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

131–140 of 330 posts

Re: Response to Google open letter

#131

Post by Spivak »

realmod wrote: post #87
RVuRnvbM2e wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

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 wha…

> 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.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#132

Post by sukilot »

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've got it exactly backwards!

Lyrics are copyrighted. Google is the serf here, renting lyrics from musixmatch.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#133

Post by jddj »

clouddrover wrote: post #89
renaicirc wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but funding media giants is obviously not a good reason to extort search giants. What is the nuance that I am missing?

Google gets content and advertising revenue, journalists are not getting enough return for their work. It's not sustainable.

The journalists doing good work would be almost entirely excluded by this law.

This money would go to an organisation which largely peddles outrage and division.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#134

Post by kevincox »

Spivak wrote: post #129
kevincox wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

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…

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.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#135

Post by sidibe »

Spivak wrote: post #131
realmod wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wha…

> 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 surrou…

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

Re: Response to Google open letter

#136

Post by visarga »

docdeek wrote: post #48
mikemotherwell wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That implies Google will change what Australians see vs other countries. No more. No less. Some possibile outcomes: Imagine a page with only foreign results. Plenty of news entities cover Australian news, and a result like this: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=victoria+australia+covid could very easily nix the news box, and any and all Australian news results and content. Google could take the attitude that all Au…

My first thought was that Google would do as per Spain and just stop linking Australian news outlets. However, I was under the impression that the Australian proposition does not allow Google to treat foreign sites differently. Hence, if they carry foreign news they must carry Australian sites - and pay. Or else carry nothing at all.

> I was under the impression that the Australian proposition does not allow Google to treat foreign sites differently. Hence, if they carry foreign news they must carry Australian sites

Why, if they want to carry news from other countries, should they also have to carry Australian news?

Maybe they should just string match all their news results to Australian news so nothing gets through, even if they appear on third party sites (duplicate detection, they had it for years on regular search).

Re: Response to Google open letter

#138

Post by vermilingua »

harryf wrote: post #118
rstuart4133 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 digi…

> 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 algorit…

> On the other hand... why not?

You must be unfamiliar with NewsCorp. This is the cesspool that spawned Fox News, Sky News, and The Sun. That hacked the phones of journalists, celebrities, and royalty just to get a scoop. That routinely and as a core function of business interferes in democratic process. That effectively pioneered fake news, and has singlehandedly destroyed the credibility of the entire media industry.

Why not? Hopefully because you give a single fuck about the rule of law.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#139

Post by sukilot »

justsee wrote: post #126
chrismorgan wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, that’s what the clause (ii) restriction is for.

When you consider the wider legal context, this also makes sense* . This is because Facebook requires page owners to assume all liability for comments. This has resulted in publishers losing defamation cases based on third-party comments made on their posts [1]. * (regardless of whether you feel, as I do, that the proposed legislation is a politically-motivated protection racket for a favoured media mogul) [1] https:…

1. That case isn't finished with appeals and there are already multiple laws in the pipeline to override it.

2. Facebook didn't require publishers to be liable. The court did.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#140

Post by cutemonster »

arethuza wrote: post #33
rsa25519 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Isn't that a basic tactic in political communications: when asked a question provide the answer you want to give not the answer to the question you were asked?

Similar to "strawman" in online forums, right
Post reply on HN