not to be competitive with other media).

~~~
rswail
Where in their charter does it say that it is one of their duties not to be
competitive with other media?

The only mention in the charter (it's really short) is:

> (2) In the provision by the Corporation of its broadcasting services within
> Australia:

>

>(a) the Corporation shall take account of:

>

>(i) the broadcasting services provided by the commercial and community
sectors of the Australian broadcasting system;

It's a Murdoch/Nine/7West continuous whinge that ABC/SBS compete "unfairly",
yet when it comes to actual community needs (eg emergency broadcasting, rural
and regional reporting etc), they do squat in return for their spectrum and
cable licenses.

~~~
cyphar
It's not that the charter says "you cannot be competitive with other media",
it's that their charter _doesn 't_ say "you should be competitive with private
media". The ABC and SBS exist to provide both information and entertainment
with a specific focus -- not to try to be the most highly-rated channel in
Australia. As a result, the ABC or SBS using the new powers under the proposed
legislation wouldn't fall under their charter -- because the purpose of the
legislation is to rectify an (alleged) power imbalance in the agreements
between news companies and digital media.

On balance (reading my comment again), I should probably have phrased it as
"it is not their duty to compete with privately-owned media" rather than "[it
is] their duty not to".

------
harry8
Open comment from an Australian to google:

"Pay your f#$king tax like the rest of us or shut the f%$ck up."

This comment stands apart from any and all implications of their special
interest policy pleadings above which are all pretty tedious in comparison.

Google don't pay tax for profit made selling in Australia. To hell with them
and literally any case they have to make.

~~~
eru
Google complies with all the relevant laws.

If Australians want Google to pay more taxes, they should change the tax laws
to make them pay more taxes.

~~~
LockAndLol
> Google complies with all the relevant laws.

Yeah, they use every loophole the system provides to pay the least amount
possible. If I used every loophole to take advantage of a system and make it
do what I want, I'd be labelled a criminal. I'd be called a hacker. But since
it's a big company and the system isn't a computer, well... I guess it's OK
then.

They're hacking the system and you're fine with it because "technically
they're complying with relevant laws". Just because something is legally
possible doesn't mean it's right.

~~~
eru
The loopholes are part of the laws.

I am very glad that I moved to a country, Singapore, that in general has sane
and simple laws that don't suffer nearly as much from loopholes as most other
countries.

------
ImaCake
Link to the draft law is below [0].

Quoted from that page:

>The code also includes a set of ‘minimum standards’ for:

>providing advance notice of changes to algorithmic ranking and presentation
of news; appropriately recognising original news content; and

>providing information about how and when Google and Facebook make available
user data collected through users’ interactions with news content.

This sounds great to me. Australia has a history of producing consumer
friendly laws (although I am sure we have our share of bad laws on this), and
I consider google to be working against my personal interests, so I think this
law is probably good (for consumers and news media, but not google/facebook).

0\. [https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-
platforms/draft-...](https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-
platforms/draft-news-media-bargaining-code)

~~~
mgraczyk
As somebody who works on ranking and personalization products, I can
confidently assure you that you would not prefer a less personalized
experience.

You don't have to take my word for it though, you can opt-out of
personalization on Google here:
[https://myactivity.google.com/activitycontrols](https://myactivity.google.com/activitycontrols)

Try it for a month and see if you prefer it.

~~~
skissane
I miss the old Google search, the one that didn't try to guess what I mean,
but instead did exactly what I said.

I can see how for your average user "guess what I mean" might produce better
and quicker results, but for power users (who are entirely comfortable with
search syntax, and who sometimes may be searching incredibly obscure things),
it produces a worse experience

The only type of search personalisation I want is the ability to exclude
certain sites from my search results (bye bye Pinterest, bye bye Quora).
Google used to offer that feature, but in more recent years it appears to have
disappeared.

I particularly wish Google News Search had a way to exclude media sources I
dislike. I am interested in Brexit, so I regularly search on that term, but
then I get bombarded with a boatload of sensationalised crap from the Daily
Express, a media outlet I'd prefer to pretend didn't exist

~~~
mgraczyk
You can still do this per-query by typing `-site:quora.com`.

news.google.com allows you to hide publications, probably at the domain level
but I can't tell. I use this extensively, but I don't know if those choices
are honored in the Google search news tab.

~~~
skissane
I know about `-site:`, but it is a pain to have to keep on typing it in, they
used to have a feature to permanently block certain domains in results, from
your Google settings. (Plus, `-site:` only works for a few sites, since it
counts against the search keywords limit.)

When I go to news.google.com, I can't work out how to hide news sources. I do
have a "Hidden Sources > Manage" option in the settings, but it doesn't let me
add any, just tells me I don't have any. Each individual result has a few
options under it – Share, Save for later, and a "More" menu with a "Go to..."
option that takes you to the page for that media source. But even on the
"Daily Express" media source page, I don't see any "hide" option, just
"Follow" and "Share"

Does this feature still exist? Is it disabled for my Google account (maybe
because of some privacy setting I set)? Does it only work from certain
countries? Google is inscrutable as always

~~~
mgraczyk
You have to click on the vertical ... button. It's a little hard to find on
desktop, but on mobile it's very clear.

~~~
skissane
Okay, I worked it out – really confusing UI. The "Hide" option only appears on
the vertical ... menu on certain screens, not others. The "Headlines" page
displays it, so do "Sections" and "topic" pages, but not search results. I was
trying to find it on a keyword search result page, which is why I couldn't
find it anywhere.

Also, blocking a source hides it from "Headlines"/"Sections"/"Topic" pages,
but not from keyword search results pages. You'll still get your blocked
sources displayed in those. (Confusingly, when you search for "brexit", you
can get back two different "Brexit" topic pages, which have the same title but
different pictures, or you can get a keyword search results page, which
behaves differently.)

------
zmmmmm
> News media businesses alone would be given information that would help them
> artificially inflate their ranking over everyone else, even when someone
> else provides a better result

I'm not sure how Google wins this one because it seems like an easy comeback
is "well why don't you just be transparent and tell everybody that
information". Ultimately, as long as they have anything resembling "secret
sauce" they will be in the cross hairs of regulators for unfair treatment
(even if just alleged, not proven), and the minute they don't they will lose
their competitive advantage.

Perhaps the worst thing seems to me that it prospectively constrains what
kinds of algorithms they can actually apply to things they can tell people
about. So all kinds of approaches with poor explainability (say, deep
learning) will get put aside for things that are empirically worse (more
biased, unfair, less equitable, etc.) but compliant with the law because
Google can "explain them" to people.

~~~
darawk
> I'm not sure how Google wins this one because it seems like an easy comeback
> is "well why don't you just be transparent and tell everybody that
> information". Ultimately, as long as they have anything resembling "secret
> sauce" they will be in the cross hairs of regulators for unfair treatment
> (even if just alleged, not proven), and the minute they don't they will lose
> their competitive advantage.

Because then people would game it.

~~~
ricardo81
Yes, same as the phone book for AAA Plumbers.

Playing devil's advocate, gaming search engines used to be about keywords then
it became more about links. SEOs nowadays talk about "EAT", expertise,
authority, and trustworthiness. It's still possible for marketers to mimic
quality signals but it's less easy.

It would be much easier if the author of webpages were to declare themselves,
sort of a Pagerank but applied on a person/topic level. It could/can be done
with structured data. This of course has privacy implications but it keeps the
publishers as transparent to the search engine as possible. Verification of
sorts would be needed so other people don't use your authorship details on
their own site. It's the kind of social fabric/data Google could've perhaps
used Google+ for.

Slightly more on topic, marketers used to be able to do accurate keyword
research with Google, and also see the keywords that people searched for when
landing on their site, which is quite useful for figuring out their intent.
Google keeps all that data to themselves now.

I find their "concerns" about "use of private data" a bit laughable,
considering they used your personal search history to try and target you on
sites you visit across the web via ads. They don't mind retaining data about
users, they just don't like having to share it with anyone.

~~~
saalweachter
> It would be much easier if the author of webpages were to declare
> themselves, sort of a Pagerank but applied on a person/topic level. It
> could/can be done with structured data. This of course has privacy
> implications but it keeps the publishers as transparent to the search engine
> as possible. Verification of sorts would be needed so other people don't use
> your authorship details on their own site. It's the kind of social
> fabric/data Google could've perhaps used Google+ for.

This was actually done back when Google+ first was launched — people could
attach their authorship and it would be displayed on the search page, and you
would also see a list of “experts” for particular categories on the right hand
side when you searched for things like “python” or “poker”.

I believe it disappeared with the rest of Google+, because no one actually
cared.

~~~
ricardo81
Seems like that's one major ingredient they'd like to add to their algo as
intent/authority is otherwise measured much more indirectly.

------
gitgud
I initially thought this was going to be about the new [1] anti-encryption
law's in Australia... another concerning matter of government intervention...

[1] [https://fee.org/articles/australia-s-unprecedented-
encryptio...](https://fee.org/articles/australia-s-unprecedented-encryption-
law-is-a-threat-to-global-privacy/)

~~~
DoctorNick
nope, Google doesn't give a shit about that. They just hate having to pay for
displaying content from news media.

~~~
0xy
Why would anyone be thrilled about having to funnel cash to News Corp? The
news business is dead, and good riddance because it descended into yellow
journalism and clickbait garbage.

Check the News.com.au homepage and observe it looks like a worse Daily Mail.

~~~
ricardo81
>The news business is dead, and good riddance because it descended into yellow
journalism and clickbait garbage.

I think it could be the other way around, where people expecting news online
and free has meant declining revenues, click-bait and ad-infested news
articles.

News aggregators get the user's onto their site without the overhead.

------
aussieguy1234
Google should just de-list News Corp and the other big media companies that
dominate the Australian media industry and who often manipulate elections for
their own benefit with one sided heavily biased coverage. Give some breathing
space to the smaller players.

~~~
sthnblllII
Wouldn't that just be Google manipulating coverage for Google’s benefit?

I don’t think Google should be blessing any publishers with special “news
section” status. Let websites compete organically. Any media with finance
capital backing is going to be biased in favor of wars and against labor.

~~~
ehsankia
There's a difference between giving special treatment and fully de-listing,
kinda like what happened in Germany and Spain with Google News. This is a
direct and targeted attack by NewsCorp, abusing their influence in australian
politics to force a bill that benefits them. Why should Google help someone
that is trying their best to attack them?

~~~
sthnblllII
Being a neutral platform for speech is not ‘helping’ anyone. It helps the
ideas the public agrees with the most, which is why Google and Newscorp are
fighting to control internet media with backroom ‘partnerships’ rather than
giving viewpoints that are actually popular a fair playing field.

------
liveoneggs
From the letter:

    
    
        > We’ve always treated all website owners fairly when it comes to information we share about ranking.
    

Really?
[https://twitter.com/methode/status/1166643751659429888](https://twitter.com/methode/status/1166643751659429888)

    
    
        > The law would force us to give an unfair advantage to one group of businesses - news media businesses - over everyone else who has a website, YouTube channel or small business
    

Google is concerned it can no longer pick winners and losers. I don't prefer
News Corp, obviously, but it's just lies lies lies on both sides trying to
control money funnels.

I assume google has other knobs like just making advertising in .au super
expensive (they have a monopoly on that side too) but the battle will end up
being bloody.

~~~
runeks
> Really?
> [https://twitter.com/methode/status/1166643751659429888](https://twitter.com/methode/status/1166643751659429888)

What is this about? I can’t tell from the tweet.

~~~
liveoneggs
it is a google employee picking a winner of an algo update

------
reaperducer
To all the people (hopefully Australians) who paint this as the government
propping up legacy media: Isn't it better to have control of your media in
local, Australian-owned and regulated megacorps, rather than some faceless
megacorp in another country?

~~~
stirlo
^ This.

I'm hearing heaps of people crying "Murdock" and "Newscorp" but how about
local jobs and ownership vs a global conglomerate that doesn't give 2 f#%ks
about our tiny 25 million population and takes $4.8 billion offshore while
paying only $100 million tax[1].

The Australian Associate Press recently went bankrupt and needed a bailout
from philanthropists[2]. As much as you dislike one particular section of old
media it's essential that local media exists in a functional democracy. Google
taking $4.8 billion of revenue out of the country strips these organisations
of their funding without providing a replacement.

[1][https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-18/google-pays-more-
tax-...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-18/google-pays-more-tax-but-
still-makes-billions-in-singapore/12254448)
[2][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Associated_Press](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Associated_Press)

~~~
johnnyYen
Ironic you should reference the ABC when the legislation specifically excludes
the ABC from any benefit other "registered news organisations" may enjoy.

~~~
stirlo
I didn't mention the government funded ABC but rather the Australian
Associated Press (AAP) which is a collection of local journalists funded
collectively by the large media companies on both the left and right wing.

~~~
johnnyYen
I was referring to your reference [1].

The AU government wants to give private media a leg up, but won't allow the
ABC (or SBS) to receive any moneys from Google/FB, and at the same time
regularly cuts funds to both the government funded media entities.

------
ThinkBeat
I think, the best solution here will be for Google to sell all its assets and
business in Australia to a company to be named by the Australian prime
minister.

If they wish to continue to offer search there that is.

~~~
vermilingua
That would be NewsCorp. I really hope your comment is a joke.

~~~
dodobirdlord
I'm pretty sure it's a joking reference to Trump's executive order forcing a
sale of TikTok.

------
mianos
I'd vote they just delist news.com.au. It's a PIA when some search returns
tags.news.com.au that is blocked by pihole. It's a cesspit of news biased news
anyway. Sure, other newspapers are biased as hell and many just a voice for
some ignorant opinion or blind agenda, but they are quaint in the naivety.
News.com.au is an organised propaganda machine.

------
9nGQluzmnq3M
The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission's response:
[https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/response-to-google-
ope...](https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/response-to-google-open-letter)

HN discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24185374](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24185374)

------
cryptica
This letter is seriously weird. Shows a clash between two different lobby
groups; neither of which actually cares about citizens. I think the quality of
news has degenerated severely since it's been put in the hands of Google and
Facebook and so I don't even know how to think about this issue.

This does make a case for increased competition in both the search and news
space though.

------
kelnos
I imagine there's going to be a very strong knee-jerk anti-Google reaction
here, but let's stop and think about the law itself. If it actually does what
this open letter says it does, then it's a bad law, plain and simple, and we
should support and applaud efforts -- even Google's -- to inform the public
with the hope of changing things.

------
fouc
I don't like the "free services" wording in the letter. Free services
shouldn't be a justification for anything.

~~~
ricardo81
Indeed. Free here = subsidised by the not-so-privacy-sensitive ad system, and
their argument is worrying about user privacy.

------
xiaodai
Time for Yandex and Baidu to come into the Australian market. Baidu has shit
tech so Yandex it is.

~~~
squiggleblaz
I guess you're not an Australian. It's a national sport to get access to
American products which the companies don't make available in Australia. If
Google dropped out of the local market, everyone would just get access to it
via a VPN. (Probably one that Google makes available in exchange for private
data.)

------
plasma
Feels related to this article from June 2020,
[https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53176945](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-53176945)

"Google to pay for 'high quality' news in three countries"

------
steve1820
I'd definitely encourage more regulation in this area.

It's going to be a balancing act but at the moment, its is way too skewed
towards the big corp in the corp vs consumer arguement.

~~~
throwawaynothx
tbh im sick of seeing posts about stupid "kmart shopper finds.... bla bla bla"
show up in my news feed

------
actuator
> You trust us with your data and our job is to keep it safe. Under this law,
> Google has to tell news media businesses “how they can gain access” to data
> about your use of our products.

This corpspeak wording seems very broad. I wonder what Australia is gunning at
here, if they are really asking Google/FB to share user insights about users
visiting these news sites, that doesn't sit well with me as an user.

~~~
rossjudson
Good news! You can replace corpspeak with legalspeak.

[https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-
platforms/news-m...](https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-
platforms/news-media-bargaining-code/draft-legislation)

------
runxel
What we see here is a final rebellion of the big media companies worldwide. In
Germany we have seen something similar. In the end, it's highway robbery:
Google is made to pay to the mediacorp, but it is not allowed to de-index them
either.

Perfect scenario – you've succesfully made a cashcow! Google is by far not the
good guy here, but rest assured, I hope all those big media outlets burn.

------
627467
> A proposed law, the News Media Bargaining Code, would force us to provide
> you with a dramatically worse Google Search and YouTube, could lead to your
> data being handed over to big news businesses, and would put the free
> services you use at risk in Australia.

The last point particularly reads as extortion.

I get why those under Murdoch umbrella hate it so much but is picking another
evil the only option?

------
holografix
If anyone is smart enough and patient enough to understand the new law could
they comment on these points?

1\. How will Johnny little guy’s “news blog” benefit from this? Could they
require google pay them to display their headlines on search? 2\. Will the
revenue passed on to the Murdochs be taxed by the Aus gov? Ie: another way to
capture tax from Google operating in Aus? 3\. What are the foreseeable
outcomes of say, no news results are displayed on Google search and people
have to visit the news websites directly? Ie: what I often do when I see an
interesting article I can not read, I google for it and find a news site that
_will_ let me read it.

------
program_whiz
Surprised no one is saying this. Every generation has to relearn what many
have realized over the centuries: power corrupts, absolute power corrupts
absolutely. The only way to avoid people "abusing" other people is to make
that situation impossible (both parties having power that other cannot take).
If you create a situation with the tools of power just sitting in the open,
and only one party can use it, then you will have abuses.

This logic applies to governments, corporations, and ordinary people (think of
the tyrannical managers we've all had at some point). Its an unchangeable
facet of human nature. As long as the weapon/tool is on the table, and there
are enough people, someone who is a bit more sociopathic, greedy, or has more
emotional turmoil will pick it up and wield it against other people for their
own gain.

For examples see: all of history whenever a person / civilization had any
advantage over another person / civilization and sufficient time elapsed.

Its kinda crazy but everyone always thinks that some new power / invention
that creates a one-sided situation like this will "only be used for good",
imagining that the people using these tools will be benevolent (for all people
who could use the tool, and all the time the tool exists).

------
vermilingua
Discussion on the law itself here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24006150](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24006150)

------
paulcarroty
I just remember for non-Australians and Australians too: if you still use
Bitbucket, Jira, or another Atlassian products - think about the privacy right
now.

------
rapind
If the problem is that Google will be forced to share data with news media...
maybe just stop collecting data then, so there's nothing to hand over?

------
dutch3000
google search is already going down the tubes. for example, i search every
variation of “when is grass fungus active” and am served up with results on
how to cure grass fungus. just one example of many in how there search engine
cannot deal with different angles to a search and has huge delivery buckets
that aren’t useful, if you need a more granular search ability

------
DecoPerson
The legislation [0] gives all news businesses (including smaller ones) a
pathway to force Google to enter into an agreement with them. It opens up
Google and Facebook to world of costly business dealings.

With little effort, I could start “Deco’s Local Newspaper” and publish a few
issues online. This will give me a pathway to force Google to “deal with me.”
This negotiation, mediation and arbitration could incur Google thousands of
dollars in employee time, arbitration fees, and paying for half of the legal
costs. Google cannot say “no” from the start. They can’t even ignore me
without being in violation of the new legislation.

Relevant snippets:

“... news media businesses can participate in the code if:

\- They predominantly produce ‘core news’, and publish this online: [...]

\- They adhere to appropriate professional editorial standards: [...]

\- They maintain editorial independence from the subjects of their news
coverage: [...]

\- They operate primarily in Australia for the purpose of serving Australian
audiences: [...]”

“If the parties have not reached an agreement for the inclusion of news on
digital platform services within three months of negotiation, and the parties
have attended at least one day of mediation, news media businesses can elect
to commence arbitration.”

“Arbitration under the code would be performed through ‘final offer
arbitration’. The digital platform and news media business (or a collective of
news media businesses) must each submit a final offer on the remuneration to
be paid by the digital platform within 10 days of the commencement of
arbitration. Parties would then have a further 5 business days to provide
comments on each other’s offer.”

“After receiving submissions and comments from the parties and the ACCC, the
arbitrator would have 30 business days to choose one or the other of the
parties’ ‘final offers’, which would form a binding agreement between the
parties.”

Therefore: I can force Google to enter into an agreement with me (even as a
small business) and incur thousands of dollars of overhead costs in the
process.

I’m not one to use hyperbole, but this is insane. I would not be surprised if
Google turns off Google Search entirely for Australia when this code passes.

Also, this legislation is specifically for Google and Facebook: “Digital
platforms must participate in the code if the Treasurer makes a determination
specifying that the code would apply to them. The Government has announced
that the code would initially apply only to Facebook and Google. Other digital
platforms may be added to the code if they hold a significant bargaining power
imbalance with Australian news media businesses in the future.”

This also seems strange, though I’m not against legislation specifically for
mega-corps. Small businesses / startups are already hard enough to start with
all the legislation they need to comply with, so protecting them from
irrelevant codes like this is healthy for industry.

[0]
[https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/DPB%20-%20Draft%20news%...](https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/DPB%20-%20Draft%20news%20media%20and%20digital%20platforms%20mandatory%20bargaining%20code%20Q%26As.pdf#page5)

------
ggm
between competing commercial entities and the government, I am unsure who is
more likely to invoke "the law of un-intended consequences" as an explanation
for their behaviour.

Lets just say _all of them_ are likely to do this: Not just note that there is
an un-intended consequence, but actually acting to bring it on.

------
einpoklum
> The law would force us to give an unfair advantage to one group of
> businesses - news media businesses - over everyone else

They already give unfair advantage to mainstream news media over other sources
of news and commentary. They artificially boost "credible sources" or
"reliable sources" or whatever they call them; and also refrain entirely from
recommending some sources which they disapprove of (right-wing, left-wing,
world states which oppose the US etc.). On YouTube this has been very apparent
in the list of recommended videos (at least if you're reading about US and
world news). On the search engine itself it may be less pronounced, but they
are actively doing that as well to some extent; see:

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-google-interferes-with-
its-...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-google-interferes-with-its-search-
algorithms-and-changes-your-results-11573823753)

or if you can't get past the Paywall, see:

[https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/18/pers-n18.html](https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/11/18/pers-n18.html)

------
hkt
I tried to work out why I'm so unbelievably torn about this, and I've
concluded that it's because this is a "whoever wins, we lose" circumstance.
Both the press and Google are nightmarish creatures.

------
poma88
Let's google win the next elections

------
jojobas
Pay corporate income tax here and then will talk.

~~~
kyrra
(googler, opinion is my own)

My understanding is that Google is locally incorporated in australia, as you
can see on this page[0], at least for Ads, likely other businesses. If you
select Australia on there you will see Ads payments are made to "Google
Australia Pty Limited".

[0] [https://support.google.com/google-
ads/answer/2375370?hl=en](https://support.google.com/google-
ads/answer/2375370?hl=en)

~~~
jojobas
Google Australia Pty Ltd acts as an agent for Google Asia Pacific registered
in Singapore.

The profits are routed as licensing costs around the world to end up in this
or that low tax jurisdiction.

~~~
kyrra
Interesting, thanks for sharing. Found this which gave more context.

[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-01/google-facebook-
make-...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-01/google-facebook-make-
billions-in-australian-sales-pay-little-tax/11060474)

------
louisstow
Open letter to Australians

We need to let you know about new Government regulation that will hurt how
Australians use Google Search and YouTube.

A proposed law, the News Media Bargaining Code, would force us to provide you
with a dramatically worse Google Search and YouTube, could lead to your data
being handed over to big news businesses, and would put the free services you
use at risk in Australia.

# The way Aussies search every day on Google is at risk from new regulation

You’ve always relied on Google Search and YouTube to show you what’s most
relevant and helpful to you. We could no longer guarantee that under this law.
The law would force us to give an unfair advantage to one group of businesses
- news media businesses - over everyone else who has a website, YouTube
channel or small business. News media businesses alone would be given
information that would help them artificially inflate their ranking over
everyone else, even when someone else provides a better result. We’ve always
treated all website owners fairly when it comes to information we share about
ranking. The proposed changes are not fair and they mean that Google Search
results and YouTube will be worse for you.

# Your Search data may be at risk

You trust us with your data and our job is to keep it safe. Under this law,
Google has to tell news media businesses “how they can gain access” to data
about your use of our products. There’s no way of knowing if any data handed
over would be protected, or how it might be used by news media businesses.

# Hurting the free services you use

We deeply believe in the importance of news to society. We partner closely
with Australian news media businesses — we already pay them millions of
dollars and send them billions of free clicks every year. We’ve offered to pay
more to license content. But rather than encouraging these types of
partnerships, the law is set up to give big media companies special treatment
and to encourage them to make enormous and unreasonable demands that would put
our free services at risk.

This law wouldn’t just impact the way Google and YouTube work with news media
businesses — it would impact all of our Australian users, so we wanted to let
you know. We’re going to do everything we possibly can to get this proposal
changed so we can protect how Search and YouTube work for you in Australia and
continue to build constructive partnerships with news media businesses — not
choose one over the other.

You’ll hear more from us in the coming days — stay tuned.

~~~
stirlo
It's been highlighted below but the reason this is posted here and up voted is
that Google choose to 404 any requests coming from non Australian IP
addresses.

Hardly seems to be the thing you do when you're acting above board...

~~~
skissane
It turns out there are two URLs for this, one which only works for Australian
IPs, one which works for everybody.

Australia-only URL: [https://about.google/google-in-australia/an-open-
letter/](https://about.google/google-in-australia/an-open-letter/)

Global URL: [https://about.google/intl/ALL_au/google-in-australia/an-
open...](https://about.google/intl/ALL_au/google-in-australia/an-open-letter/)

Alias which redirects to Global URL: [http://g.co/australia-
letter](http://g.co/australia-letter)

However, when I first posted this, Google was showing a message to people
using Google Search in Australia, directing them to the Australia-only URL not
the global one. It appears since then they've changed the popup to use the
global URL.

At first I (and others) worried there may be something intentional and under-
handed in this, now I realise it is probably just some sort of Google-internal
stupidity. Hanlon's razor strikes again

~~~
dang
Changed now. Thanks!

------
skissane
Link that works globally (not just in Australia): [http://g.co/australia-
letter](http://g.co/australia-letter)

@dang, can we change the link on this submission please?

~~~
dang
Yes. Changed from [https://about.google/google-in-australia/an-open-
letter/](https://about.google/google-in-australia/an-open-letter/). Thanks!

------
slater
404\. Got a copy?

~~~
skissane
It appears they've blocked access to it from non-Australian IPs.

Here is the HTML they serve to me:
[https://gist.githubusercontent.com/skissane/05bac6c78d99e359...](https://gist.githubusercontent.com/skissane/05bac6c78d99e359a004e4a4e034048d/raw/1bbf121d720775778270cb40beda2a071afbf1f7/an-
open-letter.html)

Text:

 _Open letter to Australians_

We need to let you know about new Government regulation that will hurt how
Australians use Google Search and YouTube. A proposed law, the News Media
Bargaining Code, would force us to provide you with a dramatically worse
Google Search and YouTube, could lead to your data being handed over to big
news businesses, and would put the free services you use at risk in Australia.

 _The way Aussies search every day on Google is at risk from new regulation_

You’ve always relied on Google Search and YouTube to show you what’s most
relevant and helpful to you. We could no longer guarantee that under this law.
The law would force us to give an unfair advantage to one group of businesses
- news media businesses - over everyone else who has a website, YouTube
channel or small business. News media businesses alone would be given
information that would help them artificially inflate their ranking over
everyone else, even when someone else provides a better result. We’ve always
treated all website owners fairly when it comes to information we share about
ranking. The proposed changes are not fair and they mean that Google Search
results and YouTube will be worse for you.

 _Your Search data may be at risk_

You trust us with your data and our job is to keep it safe. Under this law,
Google has to tell news media businesses “how they can gain access” to data
about your use of our products. There’s no way of knowing if any data handed
over would be protected, or how it might be used by news media businesses.

 _Hurting the free services you use_

We deeply believe in the importance of news to society. We partner closely
with Australian news media businesses — we already pay them millions of
dollars and send them billions of free clicks every year. We’ve offered to pay
more to license content. But rather than encouraging these types of
partnerships, the law is set up to give big media companies special treatment
and to encourage them to make enormous and unreasonable demands that would put
our free services at risk.

This law wouldn’t just impact the way Google and YouTube work with news media
businesses — it would impact all of our Australian users, so we wanted to let
you know. We’re going to do everything we possibly can to get this proposal
changed so we can protect how Search and YouTube work for you in Australia and
continue to build constructive partnerships with news media businesses — not
choose one over the other.

You’ll hear more from us in the coming days — stay tuned.

Thank you, Mel Silva, Managing Director, on behalf of Google Australia

~~~
slater
Nice one, thanks! Maybe also do an archive.is link?

~~~
skissane
archive.is only wants to archive the 404 page.

I think to archive this you need either (a) an archiving service with servers
in Australia or (b) an archiving service that archives it using your browser
(instead of their servers) and then uploads it to their servers.

I can't find any archiving service for which either (a) or (b) is true

~~~
slater
ah, ok

------
andrewstuart
<deleted>

~~~
czardoz
> Google pays a trivial amount of tax here.

Google provides a lot of value with their free products too. Aren't you
discounting that?

~~~
tjpnz
That's debatable but ultimately meaningless when it comes to tax obligations.

------
wombatmobile
Pot. Kettle.

No such thing as a free lunch.

Shoshana Zuboff on surveillance capitalism | VPRO Documentary
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIXhnWUmMvw&t=29s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIXhnWUmMvw&t=29s)

------
paulie_a
Open letter to Google Earth. Fuck off

------
lancewiggs
I am delighted at whatever law is driving that letter and want to lobby to
introduce the same law here in NZ.

~~~
BLKNSLVR
Be careful what you wish for. This law is Australian government protectionism
for the already-corrupt and thankfully dying status quo: the lumbering
dinosaur that is News Corp.

IMHO, what makes it obviously corrupt is that News Corp pays little to no tax
and is owned offshore, and yet the Australian government protects it as if
it's local (whilst at the same time cutting funding from the local news
organisation the ABC).

There's most definitely a void opening up for quality news and media, which is
being filled by social media opinion pieces (which, to be fair, is no
different from what I'm writing here) which are lacking in any of the quality,
research or integrity that news reporting should have.

Having said all that, history shows that what news reporting "should have"
(quality, research, integrity, fact-checking etc.) has been bent in various
directions since the very inception of news media. So what we're getting is
just a changing of the guard as opposed to anything necessarily worse than
before. However, this law the Australian government is attempting to push is a
delaying tactic against the changing of the guard.

It's protecting something that never really existed.

------
perryizgr8
> could lead to your data being handed over to big news businesses

Coming from Google, this is a bit funny. I expect Google to be bigger than the
combined Australian newspaper industry.

------
jp0d
I'd probably trust the Australian govt to protect my data better than Google
or even worse Facebook. The way the article has twisted the words in Google's
favour is commendable though. Marketing really is everything.

~~~
shakna
> I'd probably trust the Australian govt to protect my data better than Google
> or even worse Facebook.

I would not.

The Australian government seems entirely incapable of creating any technical
project of a decent size correctly. The list of disasters is quite long, but a
few from recent memory are ones such as the census website which collapsed
when people tried to use it [0] and the myGov project which has had so many
data breaches [1].

Atop of which, the government's usual response to someone exposing flaws, is
to attack them.

Whilst I don't want Google or Facebook to have my data, because they will use
it in ways I don't appreciate, my government will leak it. And then claim it
wasn't serious and excuse themselves from any repercussions.

[0] [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-12/census-2016-site-
up-a...](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-12/census-2016-site-up-and-
running-in-australia/7722738)

[1] [https://www.smh.com.au/technology/revealed-serious-flaws-
in-...](https://www.smh.com.au/technology/revealed-serious-flaws-in-mygov-
site-exposed-millions-of-australians-private-information-20140514-zrczw.html)

[2]

~~~
ImaCake
I run on the assumption that the government has my data anyway. So it doesn't
really matter whether they get it directly or via google. Since google wants
to target me with ads, I preference removing google as a middle man. Bonus
points for removing the only half-decent excuse for collecting that data
anyway, so now the surveillance state is a bit less defensible.

