Response to Google open letter • Hacker News Board

Re: Response to Google open letter

#11

Post by nl » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 9:47 AM UTC

cblconfederate wrote: post #3

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 , google just pastes the lyrics and there is NO link to read the…

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

What do you mean? It's a ridiculous, arbitrary money grab used to fund old the old media mates of politicians.

See Mike Cannon Brooke's (as someone who most definitely isn't getting paid by Google) thread to see how insane the rules are:

https://twitter.com/mcannonbrookes/status/128913303821591347...

https://twitter.com/mcannonbrookes/status/128914438106094387...

Re: Response to Google open letter

#12

Post by hkt » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 9:48 AM UTC

_-___________-_ wrote: post #4

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...

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."

Re: Response to Google open letter

#13

Post by rsa25519 » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 9:48 AM UTC

gundmc wrote: post #6

> 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 ser…

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

Agreed. And because this ACCC response doesn't link to the letter, I think these rebuttals to non-existent claims are deceptively misleading

Re: Response to Google open letter

#14

Post by JimWestergren » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 9:49 AM UTC

threeseed wrote: post #7

cblconfederate wrote: post #3

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 , google just pastes the lyrics and there is NO link to read the…

Google's lyrics are licensed from Musixmatch. They are not scraping them from websites who as always are completely free to exempt themselves from searches via the sitemap.xml file.

>exempt themselves from searches via the sitemap.xml file

Nitpick: you mean meta noindex and/or robots.txt

Re: Response to Google open letter

#15

Post by ferros » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 9:49 AM UTC

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?

Re: Response to Google open letter

#16

Post by ImaCake » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 9:50 AM UTC

cblconfederate wrote: post #3

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 , google just pastes the lyrics and there is NO link to read the…

>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.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#17

Post by nl » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 9:51 AM UTC

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-...

Re: Response to Google open letter

#18

Post by rsa25519 » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 9:52 AM UTC

Thorentis wrote: post #2

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.

> 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.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#19

Post by pwc » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 9:53 AM UTC

hkt wrote: post #9

threeseed wrote: post #5

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.

That's.. awful. A Murdoch bill, then. Do you know if bloggers etc can be compensated?

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...

Re: Response to Google open letter

#20

Post by RVuRnvbM2e » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 9:55 AM UTC

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.