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

141–150 of 330 posts

Re: Response to Google open letter

#141

Post by CuriouslyC »

bananaface wrote: post #80
ImaCake wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I don't know that it's easier to game so much as people don't tend to spew toxic garbage when they suspect someone is gaming them. There's decorum.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#142

Post by visarga »

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.

I don't think Google News displays ads on result pages, just the title + thumbnail. Why should they pay for displaying these links when they don't earn anything on them, it doesn't make business sense.

As for news discovered by regular search, I think that is different because the user has to input specific search keywords and restrict to recent results. The difference is about intention and recurring visits.

The situation seems similar to the Google Books fiasco, where we didn't end up with a searchable online library of out of print books. Lots of arguments were raised back then as now, but the bottom line was that everyone tried to do good for himself and we all got less - the prisoner's dilemma in action.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#143

Post by kmeisthax »

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…

I'm more suspicious of the fact that the tech community shat all over the EU Copyright Directive, calling the EUCD's news aggregation rights a "link tax", when the ACCC's proposed code goes further and stricter than EUCD Article 15.

Either techies suddenly think that the EU was right, their opinion of Google massively cratered in a year and a half's time, or they have an unreasonable love affair with Australian news companies.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#144

Post by indigochill »

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…

> They're able to make of break businesses overnight by changing the stream of traffic

Maybe small businesses wake up to the fact that building the core of their livelihood on the foundation of a whimsical megacorp is a Bad Idea.

Google attracts businesses to work with them because they make visibility easy. But if they screw over those same businesses, then maybe the bait isn't worth taking in the first place? Maybe networking and building your customer base without Google, in some venue that you have better control over (or is at least more reliable/transparent) is preferable?

Re: Response to Google open letter

#145

Post by readarticle »

subroutine wrote: post #29
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

To the Musixmatch index page, not the actual page they’ve sourced the lyrics from, thus: there is NO link to read them on the original site., merely a link to find them yourself.

Clicking “Full Lyrics” also just leads you to another google page. With another link to Musixmatch’s index page at the bottom, not the actual lyrics page.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#146

Post by harryf »

vermilingua wrote: post #138
harryf wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 industr…

I'm well aware of NewsCorp, having grown up in the UK and seen them basically decide every election since perhaps Thatcher.

Despite that, this particular point in the draft legislation in an interesting idea, at least to discuss. "Why Not?" was short for "Why not require Google and Facebook to inform affected businesses when they're making changes to their ranking algorithms?" ... that's a discussion that can be had independently from NewsCorp

Re: Response to Google open letter

#147

Post by ragona »

rstuart4133 wrote: post #36
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…

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…

No, it’s to address “oh well we CAN’T moderate our platform we didn’t build those tools and we couldn’t find any engineers so I guess we’re just stuck then eh??”

Re: Response to Google open letter

#148

Post by marcusverus »

vermilingua wrote: post #31

> A healthy news media sector is essential to a well-functioning democracy. This feels like a slap in the face. Whoever wrote this would be fully aware that our media sector is anything but healthy, and that our “democracy” flatlined years ago. I can only imagine that this was written by a committee that was sinking beers and laughing their asses off as they watched this post go live.

Why are you air-quoting Australian democracy? Aussies have one of the healthiest democracies in the world--9th out of 167 ranked countries according to the EUI annual 'Democracy Index'.[0]

Is it posh to pretend to be misrepresented and/or oppressed nowadays?

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Democracy_Inde...

Re: Response to Google open letter

#149

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

clouddrover wrote: post #56
nl wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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/…

It's about funding journalism. What's Mike Cannon-Brooke's solution for funding journalism?

Could do like the UK does with the BBC and fund it via ordinary taxes. It seems like a relatively simple solution.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#150

Post by shusson »

TLDR:

- google has monopoly on search results.

- traditional news companies not making enough money, blame google.

- Australian government decides it knows what is best, regulate the monopoly.

I would love to hear some input from actual journalists. It's telling that in the whole 29 page draft, journalist is mentioned twice and consumer(as a natural person) is mentioned once[1]. From the draft, I don't get the feeling the Australian government is really interested in a healthy news media sector but rather, making the existing news media sector happy.

[1] https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill...

Post reply on HN