Response to Google open letter • Hacker News Board

Re: Response to Google open letter

#161

Post by 9nGQluzmnq3M » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 1:26 PM UTC

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 think HN just has a large pro-google crowd

Really? Google seems to get torn to shreds here quite regularly.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#162

Post by vxNsr » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 1:27 PM UTC

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…

This whole comment is a red herring that turns into a straw man. No one was talking about News Corp, and most of what you said about them is false besides.

And then you try to divert attention away from the real discussion by making it seem like the argument is about “the rule of law” which really comes out of left field, but is a great boogeyman to pull up if you wanna quiet dissent.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#163

Post by vermilingua » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 1:30 PM UTC

vxNsr wrote: post #162

vermilingua wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This whole comment is a red herring that turns into a straw man. No one was talking about News Corp, and most of what you said about them is false besides. And then you try to divert attention away from the real discussion by making it seem like the argument is about “the rule of law” which really comes out of left field, but is a great boogeyman to pull up if you wanna quiet dissent.

This whole thing is about NewsCorp, if you don’t see that, read more. If you think what I had to say is false, please refute it, if I’m wrong I want to know it.

And evidently my ploy to quiet dissent didn’t work, as here you are.

NewsCorp does genuinely violate the rule of law, a different set of standards apply to them and their conduct.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#164

Post by vxNsr » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 1:31 PM UTC

indigochill wrote: post #144

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…

> 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…

This suggestion is interesting in that you seem earnest but you appear to be fundamentally misunderstanding how the internet works:

Ppl use google to search for things, they use chrome to find things, they don’t like typing in addresses, they would much rather google give them the top result whatever that may be.

You are suggesting that the news orgs change human behavior. Good luck with that.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#165

Post by danielheath » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 1:31 PM UTC

indigochill wrote: post #144

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…

> 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…

Start from the idea that small business owners aren't actually idiots and don't spend their time promoting their business on social media because it's fun.

Cost of customer acquisition isn't comparable without those platforms. Working harder and still not being price-competitive isn't preferable, even if it mitigates some future risk.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#166

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 1:32 PM UTC

nabla9 wrote: post #37

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.

I think what cblconfederate is getting into is the business environment with nothing but bad options. It's the Walmart conundrum for suppliers except for internet content production. Google and Facebook are the Walmart in this. The success of Walmart created an environment where only good business decisions in a short term destroyed of the brand and profits in the long term. (1) If supplier did not deal trough Walmar…

All businesses operate under constraints, and the constraints change over time as technology and tastes develop. Most possible businesses face constraints that make them unviable, and so they are never created.

Music lyrics sites just seem like an unviable business. They license low-value data from the owner, surround it with a crapton of ads, then serve that up to users. They have very little stickiness and one is about as good as another. From a user perspective, having those results directly on Google is better about 90% of the time. There are only two lyrics sites I'm aware of that offer any value above Google's version: songmeanings.net and genius.com, and the little value they provide comes from the hosting of user comments.

Lyrics sites come up a lot on here, but I do not really understand why. Consumers do not get much benefit from their continued existence. The only people who benefit are the site owners themselves.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#167

Post by specialist » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 1:34 PM UTC

For the health of society, all recommender algorithms have to be daylighted. For a start.

Yes, the gamification will be terrible. So what? Is maximal advertising revenue for monopolies societally important?

Every other efficient open market is heavily regulated. Accountability, transparency, fair play, information symmetry, prohibit self-dealing & conflicts of interest, tort, etc.

Right now we can't even imagine applying casino level scrutiny to social media.

What's so special about social media that it doesn't warrant some hygiene, some guard rails?

Re: Response to Google open letter

#168

Post by vermilingua » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 1:34 PM UTC

infinkaramazov wrote: post #82

I'm Australian, and I created an account just to comment on this issue. Imagine Google News or the Facebook news feed were normal news websites. If you count their traffic as the amount of times people went to those websites just to read news, their raw traffic would dwarf any other news website in Australia by an order of magnitude. Journalistic websites have editorial standards, and at least some relationship and c…

How does this protect independent journalism? The law explicitly cuts out media outlets with an annual revenue <$150k, meaning smaller and newer publications will see no benefits; and become easier targets of the Murdoch strategy of absorb and extinguish.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#169

Post by yyyhhh » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 1:34 PM UTC

nabla9 wrote: post #37

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.

I think what cblconfederate is getting into is the business environment with nothing but bad options. It's the Walmart conundrum for suppliers except for internet content production. Google and Facebook are the Walmart in this. The success of Walmart created an environment where only good business decisions in a short term destroyed of the brand and profits in the long term. (1) If supplier did not deal trough Walmar…

But isn't this also why prices are do much lower today?

Internet content making is someone anyone can do. It's hard to make it profitable.

Is this really the fault of big tech?

Re: Response to Google open letter

#170

Post by Grimm1 » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 1:39 PM UTC

specialist wrote: post #167

For the health of society, all recommender algorithms have to be daylighted. For a start. Yes, the gamification will be terrible. So what? Is maximal advertising revenue for monopolies societally important? Every other efficient open market is heavily regulated. Accountability, transparency, fair play, information symmetry, prohibit self-dealing & conflicts of interest, tort, etc. Right now we can't even imagine appl…

I don't disagree with you but not all reccomenders are causing the political issues we see now. As an example, what Netflix movies are being recommended to you is, in my opinion, immaterial.

I think there needs to be nuanced law here maybe just targeting and regulating recommendations on what we would consider news or communications platforms.