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

211–220 of 330 posts

Re: Response to Google open letter

#211

Post by crabmusket »

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…

It's interesting that "security through obscurity" is rightly shunned, but algorithms like search are kept closely guarded. It speaks to just how different a problem search is- it's not something you can achieve mathematically, it's an imperfect attempt to provide a subjectively good experience.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#212

Post by esrauch »

specialist wrote: post #203
esrauch wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, the gamification will be terrible. So what? Is maximal advertising revenue for monopolies societally important? I don't really see how gamification being terrible will only cause ad revenue to drop. Surely it will also make the results worse and less relevant to you? As in, if SEO spam managed to take over the top results of major queries, it doesn't just drop ad revenue but actually makes Search suck, right?

How could future results be any worse?

I actually don't see how "gamification" (adversarial websites exploiting loopholes in ranking) can even result in making ad revenue lower excepting the scenario where it makes Search itself less useful and therefore less used overall?

Re: Response to Google open letter

#213

Post by tristor »

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.

I have no idea if there is pro-Google astroturfing happening on HN, but there is definitely pro-CCP astroturfing happening on HN in every thread with even a tangential connection to China. So it would not surprise me if huge corporations paid for services which may include astroturfing.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#214

Post by burtonator »

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…

You can't just open source the algorithms - you also have to release the data and the platform on which the algorithm was executed.

This is becoming a major problem because a lot of research papers publish their results and their methodology but not the data so it's not reproducible.

A LOT of the data Google would have would be semi-private. It's generally OK if Google has it because (arguably) the user shared the data with Google but they might not want other people to have access.

I'm not saying it's right - just that it's a problem

Re: Response to Google open letter

#215

Post by clouddrover »

nl wrote: post #115
clouddrover wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's about funding media organisations. There's nothing in the terms that means the money goes to hiring journalists at all.

Who do you think hires journalists?

Re: Response to Google open letter

#216

Post by Bloggerzune »

As a website owner, security is important because: https://www.bloggerzune.com/2020/05/WordPress-security-issue...

People may not engage on your site (purchase your products & services) if it's unsecure Google Chrome (the most popular browser) is cracking down on insecure sites, and we have seen that Google and other popular search engines do tend to prioritize SSL-secured sites over non-secured sites When your site gets hacked, that triggers a chain reaction that can lead to loss of data, breach of user data (your customer data becoming public), loss of sales, visitors trust, getting blacklisted on search engines and browsers, legal issues, and tons of wasted time and money Go ahead and take these three steps before the end of January to make your business more secure online:

Re: Response to Google open letter

#217

Post by nabla9 »

yyyhhh wrote: post #169
nabla9 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

Yes. And if lower prices are the only reason for antitrust everything is fine.

In the US at the beginning of the 80s Robert Bork broke from the traditional antitrust thinking and started a tradition where only "consumer welfare" (lower prices) are meaningful reason for antitrust policies.

Rest of the world never bought that and now thinking even in the US is starting to change. Free markets are not just about low prices. Restoring traditional antitrust and competition policy principles are coming back. Such as applying common carrier obligations and duties to platform economics.

>Is this really the fault of big tech?

I didn't make any normative statements.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#218

Post by ajdlinux »

zokier wrote: post #190
roenxi wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weaselly words or otherwise, there is a big power imbalance here. The ACCC can ultimately make Google do what it wants and is backed by a government on this matter. Google has no control over the ACCC. The ACCC is being irresponsible not dealing with - in precise terms - what Google actually said. Anything less verges on bullying. This isn't a public shouting match between equals.

> The ACCC can ultimately make Google do what it wants and is backed by a government on this matter Not really. Google could just exit Australia. And who you think that would hurt more, Australia or Google?

As long as the proposed regulations don't make Google's Australian operations completely unprofitable, they won't.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#219

Post by BurningFrog »

zentiggr wrote: post #193
lolinder wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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’ art…

That still carves them out a protected niche in what otherwise was an independent service, that in no other case provides that level of autonomy. If I were in FAANG's place, I'd tell the AU government to get stuffed by turning every response page into a "Tell your government that this bill is ridiculous and we'll be back when it's repealed. So long and thanks for all the fish."

> that in no other case provides that level of autonomy.

I, like all FB users, can delete comments to my own FB posts.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#220

Post by bananaface »

sukilot wrote: post #122
pulse7 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google Open Letter is too high-level. After reading it you can't claim/prove much based on it. There are no details. Just high-level: "search is at risk", "data may be at risk", etc. For me, this is just a bone thrown to spark a political debate...

It shows the strength of the their best argument.

Ehh, disagree. It just shows what kind of PR they think most people respond to.
Post reply on HN