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

71–80 of 330 posts

Re: Response to Google open letter

#71

Post by dlubarov »

zmmmmm wrote: post #40

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 A…

I agree with your other points, but it it seems like the intent of that clause it to require Google to disclose the nature of user data being collected, not the user data itself.

In particular, (a) distinguishes between user data that Google chooses to share and not to share. Technically it seems like one could read (e) as requiring access to both, but then the distinction in (a) wouldn't make sense, so I assume that's not the intent.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#72

Post by RVuRnvbM2e »

shakna wrote: post #62
RVuRnvbM2e wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

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

> 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

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.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#73

Post by 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.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#74

Post by Ivoirians »

RVuRnvbM2e wrote: post #52
threeseed wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How about we simply ban Google and Facebook from reproducing news on their own site? You can. Just add the robots.txt to the website. But the news sites need Facebook/Google more than the other way around.

> But the news sites need Facebook/Google more than the other way around. This is oft-quoted, but the media organisations seemed to be doing better before Google/Facebook became the middle-man siphoning off advertising revenue.

User behavior has changed. Look what happened when a similar law was passed in Spain. Google News pulled out and people stopped visiting Spanish news sites, they didn't flock back to purchasing subscriptions and physical newspapers.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#75

Post by RVuRnvbM2e »

detaro wrote: post #67
RVuRnvbM2e wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > 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.

That doesn't mean that the law explicitly requires that. Just that Google thinks running the service for free might not be viable.

You mean.. because they wouldn't be able to rely on free third-party content anymore?

Re: Response to Google open letter

#76

Post by kdtsh »

zmmmmm wrote: post #40

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 A…

>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.

From Google's open letter: `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.'[1] Note the second part of this statement. This is a very clear statement from Google that, if this code comes into law, their currently free services may begin to incur a charge. The ACCC's statement says, in no unclear terms, that Google is free to do this but that it would not be required by the law - something which is either implied by Google, or presented as their having no other business choice.

>"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).

I can't find where it says this in the document you linked. I can find pieces of it, but you've constructed a statement here which doesn't seem to exist in that form in that document - a fair bit of artistic liberty. If it is in that document, a screenshot would be helpful. Further, does any of this constitute sharing `additional user data with Australian news businesses'?

Let's not mince words: Google is saying that this law affects their bottom line, and they're using their immense platform to say to the users of their free services that Google might charge them if this law is passed. This in itself is an indication of the incredibly uneven playing field present in this particular market - no other company could reach over half of the users of the WWW in Australia with a statement like this[2], in a way which could profoundly impact the process of consultation with interested groups and the passage of this legislation. Whatever you think of this legislation, this is about nothing more than money - the fact that content producers (journalists) aren't getting enough of it, while Google's advertising empire reaps incredible profits.

[1] https://about.google/google-in-australia/an-open-letter/ [2] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/all/australi...

Re: Response to Google open letter

#77

Post by hesarenu »

RVuRnvbM2e wrote: post #70
zmmmmm wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure why you are saying this when every word I cited is literally copied and pasted from the draft legislation? You have cited section 52M(b) as if that is the only clause in that section, ignoring 52M(a) which I have exactly quoted from. Why are you ignoring that subsection?

> I am not sure why you are saying this when every word I cited is literally copied and pasted from the draft legislation? With plenty of ellipses between them, sure! > You have cited section 52M(b) as if that is the only clause in that section, ignoring 52M(a) which I have exactly quoted from. Why are you ignoring that subsection? There is no section 52M(b) or (a). What are you talking about?

52M has 3 sections 1,2,3 which have even further sub-sections.

52M -> 1 -> (a)

information covered by subsection (2) is given to the registered news businesscorporationfor the registered news business; and etc...

52M -> 2 -> (a)

a list andexplanation of the data that the digital platform servicecollects(whether or not it shares the datawith the registered news business)about the registerednews business’users through their engagement with covered news content made available by the digital platform service etc...

Re: Response to Google open letter

#78

Post by mcv »

nocturnial wrote: post #53

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…

Note that this legislation is the direct result of other companies getting involved in the politics business and pushing for this regulation. Google is seeing their business model made impossible and warns for the consequences, as they should, and certainly have the right to do.

Sometimes legislation can make a business model impossible or undesirable. For example, making information available in China with a strong censorship regime. Or in this case, being required to link to news sites while being forced to pay for it. If this loses Google more money than it's worth, they may have to abandon Australia.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#79

Post by kdtsh »

detaro wrote: post #67
RVuRnvbM2e wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > 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.

That doesn't mean that the law explicitly requires that. Just that Google thinks running the service for free might not be viable.

Or that Google thinks that it would be useful for users to think that running the service for free might not be viable.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#80

Post by bananaface »

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…

Hacker News seems like an easy website to game, way easier than Reddit, and people game Reddit all the time. I assume it happens more than we realise.
Post reply on HN