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...
Google: Open Letter to Australians
91–100 of 437 posts
Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians
#92Link 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…
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 Try it for a month and see if you prefer it.
I have turned off personalization for several years now. I prefer it off, though admittedly I adblock, and block thumbnails etc...
Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians
#93And 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…
> 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 th…
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).
Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians
#94> 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.
Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians
#95I'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.
Considering Google and Facebook are willing participants in PRISM [1] it can't be any worse [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)#M...
> The actual collection process is done by the Data Intercept Technology Unit (DITU) of the FBI, which on behalf of the NSA sends the selectors to the U.S. internet service providers, which were previously served with a Section 702 Directive. Under this directive, the provider is legally obliged to hand over (to DITU) all communications to or from the selectors provided by the government.
Being legally compelled to provide data isn't the same as being 'willing'.
Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians
#96I'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.
The government that mandates backdoors in every software product? That government?[1] 1. https://www.wired.com/story/australia-encryption-law-global-...
While I vocally opposed that piece of legislation (and are included in the public comments collection), that is not an accurate description of the law. The government that can force you to add backdoors in certain circumstances, and you cannot tell people about it. Yes that is utterly abhorrent, but that isn't the same as "government mandated backdoors in every software product" -- though funnily enough, the US Senate actually did try to pass a law like that in June[1].
[1]: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/senates-new-anti-encry...
Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians
#97Link 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…
> This sounds great to me
Keep in mind, this is not motivated by your interests and has nothing in it that is there to help them. It's based on an a priori assumption that old media is good for consumers interests and all of the benefits it provides are directed to a newly invented category of "registered news businesses" which will have special rules. So no, you're not going to find out changes to algorithmic ranking in advance, nor will you get information about how and when Google collect information on you. It'll be provided to Rupert Murdoch, but not you nor anyone who doesn't qualify as a large media conglomerate.
Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians
#98I 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...
nope, Google doesn't give a shit about that. They just hate having to pay for displaying content from news media.
Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians
#99Link 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…
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 Try it for a month and see if you prefer it.
Yep, I have my main search engine on personal laptop switched to DuckDuckGo. Guess what, more often I just end up typing '!g' for finding something relevant.
For US, DDG still is fine I guess for basic results like local websites. If you are traveling to other countries, notice that DDG will often give very bad results for queries with local relevance.
I ran away from data collection and personalisation at the start of the last decade, but I often these days leave it on, because it just makes my life easier. Another example would be Google Photos, where letting Google run my photos through algos is very convenient because the simple feature of searching by visual context works like magic. The young privacy freak me would have been horrified if he knew this.
Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
In theory yes, but in reality the Australian-owned megacorps are all owned by a single person, and every single one of the media outlets they control endlessly pushes the political message of just one side. So although they're "Australian owned", they're very far from good "neutral" sources of information. (Source: am Australian) EDIT: For those wondering, it's like virtually all of Australia's media being run by Rus…
Fairfax has always provided a counter to newscorp and there's no reason this funding wouldn't be available to any new players that wanted to start up.
There is no Fairfax since 2018, and even then Gina Reinhart owned 20% then. Now, it's channel 9, and having Peter Costello at the helm. So... Yeah, we don't really have a balanced or neutral media landscape. The ABC, The Guardian and a small selection of boutique papers and websites are alone in putting journalism before explicit political narratives now. And well, even the first two in that list heavily rely on clickbait and lazy opinion pieces to pad of the content.