Response to Google open letter • Hacker News Board

Re: Response to Google open letter

#171

Post by 0xy » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 1:39 PM UTC

vermilingua wrote: post #156

marcusverus wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Do you live in Australia, or follow Australian politics? If not, it may interest you to know that we once had a carbon tax. It wasn’t stalled in the house or amended into nonexistence like a lot of politically charged law, but was repealed . The influence that the coal industry (leveraged by NewsCorp) has in this country is insane. It may also interest you to know that Kevin Rudd, a previous prime minister, was (is)…

The Labor party you speak of issued full-throated endorsements of metadata retention legislation as well as the encryption ban.

Forgive me for not picking up the violin.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#172

Post by 0xy » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 1:45 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…

>Journalistic websites have editorial standards

I disagree. The ABC has on three separate occasions delayed the issue of a retraction on false reporting I brought to their attention by months. SBS refused to issue a retraction at all for another piece of false information they reported, even though their own source had retracted it.

Additionally, ACMA and the Communications Ombudsman have zero jurisdiction over the online news content of ABC and SBS.

These organisations have a very laissez-faire relationship with integrity and facts.

On the other hand, I once emailed a News Corp journalist about a false claim in an article and it was amended in under 10 minutes.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#173

Post by vermilingua » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 1:45 PM UTC

0xy wrote: post #171

vermilingua wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you live in Australia, or follow Australian politics? If not, it may interest you to know that we once had a carbon tax. It wasn’t stalled in the house or amended into nonexistence like a lot of politically charged law, but was repealed . The influence that the coal industry (leveraged by NewsCorp) has in this country is insane. It may also interest you to know that Kevin Rudd, a previous prime minister, was (is)…

The Labor party you speak of issued full-throated endorsements of metadata retention legislation as well as the encryption ban. Forgive me for not picking up the violin.

Oh I know they’re far from blameless, when my (Labour) MP voted in favour of that bill I was furious and she knew it.

I’m not trying to defend Labour in any way, but you’d have to be wilfully ignorant to not see the persistent assault on the party by our entire media; and more so to not see that it’s working.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#174

Post by lolinder » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 1:46 PM UTC

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…

Someone brought that up the last time this came up on HN. In the explanatory materials, they clarified that (ii) is indeed meant to restrict this to posts on their own Facebook page:

> 1.89 In the case of a social media service such as Facebook, this rule deals with the situation where the news business has posted its covered news content on the news business’ own social media page. Comments on the news business’ articles posted by somebody else on another Facebook page are not covered by this law.

https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20EM%2...

Re: Response to Google open letter

#175

Post by calcifer » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 1:48 PM UTC

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #105

borland wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The google letter makes non-existent claims that aren't part of the proposed law. Like that youtube and google will somehow magically offer worse results. They can offer the exact same results they do now - they might just have to pay for it. "If we had to pay more for news content, we would probably just cut it out because we don't want to pay - thus leading to worse results" doesn't quite have the same ring, does i…

> they might just have to pay for it. "If we had to pay more for news content, we would probably just cut it out because we don't want to pay - thus leading to worse results" doesn't quite have the same ring, does it :-) The amount they'd have to pay for it seems to be dramatically more than what they make for it, so "if this law passes, we will stop serving these results" seems to be a reasonable reaction.

> "if this law passes, we will stop serving these results" seems to be a reasonable reaction.

If that's Google's reaction then they should say so outright, not this weasel wordy letter.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#176

Post by 0xy » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 1:52 PM UTC

vermilingua wrote: post #173

0xy wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Labor party you speak of issued full-throated endorsements of metadata retention legislation as well as the encryption ban. Forgive me for not picking up the violin.

Oh I know they’re far from blameless, when my (Labour) MP voted in favour of that bill I was furious and she knew it. I’m not trying to defend Labour in any way, but you’d have to be wilfully ignorant to not see the persistent assault on the party by our entire media; and more so to not see that it’s working.

Why would you go to bat for an anti-encryption mass surveillance party despite it being against your morals?

They deserve everything they get for not representing a viable alternative. In 2020, it's not enough to be 98% the same as the other party with a few differences in policy minutiae.

If they get dragged by the media, good. They deserve worse after betraying the entire tech industry repeatedly.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#177

Post by harikb » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 1:54 PM UTC

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…

Lowering rank of a sleazy news organization that was previously gaming the ranking... is exactly what they should do if they are keeping the end user in mind.

I buy that AMP is bad and they should share revenue.

It is not entirely Google’s fault that their survival requires click-bait articles instead of having original content

Re: Response to Google open letter

#178

Post by bananaface » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 1:57 PM UTC

CuriouslyC wrote: post #141

bananaface wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's easier to game because it has minimal verification procedures and much less traffic, and the tech being used is way less advanced (and mods are less active).

Re: Response to Google open letter

#179

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 1:57 PM UTC

throwaway45349 wrote: post #155

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Except for the Defund the BBC movement that's going on right now... I'm skeptical any government funded broadcaster is sustainable when it just turns into a propaganda outlet for the establishment.

I'm not super familiar with UK politics but it looks like this movement raised something like 45k british pounds on gofundme? Seems pretty fringe. I guess the BBC will remain funded.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#180

Post by vermilingua » Mon, Aug 17, 2020, 1:58 PM UTC

0xy wrote: post #176

vermilingua wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I know they’re far from blameless, when my (Labour) MP voted in favour of that bill I was furious and she knew it. I’m not trying to defend Labour in any way, but you’d have to be wilfully ignorant to not see the persistent assault on the party by our entire media; and more so to not see that it’s working.

Why would you go to bat for an anti-encryption mass surveillance party despite it being against your morals? They deserve everything they get for not representing a viable alternative. In 2020, it's not enough to be 98% the same as the other party with a few differences in policy minutiae. If they get dragged by the media, good. They deserve worse after betraying the entire tech industry repeatedly.

...remember when I said wilfully ignorant?

Because, we are in a two party system (practically if not technically). You seem to be glossing over the fact that the Liberal Party, who is the beneficiary of NewsCorps fuckery, are who introduced the AABill.

Labour, yes, betrayed not only the tech industry but the whole Australian public; but not out of malice, but because they’re spineless sycophants who didn’t want to look like they’re protecting terrorists.

I know they say not to feed the trolls, but at least pretend to stay on topic.