Live data from Hacker News

Google: Open Letter to Australians

about.google

351–360 of 437 posts

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#351

Obviously the Australian government is trying to make google pay just because Murdoch told it to. But the pretense is bizarre - that google has to pay Murdoch because it steals his content. Google doesn't republish News Corp content! It just lists headlines with URLs that readers click to go through to News Corp! Google is giving News Corp 70% of its traffic. Bizarre. What's to stop google from simply ceasing to inde…

> But the pretense is bizarre - that google has to pay Murdoch because it steals his content.

That's not exactly the pretext. The Australian regulation is being proposed under the office of competition; it's effectively a proposed anti-trust regulation.

It's not alleging that Google is engaging in some sort of copyright infringement or "theft" of proprietary News Corp property, but rather that it's abusing its market position.

From some of the terms of the proposed law (namely information regarding treatment of paywalls and coverage of news-adjacent content like sports), I think that one claim to unfairness is "Google makes it hard for News Corp to have a profitable paywall because it directs people to other sources." That's not particularly convincing to me, but I'm not an Australian regulator.

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#352

Google evil etc etc aside, they have been decent custodians of their users data. I don't really want to trust Google, but they behave much better than the Australian government, who recently admitted they spy on their citizens [0], can coerce citizens and companies to install backdoors into their companies software [1]. I trust Murdoch less than the government, and much much less than Google. Remember when Murdoch in…

> they have been decent custodians of their users data.

I very strongly disagree. I will explain below, but first want to comment on:

> but they behave much better than the Australian government

Yes, sure, I agree. But this is a function of impact, to me. A government has much greater ability to negatively impact me than a corporation does, in that a government can outright decide to murder or imprison me, while it would take much greater effort for a corporation to do so.

So, yes, of course I trust Google more than I do any government.

But, with that said, as far as companies having my data go, Google is exactly the company I don't want to have my data. Here's why:

Why do we care if any company has our data? I think (at least for me, personally), two reasons immediately spring to mind: the data could leak to criminals who will use it to try and defraud or blackmail me, and the company might sell my data.

But why do I care if companies sell my data? If its just those two reasons, then it really just boils down to increasing the risk of hacks/leaks, but that doesn't sound like the complete picture to me. No, I also care about a company itself directly misusing my data, not just selling it to someone else (why would they want it?). So we need to define what we mean by "misusing".

For me, it means using the data against me, which, in the case of companies, typically means using it to psychologically trick me into giving them money. This is exactly the business Google is in. Their bread and butter is in figuring out ways of making me click on adverts in order to spend money on something I wouldn't otherwise have (or would have bought elsewhere). Google's entire business is built around the very reason I don't want companies to have or sell my data!

Of course Google tries to put a positive spin on it, like they are only trying to show me the most relevant things based on my interests, in order to tell me about things I didn't know about but want to know about. I don't buy it for a minute. As long as Google show me adverts for (or even have them on their platform) outright scams[1], malware or exploitative garbage like Raid Shadow Legends, I cannot believe their motives are anything but to do whatever makes consumers pay their clients money (so that they in turn keep spending money on Google). If that happens to match up with something that benefits the consumer, great, but if it also happens to be detrimental to consumers, Google doesn't care. The very fact that they willfully keep serving adverts (and don't have a way to report them, certainly don't act on reports) for actual blatant SCAMS and fraud, malware and exploitative content is proof of this.

So, no, Google have not been decent custodians of their users data, they are the very company we want to protect our data from in the first place. The fact that there are worse actors does not change that.

[1] Recent HN post about this very subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24175924

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#353
post #336
post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds completely contrary to the concept of a free press. If the government gets to decide access to news, then independent checks on the government can become impossible. It would be the end of a free press. This is absolutely a big problem with democracy: on the one hand, it requires a free press to inform voters about the state of the country and the government, but on the other hand, there's no way to guara…

What I meant was not that a democratic government has to be the free press, but that I has to keep laws, checks, balances and regulation to ensure that free press is possible. And that a government is a better candidate to enable and ensure free press than a private entity: we can see this in action in e.g. China where either Google keeps away from, or companies self-censor to grab some Chinese cash. Sorry for the co…

I don't quite understand what you mean. Are you saying that the Chinese situation, where the government is the entity that decides on access to the news, is a good one?

I think it's vitally important that press can exist and publish completely independently from the government. Yes, that does mean there need to be laws protecting the press from censorship and subtler forms of manipulation. But this particular piece of regulation looks like it's going to hurt access to the press by forcing Google News out of the country.

Furthermore, it sounds like only large news corporations can get money from this, which makes me wonder what that means for independent journalists and small news publications.

(Admittedly fake news is a big problem, but so is a government deciding what is true and what is false.)

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#354
post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't really want to trust Google, but they behave much better than the Australian government, If you ignore who does it worst in pracice, the most important argument becomes apparent: The Austrialian government is a democratically assigned entity; one that has (or should have?) checks and balances in place; one that is closely monitored as your various references prove. Google, a foreign private entity has no su…

So what? Democracy isn’t a sacrament, it doesn’t sanctify the government. Hitler was democratically elected. Democracy does not have moral valence as such.

Hitler wasn't elected, in fact the Weimar Republic was mostly incapable of forming a working government during the time it existed. Like many before him Hitler was assigned his position in the hope that his failure to uphold his promises would also cripple his support in the population. His biggest grab for power was underlined by armed SA troops in the Reichstag, a lot of imprisoned or outright missing politicians and Göring fudging the attendance count to meet the minimum requirements for a legitimate vote.

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>corrupt entities in Australia They have also seriously damaged the media in the US and the UK. Its no wonder all 3 countries are having serious issues with news.

That's an anglo-centric perception. Which countries has Google News been banned in? Spain. China. Germany briefly until Google told the news orgs they'd never pay, so could license their content for free or disappear from News and search. Newspapers trying to screw Google out of money by pressuring politicians is not an Australia or News Corp specific problem. It's happening everywhere. Really, all it reveals is how…

I don't know why this gets a so downvoted, it's correct. There was/is a huge pressure made by French and German media owners.

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#356
What we see here is a final rebellion of the big media companies worldwide. In Germany we have seen something similar. In the end, it's highway robbery: Google is made to pay to the mediacorp, but it is not allowed to de-index them either.

Perfect scenario – you've succesfully made a cashcow! Google is by far not the good guy here, but rest assured, I hope all those big media outlets burn.

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#357
From the letter:

    > We’ve always treated all website owners fairly when it comes to information we share about ranking.
Really? https://twitter.com/methode/status/1166643751659429888

    > The law would force us to give an unfair advantage to one group of businesses - news media businesses - over everyone else who has a website, YouTube channel or small business
Google is concerned it can no longer pick winners and losers. I don't prefer News Corp, obviously, but it's just lies lies lies on both sides trying to control money funnels.

I assume google has other knobs like just making advertising in .au super expensive (they have a monopoly on that side too) but the battle will end up being bloody.

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#358
post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some things just never discussed. Do Australians sign a contract when they are born agreeing to the laws imposed on them, or do they sign a contract when they reach 18 years of age agreeing to the laws of the land or is Australia like every other patch of land on this planet bar the Polar regions, which dictates its laws and penalties just like every other dictatorship thats existed past and present? I'm su…

I’m not saying this post is by a Russian troll. I’m just saying it’s so incoherently angry, so full of irrelevant heat and devoid of useful information, that it might as well be.

Too true the thought crossed my mind but it provides an opportunity to make your own point in reply.

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#359
post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't really want to trust Google, but they behave much better than the Australian government, If you ignore who does it worst in pracice, the most important argument becomes apparent: The Austrialian government is a democratically assigned entity; one that has (or should have?) checks and balances in place; one that is closely monitored as your various references prove. Google, a foreign private entity has no su…

On the other hand, the government is a true monopoly (for good reason) so you can't just stop being their "customer" whenever you like. You may end up spending your entire life oppressed by your fellow citizens who may be indifferent towards your needs. So I think there is a good reason for not having the government directly run everything. It wouldn't even mean democratic control over everything. It would mean burea…

Turns out it's surprisingly hard to stop being a Google customer, if not impossible. I advise you to check the series by Kashmir Hill if you haven't yet: https://gizmodo.com/i-cut-the-big-five-tech-giants-from-my-l...

Re: Google: Open Letter to Australians

#360

Time for Yandex and Baidu to come into the Australian market. Baidu has shit tech so Yandex it is.

I guess you're not an Australian. It's a national sport to get access to American products which the companies don't make available in Australia. If Google dropped out of the local market, everyone would just get access to it via a VPN. (Probably one that Google makes available in exchange for private data.)
Post reply on HN