
Response to Google open letter - ajdlinux
https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/response-to-google-open-letter
======
gundmc
> Google will not be required to charge Australians for the use of its free
> services such as Google Search and YouTube, unless it chooses to do so.

> Google will not be required to share any additional user data with
> Australian news businesses unless it chooses to do so.

I don't think Google actually made either of these claims in their letter.

They didn't mention charging for services at all. They said "the free services
you use may be at risk". Given the context, I took that to mean the quality of
the service would tank if they had to share their algorithm changes.

The data portion is a little less clear. Google was very weasel wordy - they
definitely wanted it to sound like they would have to turn over user data, but
if you read carefully they only say they would have to share data about how
they collect the user data.

~~~
rstuart4133
Somehow everyone misses this little gem in the draft bill [0]:

> 52S.(1).(a) ensure that the registered news business corporation is provided
> with flexible content moderation tools that allow the registered news
> business corporation to remove or filter comments on the registered news
> business covered news content that:

> . . (i) are made using the digital platform service;and

> . . (ii) are made on a part of the digital platform service that is set up
> and able to be edited by the registered news business;

> (b) ensure that the registered news business corporation can disable the
> making of such comments;

If I'm reading that correctly, if someone posts a news corporation to
Facebook, the news corporation gets to delete / edit / moderate any Facebook
replies.

I think they (the legislators) have lost the plot.

In another section the draft legislation requires Facebook / Google to notify
the news organisation of changes to their page rank / feed algorithm, and also
provide advice on how to mitigate the effects of those changes.

Google's claim the bill grants news media business special privileges no other
organisation on the planet has is not too far from the truth.

[0]
[https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill...](https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill%20-%20TREASURY%20LAWS%20AMENDENT%20%28NEWS%20MEDIA%20AND%20DIGITAL%20PLATFORMS%20MANDATORY%20BARGAINING%20CODE%29%20BILL%202020.pdf)

~~~
harryf
> In another section the draft legislation requires Facebook / Google to
> notify the news organisation of changes to their page rank / feed algorithm,
> and also provide advice on how to mitigate the effects of those changes.

Interesting.

On the one hand working in software the idea of having communicate changes to
an algorithm like this to 3rd parties gives me nightmares, and opens the door
to regulation of the algorithms design.

On the other hand, given Facebook and Google's monopoly positions, why not?
They're able to make of break businesses overnight by changing the stream of
traffic, and there's basically no real competitors. Perhaps a weak analogy but
if your local government was building a motorway that would bypass your town
high street, effectively wiping out 90%+ of customers to your local shop, they
would inform you months or years ahead so you have at least a chance to change
your business strategy or close shop.

~~~
indigochill
> They're able to make of break businesses overnight by changing the stream of
> traffic

Maybe small businesses wake up to the fact that building the core of their
livelihood on the foundation of a whimsical megacorp is a Bad Idea.

Google attracts businesses to work with them because they make visibility
easy. But if they screw over those same businesses, then maybe the bait isn't
worth taking in the first place? Maybe networking and building your customer
base without Google, in some venue that you have better control over (or is at
least more reliable/transparent) is preferable?

~~~
danielheath
Start from the idea that small business owners aren't actually idiots and
don't spend their time promoting their business on social media because it's
fun.

Cost of customer acquisition isn't comparable without those platforms. Working
harder and still not being price-competitive isn't preferable, even if it
mitigates some future risk.

------
threeseed
They really should stop saying "Australian news media" when they are referring
to commercial entities only.

The fact that the public ABC and SBS media are not allowed to be compensated
says everything about the intent and motivation of this policy.

~~~
hkt
That's.. awful. A Murdoch bill, then.

Do you know if bloggers etc can be compensated?

~~~
pwc
To be eligible for the scheme, the proposed bill requires annual revenues of
at least[0] $150,000 (amongst other things), so I imagine it would exclude
most independent-journalist-running-a-blog situations

[0] see section 52G of the draft bill - [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)

~~~
hkt
Wow, that's vile. So clearly about incumbent media power rather than promoting
diversity.

I wonder if eg wordpress, or ghost, would be able to create a situation for
their hosted blogs in which authors were paid for their content by virtue of
the organisation itself having the minimum level of revenue.

~~~
microcolonel
> _I wonder if eg wordpress, or ghost, would be able to create a situation for
> their hosted blogs in which authors were paid for their content by virtue of
> the organisation itself having the minimum level of revenue._

That would open up a whole other can of worms in terms of liability.

------
jacquesm
When Murdoch and Google duke it out using the Australian people as their human
shield I find nothing to be happy about and plenty to be sad about. Both
parties here are disingenuous about their stated positions, both are rather
cynical in how the perform their negotiations. In the end the public, no
matter what, will end up the loser because neither of these parties has their
best interest at heart. Murdoch just wants money, Google wants to get as much
content as they can for free and meanwhile whatever they agree on will be paid
for by the public in one way or another. This is a disgusting spectacle at
many levels.

~~~
mattoxic
The Australian consumer has already lost. This whole country is an exercise in
trussing up the public and making sure they pay the very most for the very
least.

I've long given up on Australian journalism - at least in the main stream.
Obviously the Murdoch papers are garbage, but the Age and SMH are almost (and
becoming) as appalling. The ABC and SBS have been cowered to the extent that
they jump at their own shadows and now _have_ to include cometary from utter
fuckwits like Gerard Henderson or that vast twit Greg Sheridan lest they
appear biased. It now seems that the ABC almost has to ask permission to
publish a story. The Age was a great newspaper, now it's almost unreadable -
apart form the NYTimes and Wapo stories they run.

Google are not the good guys. They are a rapacious monopoly that have their
shareholders interest at heart, NOT the Google consumer. And in terms of
"trusting them with our data" \- like that's the very least we'd expect from a
product that purports to do this - and they don't do this for free - WE pay
for it.

Like cry me a river Google - like News Corp, they pay fuck all tax in
Australia, and, just like Murdoch, are more than happy to take advertising
from fake news and conspiracy pushers that does nothing but fatten their
profits and damage society.

There is good media out there - Crikey, The Guardian, New Matilda, new Daily
etc, but it isn't mainstream, one has to, dare I say, search for it.

~~~
NamTaf
You and the parent post both sum up my feelings better than I can. We Aussies
are being used as meat in the grinder between two companies that are each
pretty awful in their own ways. I struggle to feel bad for either of them,
really.

Probably the most depressing of all of this is how the ACCC - what has always
been a very closely treasured and respected independent government body - has
been used here as a pawn by the government-media oligarchy. It really soils
all the really good work they've done to give us very robust and fair consumer
laws and protections we enjoy. They've been used as the shitkickers for what
is obviously a Murdoch-driven government play, where (not unlike the Five Eyes
playbook) he hopes to ram through some draconian bullshit here as a proving
ground, to which he can later point in the UK and US for similar laws there.

One of the best decisions I ever made was adding Newscorp's bullshit to my ad
blocker so accidentally clicking URLs to it fails to load. One of the other
best was disconecting myself from Google as much as I have.

~~~
theRandomMoron
Yep, it is offensive that the ACCC would even contribute to this nonsensical
"debate". There is not a shred of preserving Competition in the News Media and
digital landscapes in Australia. There is certainly no way the ACCC has acted
in the interest of the Consumer. This whole debacle serves a few financial and
political interests and works against healthy debate, democracy and the
population's interest.

Access to a variety of editorial positions in the media is not possible for
the average Aussie. Newscorp control the opinions of the country and the
electorate - a balanced view is not within the grasp of Australia anymore,
regardless of how this legislation turns out.

------
shruubi
To fully understand this, it would be a good idea to understand the degree of
influence that the Murdoch media has on the Australian landscape.

Murdoch media owns the vast majority of newspapers across Australia and is
also more or less the only cable TV provider in Australia.

A good highlight of the power the Murdoch press has over Australia would be to
look at the fact that the vast majority of journalists who work in the
Canberra press gallery (parliamentary journalists), work for The Australian or
other Murdoch entities, and have such a stranglehold on political journalism
that it is a commonly accepted truth in Australian journalism that "if you
want to know tomorrows news, read The Australian today."

The real kicker is that the Murdoch presses political biases are not subtle or
secret, they are about as overt and blatant as you can possibly get with The
Australian frequently running full front-page articles trashing one political
party (Labor, the "left" leaning party) and heaping praise on the other
(Liberal/National, the "right" leaning party).

With all of that context, the bill suddenly takes on a slightly more sinister
tone when you realise that it is more or less designed to benefit one man and
his media empire.

------
_-___________-_
The misinformation seems to be in the ACCC letter, since the Google letter [0]
doesn't claim that they'd have to charge for Google Search or Youtube.

Not surprising that they would try to use the current mood regarding tech
companies to defend the government's position though.

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

~~~
hkt
The Google letter pretty clearly makes overtures about "threats" to their free
services.

"Nice free search you got there. Shame if something were to.. happen.. to it."

~~~
stephen_g
Well, that's up to them though. The context of the "shame if something were to
happen to it" quote is about destroying/stealing the other person's property,
or hurting them. That's quite different to stopping providing a service to
them which is currently provided under no compulsion...

Google is trying to say that the law won't make providing a free service
viable. Is that an over-exaggeration? Perhaps. But maybe not...

------
Karupan
Looks like Google has now started showing a popup [0] in Australia which links
to the open letter [1].

[0] [https://i.imgur.com/A3IPkQy.png](https://i.imgur.com/A3IPkQy.png)

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

~~~
jacquesm
Desperately in need of footsoldiers.

~~~
senectus1
yeah my 12 yr old son just got this pop up on his phone. His response was "not
cool Gov.." I had to explain that the situation is actually more complicated
than that and he shouldn't trust one source for the truth.

I think he's starting to understand that there is no good guy here.

------
zmmmmm
This is a very disappointing response from the ACCC. It seems to be extremely
misleading in its own right.

> Google will not be required to charge Australians for the use of its free
> services

Google did not state this. The ACCC - the supposed detached "fair" regulator,
in charge of creating this code, just made something up to suit their own
ends.

> Google will not be required to share any additional user data with
> Australian news businesses

The code [1] literally says:

"The responsible digital platform must ... give information about how the
registered news business corporation can gain access to ... the data that the
digital platform service collects (whether or not it shares the data with the
registered news business)about the registered news business’ users through
their engagement with covered news content made available by the digital
platform service" (Page 10, Section 52M).

The ACCC here is straight up lying. I would like any of the people vocally
defending it here to say what they think about this.

NB: I think it is quite telling that it's quite hard to dig out the _actual_
draft code [1] - they don't seem to link to it in any of their press releases
etc. They actually don't want people to be able to discuss this openly from
what I can tell:

[1]
[https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill...](https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill%20-%20TREASURY%20LAWS%20AMENDENT%20%28NEWS%20MEDIA%20AND%20DIGITAL%20PLATFORMS%20MANDATORY%20BARGAINING%20CODE%29%20BILL%202020.pdf)

~~~
RVuRnvbM2e
> > Google will not be required to charge Australians for the use of its free
> services

> Google did not state this.

Google did say that this legislation would:

> put the free services you use at risk in Australia.

That's implying that either the services would go, or they would no longer be
free.

~~~
detaro
That doesn't mean that the law explicitly requires that.

Just that Google thinks running the service for free might not be viable.

~~~
jacquesm
No, that's just Google's way of trying to mobilize the general public to work
their case for them. A little bit of blackmail.

------
nl
From the ACCC's own release:

 _In addition, the platforms must give news media businesses clear information
about the data they collect through users’ interactions with news on digital
platforms; for example how long users spend on an article, how many articles
they consume in a certain time period, and other information about user
engagement with news content across digital platform services._ [1]

Sure sounds like they have to collect and share user data to me.

[1] [https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/australian-news-
media-...](https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/australian-news-media-to-
negotiate-payment-with-major-digital-platforms)

~~~
RVuRnvbM2e
> Sure sounds like they have to collect and share user data to me.

This seems to be aimed at AMP. News sources get any information that google
collect about users reading the articles. Seems fair.

Google could always not collect that information in the first place if they
wanted to actually take the moral high ground. But of course they won't do
that.

~~~
nl
I doubt that. Don't forget it's FB that also has to pay.

------
Thorentis
Google misrepresenting something which might cut into their profits? Who'd
have thought it?

I hate AMP, and this law might see the death or at least reigning in of it. I
hate the way Google has killed niche websites by scraping their content and
then profiting from it. I hate the way Google says they want to keep user data
safe, while also using that data to increase their ad revenue. Fuck Google.

~~~
rsa25519
> I hate the way Google says they want to keep user data safe, while also
> using that data to increase their ad revenue

Yet, from the perspective of many users, this _is_ keeping their data safe.
Many people I know are completely fine with advertising. In terms of keeping
data safe from being lost, leaked, or hacked, I think Google is probably one
of the safest places out there.

------
infinkaramazov
I'm Australian, and I created an account just to comment on this issue.

Imagine Google News or the Facebook news feed were normal news websites. If
you count their traffic as the amount of times people went to those websites
just to read news, their raw traffic would dwarf any other news website in
Australia by an order of magnitude.

Journalistic websites have editorial standards, and at least some relationship
and commitment to the truth (even the Murdoch ones). A news feed, while
algorithmically generated, is for all intents and purposes the front page of a
newspaper for many, many people.

There is no editor of a news feed. No one checks that what bubbles up to the
top passes basic fact checking standards. Most importantly, there's no
consequences for misinformation and conspiracy theories being on the same
front page as a story about some construction disrupting your commute
tomorrow.

The main gist of the new code of conduct, to me, seems like the ability for
news websites to collectively bargain with a multinational corporation that
essentially controls the news landscape in this country. We aren't the USA.
Our news websites aren't the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Unfortunately, the two biggest are owned by fairly evil companies (Channel
nine and News Corp). Rupert Murdoch himself controls 70% of the Australian
media landscape. When he dies, however, this law will still exist.

We've seen the consequences of a journalistic landscape that exists solely
through social media without any significant independent news sources in
Myanmar in 2015. Australia won't end up like that, but allowing independent
journalism to wither on the vine distorts our ability to participate in
democracy.

As a collective, if every single news organisation decided to go on strike
from Facebook or Google tomorrow, the amount of money advertisers would pay
them would drop off a cliff. Google is scared by this because they know that
the value they give to the consumer is the sum of Australian journalism, a
tasting menu of all the best stuff that newspapers have to offer. Why, then,
shouldn't that sum itself have the ability to bargain against Google and get
itself a better deal?

~~~
kevincox
For Google at least they have the option to opt-out. They can add a robots.txt
file to prevent indexing. It isn't clear to me why special legislation is
required to give the media companies bargaining power. They already have the
power to say no if they don't think the arrangement is fair.

(For facebook it is less clear, because you can't really force people to stop
sharing your links)

~~~
Spivak
Sorta kinda. You can completely opt-out of Google Search entirely but there's
no way to opt-out of having your content excepted while also appearing in
organic search results.

I mean I would be pissed if I was a major news org that saw traffic drop off
because Google is copy-pasting content from my site in their omnibox. This
stuff is extremely good for the user and I rely on it a lot but they should
have to license the content they republish.

~~~
kevincox
Is the "omnibox" a big problem for news? I mostly see it for "facts" as
opposed to recent events. But yes, it would be good to prevent that. However
it seems like this isn't the primary focus of the legislation?

I think it _would_ be very interesting to have a copyright infringement case
on the information pulled into the answer boxes, but I think that is a
separate problem.

------
cblconfederate
I feel like this time it's different , google (and big tech it represents)
will get little sympathy on reddit and other watering holes. Even if the law
seems restricting, it's Google who broke the social contract of the internet
and turned from a benevolent rent-seeker to a feudal lord. (E.g. check this:
[https://www.google.com/search?q=money+for+nothing](https://www.google.com/search?q=money+for+nothing)
, google just pastes the lyrics and there is NO link to read them on the
original site. Even if musixmatch is getting paid , they are made irrelevant
and this is a poisoned pill).

Reading the defenses here in HN, I have become personally partial to
conspiracy theories that too many paid commenters are among the crowd here.

Plus i don't get what the fuss is about google news. I don't think it's used
much outside the US, and even these websites aren't just going to lose all
their traffic, because people are addicted to news. They 'll be partly
visiting local websites more often, and this shift may actualy be enough to
revive the income-starved journalism profession.

~~~
ImaCake
>conspiracy theories that too many paid commenters are among the crowd here

I think HN just has a large pro-google crowd. I remember it used to be
everyone loved google. So it shouldn't be a surprise that one of the remaining
bastions of google public support would be a silicon valley startup community.

I suspect a lot of people outside Australia are unaware of how respected an
institution the ACCC is. Maybe that is why they are so quick to discount their
response here.

~~~
wokwokwok
Mmm... Stereotype much? I see why you don’t mind the newscorp news.

Then ACCC is far from in the right here; this seems to be being driven by
political motivations, not some motivation to do the best for Australia /
Australians.

The ACCC has plenty of opportunity to explain _why_ it’s better this way, and
don’t seem to have clearly articulated it.

“Better for democracy” or “better for newscorp”? You tell me; why the ABC and
SBS are excluded from this?

...because that’s what the government wants. The ACCC Looks increasingly like
it’s just a mouthpiece.

~~~
ImaCake
>Mmm... Stereotype much? I see why you don’t mind the newscorp news.

I don't like the newscorp news actually. But it is revealing that you would
think this. One might suspect we just have different views on who should be
controlling things in this case. I am not as confident as I suspect you might
be about who should be controlling media access. But I think google is being
very disingenious in their letter, and the ACCC seems far less so.

------
specialist
For the health of society, all recommender algorithms have to be daylighted.
For a start.

Yes, the gamification will be terrible. So what? Is maximal advertising
revenue for monopolies societally important?

Every other efficient open market is heavily regulated. Accountability,
transparency, fair play, information symmetry, prohibit self-dealing &
conflicts of interest, tort, etc.

Right now we can't even imagine applying casino level scrutiny to social
media.

What's so special about social media that it doesn't warrant some hygiene,
some guard rails?

~~~
esrauch
> Yes, the gamification will be terrible. So what? Is maximal advertising
> revenue for monopolies societally important?

I don't really see how gamification being terrible will only cause ad revenue
to drop. Surely it will also make the results worse and less relevant to you?

As in, if SEO spam managed to take over the top results of major queries, it
doesn't just drop ad revenue but actually makes Search suck, right?

~~~
specialist
How could future results be any worse?

~~~
esrauch
I actually don't see how "gamification" (adversarial websites exploiting
loopholes in ranking) can even result in making ad revenue lower excepting the
scenario where it makes Search itself less useful and therefore less used
overall?

~~~
specialist
IDK. My prediction: Ad revenue peaked. COVID-19 is accelerating the decline.
Google and others switched strategies to engagement and "rundles".

------
ferros
This media release is confusing.

It was almost as if somebody said you need to put out a press release so find
something to put in it, rather than we have something really important to say
so we must put out a press release.

Who is making these decisions?

------
shirro
A small number of media owners control old media in Australia. There is a
single national newspaper and most cities have a single daily. They are
generally owned by the same person. That person flies in people at election
time to aggressively campaign for the government of their choice. This only
makes sense if there is some quid pro quo. I have no love for Facebook or
Google but the Australian government does what it must to keep favour with
media proprietors or risk toxic campaigns against them.

------
r0m4n0
I’m just curious if anyone knows... does this specifically call out Google or
does this also potentially have implications for other news aggregators that
work in a similar way? Could this also target reddit or even hacker news?

I couldn’t find where they define the platform that is Google.

~~~
dlubarov
The draft doesn't name Google or Facebook, but 52C gives the Treasurer the
ability to deem specific corporations and services "designated digital
platform corporations/services", and they have announced that Google and
Facebook will be the initial targets. E.g. in the explanatory materials,

> In the first instance, the Government has announced that the mandatory code
> of conduct will apply to Facebook and Google. However, the Treasurer may
> also make subsequent instruments in the future designating other platforms
> where fundamental bargaining power imbalances with Australian news
> businesses emerge.

------
microcolonel
This response does not respond to the claims made in the open letter. The bill
as drafted is pure corporate rent-seeking, and appears to serve no genuine
public good.

------
shusson
TLDR:

\- google has monopoly on search results.

\- traditional news companies not making enough money, blame google.

\- Australian government decides it knows what is best, regulate the monopoly.

I would love to hear some input from actual journalists. It's telling that in
the whole 29 page draft, journalist is mentioned twice and consumer(as a
natural person) is mentioned once[1]. From the draft, I don't get the feeling
the Australian government is really interested in a healthy news media sector
but rather, making the existing news media sector happy.

[1]
[https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill...](https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill%20-%20TREASURY%20LAWS%20AMENDENT%20%28NEWS%20MEDIA%20AND%20DIGITAL%20PLATFORMS%20MANDATORY%20BARGAINING%20CODE%29%20BILL%202020.pdf)

------
aplummer
> This will address a significant bargaining power imbalance between
> Australian news media businesses and Google and Facebook.

This is so untrue. News Corp is easily the most powerful political entity in
Australia. It’s not a stretch to say they pick prime ministers.

------
thu2111
I'm very curious how this law wouldn't violate various free trade deals
Australia has struck.

Surely a tax that explicitly names only foreign companies is the opposite of
free trade?

Sure, China has driven a truck through the whole concept of the WTO over
decades and so I doubt anything will happen. Free trade deals are very much
toothless, on the assumption that they are supposed to make sense on their own
terms so enforcement is not required. But I can see the USA especially if
Trump wins a second term deciding that Australia should be trade sanctioned
for discrimination against US businesses. The White House won't want to see
tech firms become piggybanks for failed industries and economies around the
world.

~~~
loktarogar
"Pay for what you use" isn't a tax. Also, AFAIK the government gets none of
this money, but I might be wrong on that.

~~~
vermilingua
The government gets this money back in a) “business lunches”, gifts, etc; b)
guaranteed industry “jobs” when their political careers end, which is far in
the future due to; c) endless re-elections, as the entire media in this
country exists as a Liberal Party PR firm.

------
rbg246
It might have the unintended social positive of Google not indexing or
allowing people to link to news limited on their services.

------
harryf
> A healthy news media sector is essential to a well-functioning democracy.

This part at the end is interesting. If this fight goes down that rabbit hole,
bearing in mind filter bubbles, Cambridge Analytica etc. it may lead to a
discussion worth having

------
RVuRnvbM2e
Google is totally in the wrong here, and ACCC is doing its usual good work of
protecting the Aussie consumer. It's interesting to watch Google try to squirm
out of this though - they probably see it for the precedent it is.

Google relies heavily on third-party content that they don't pay for in search
results. If this law forces them to negotiate payment for that practice then
I'm all for it.

~~~
dannyr
I mean it's a search engine so it should rely heavily on third-party content
in its search results.

Google links to these news sites in search results and drives traffic to them.

If Google grabs significant parts of news articles that users don't need to
visit the sites, then Google should pay them. But Google is not doing that.

~~~
RVuRnvbM2e
> If Google grabs significant parts of news articles that users don't need to
> visit the sites, then Google should pay them. But Google is not doing that.

So what is AMP then?

~~~
shakna
The news site giving Google the article. As much as I dislike AMP... Google
aren't the ones creating the AMP page.

~~~
RVuRnvbM2e
> While AMP itself isn't a ranking factor, speed is a ranking factor for
> Google Search.

[https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/about-
amp](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/guides/about-amp)

It's pretty blatantly the case that AMP provides a SEO boost. What hosting
service could possibly compete with the speed at which Google can retrieve
content from their _own_ servers?

That's the whole point of this legislation: to give news orgs means to stop
Google from twisting their arm in this way.

~~~
realmod
Literally ANY content delivery network would be able to compete with google.
AMP sites are sites that the companies themselves build for google(could be
any cdn) to just cache.

The news organizations themselves gains a lot from google crawling and
indexing their sites (which do cost google money) and now this legislation
would also require google to pay them for displaying the title/subtitle of
their articles. In what world is that fair or balancing out the relationship?

~~~
Spivak
> would also require google to pay them for displaying the title/subtitle of
> their articles. In what world is that fair or balancing out the
> relationship?

This is _not_ what the legislation is about. This is about Google's practice
of excerpting the actual content of the articles and putting it at the top of
the page. Google is algorithmically republishing copyrighted content from
these news orgs and hoping that surrounding it in quotes is enough to protect
them.

~~~
sidibe
You are ignoring that whether the snippets are shown is already entirely up to
the news orgs. In fact I think they're the ones that decide what's in the
snippets

------
vermilingua
> A healthy news media sector is essential to a well-functioning democracy.

This feels like a slap in the face. Whoever wrote this would be fully aware
that our media sector is anything but healthy, and that our “democracy”
flatlined years ago.

I can only imagine that this was written by a committee that was sinking beers
and laughing their asses off as they watched this post go live.

~~~
marcusverus
Why are you air-quoting Australian democracy? Aussies have one of the
healthiest democracies in the world--9th out of 167 ranked countries according
to the EUI annual 'Democracy Index'.[0]

Is it posh to pretend to be misrepresented and/or oppressed nowadays?

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Democracy_Inde...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Democracy_Index_by_country_2019)

~~~
vermilingua
Do you live in Australia, or follow Australian politics?

If not, it may interest you to know that we once had a carbon tax. It wasn’t
stalled in the house or amended into nonexistence like a lot of politically
charged law, but was _repealed_. The influence that the coal industry
(leveraged by NewsCorp) has in this country is insane.

It may also interest you to know that Kevin Rudd, a previous prime minister,
was (is) the subject of a relentless smear campaign on the part of NewsCorp.
He was removed from power not by an election, but via a leadership spill
brought on by the pressure exerted by Murdoch.

It may _also_ interest you to investigate how our second wave of COVID-19 is
being reported in Australian media. The second wave began in Federally funded
and operated aged care facilities; however has been branded entirely as the
“Melbourne wave”, pinning the blame on the Labour Party (the opposition to the
party controlling the federal govt) and its state leader.

We _are_ misrepresented. The Democracy Index is published by The Economist.
They may not be owned by NewsCorp, but you can be damn sure they feel their
gaze.

~~~
0xy
The Labor party you speak of issued full-throated endorsements of metadata
retention legislation as well as the encryption ban.

Forgive me for not picking up the violin.

~~~
vermilingua
Oh I know they’re far from blameless, when my (Labour) MP voted in favour of
that bill I was furious and she knew it.

I’m not trying to defend Labour in any way, but you’d have to be wilfully
ignorant to not see the persistent assault on the party by our entire media;
and more so to not see that it’s working.

~~~
0xy
Why would you go to bat for an anti-encryption mass surveillance party despite
it being against your morals?

They deserve everything they get for not representing a viable alternative. In
2020, it's not enough to be 98% the same as the other party with a few
differences in policy minutiae.

If they get dragged by the media, good. They deserve worse after betraying the
entire tech industry repeatedly.

~~~
vermilingua
...remember when I said wilfully ignorant?

Because, we are in a two party system (practically if not technically). You
seem to be glossing over the fact that the Liberal Party, who is the
beneficiary of NewsCorps fuckery, are who introduced the AABill.

Labour, yes, betrayed not only the tech industry but the whole Australian
public; but not out of malice, but because they’re spineless sycophants who
didn’t want to look like they’re protecting terrorists.

I know they say not to feed the trolls, but at least pretend to stay on topic.

------
phuongpp
hihi

------
mattoxic
Side issue, but... maybe Google can pay some tax in this country as a first
step.

~~~
pb7
How much tax does News Corp, for whom this law is designed for, pay?

------
nocturnial
Let's put aside whether Google had justified concerns about this
legalislation.

What's more appriopriate? Having a company incite the people in a foreign
country to change laws or do it using diplomacy using experts in your state
departement?

We are only talking about allied countries to the US because google doesn't do
this with, for example, china, russia, north korea, etc...

I'm NOT advocating they should do this with those countries. Rather they
should get out of the politics business or accept the regulations that come
with it.

~~~
stephen_g
Problem is, once you get to a certain size, it's almost impossible to just
"stay out of the politics" \- because other companies won't stay out of it.
The whole reason this bill exists is because another American multinational
company that pays no tax in Australia and owns 70% of the readership of
Australian news media is very effective in its politics. And they didn't do it
by telling the public to ask for it - they have close ties with politicians,
they give favourable coverage, they take all the Government's leaks and
publish anonymously, they will minimise stories the Government doesn't want
published...

------
jay_kyburz
This whole thing is really weird. We're bending over backwards to try and
accommodate Google being allowed to profit from other peoples content. How
about we simply ban Google and Facebook from reproducing news on their own
site?

And if we are truly believe "A healthy news media sector is essential to a
well-functioning democracy." we need to punish both Google and content
creators for publishing things that are demonstrably false. Fake News in
otherwords.

~~~
fungi
> How about we simply ban Google and Facebook from reproducing news on their
> own site?

News Corp is and always has been free to not have its content on Google
([https://www.robotstxt.org/](https://www.robotstxt.org/)). But that's not
what they want, they want a Money just for appearing in search results. Seems
more like a rent seeking for News Corp.

> We're bending over backwards to try and accommodate Google

The funny/bizzare bit is we are bending over backwards to accommodate 2
multinational American corporate monopolies that don't even pay tax in this
country.

~~~
Krisando
re: bananaface

> I don't like the news media but they can't just "not appear" on Google's
> results. Google has way more leverage than them. Their choices are: accept
> Google stealing your content and giving you some traffic in return, or die.
> It's like saying, "you're free not to farm on your feudal overlord's land."
> Where else are you going to go?

>

> The problem isn't a matter of rights, it's that Google has too much power.
> Individuals can't exert any leverage, they have to accept Google's terms. I
> don't think that's healthy, it's quite dangerous actually. The only way to
> address that is a collective intervention.

The leverage is that you stop using Google to get news, no?

~~~
mrep
Stealing your content? A quick google search for "Australia news law" shows a
top stories box with just a headline and a thumbnail. Similar thing with the
news tab adds but it adds on about another 20 words from the first paragraph.
Which part of that would you prefer them not to show?

Also, I did not see a single ad on either of those pages nor can I recall ever
seeing ads when I was looking for news on google. The only money they are
probably even making from news is when they send you to a news website that
happens to use googles ad services and that's a symbiotic relationship. Even
with collective bargaining, I cannot see this going any other way than how it
did in germany or spain with either no fee or just delisting all news.

------
cwhiz
I am for any law or policy that hurts Google. And I really don’t care whether
it’s fair or unfair.

I’m not sure any two companies have caused more worldwide carnage, in the
history of the world, than FB and Google.

~~~
Quarrel
This is an idiotic attitude when the law is purely for the purposes of
benefiting NewsCorp, who have surely done even worse.

If it gave consumers a better outcome, then maybe, but it won't.

~~~
cwhiz
It’s not about choice. It’s about destroying Google as a company. They are a
spyware business that have destabilized the entire internet economy.

