Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Response to Google open letter

accc.gov.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 330 posts

Re: Response to Google open letter

#21

Post by 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.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#22

Post by aahortwwy »

cblconfederate wrote: post #8
threeseed wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The license is basically a death sentence (or alternatively a fragile lifeline) if the lyrics page is not being linked to. Former content producers for the open web have turned to content producers for Google. This is how serfdom works

You could've chosen a better example of "content producers for the open web" than lyrics websites. Musixmatch didn't write Money For Nothing.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#23

Post by RVuRnvbM2e »

nl wrote: post #17

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…

> 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.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#24

Post by Jaxkr »

pwc wrote: post #19
hkt wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Thanks for sharing. An explicit revenue minimum... incredible how blatant this legislation is. Not about supporting journalism at all.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#25

Post by 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

Re: Response to Google open letter

#26

Post by extropy »

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…

The bill says Google needs to make available "a list and explanation of the data the digital platform service collects".

This is quite ambiguous if it is just a collection policy or the data itself. I can see Google being fired up about that but should be something that can be clarified ( there is public consultation going on ) not whined about.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#27

Post by loktarogar »

hkt wrote: post #12
_-___________-_ 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."

Yeah. The Google letter insinuates a lot. The ACCC just said "it's not going to be a problem unless Google makes it a problem". No more uncertainty.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#28

Post by vermilingua »

ImaCake wrote: post #16
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…

> how respected an institution the ACCC is

Maybe we’ve been living in different Australias, but over the last decade the ACCC (like virtually every other public institution) has become yet another mouthpiece for the government.

From their attacks on solar, their constant support of “traditional media” (Murdoch), and their utter ineptitude to actually protect individual consumers, any respect left is there through inertia alone.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#29

Post by subroutine »

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…

For me, there is a link...

    Lyrics
    Now look at them yo-yo's that's the way you do it
    You play the guitar on the MTV
    That ain't workin' that's the way you do it
    Money for nothin' and chicks for free… More
    Source: https://www.musixmatch.com
    © Straitjacket Songs Ltd., Gm Sumner

Re: Response to Google open letter

#30

Post by loktarogar »

thu2111 wrote: post #21

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…

"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.
Post reply on HN