231–240 of 330 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ABC is government funded: https://www.abc.net.au/ And SBS is partially government funded: https://www.sbs.com.au But it's not enough to have just two news organisations.
If the number of organizations is the concern, the government could fund a larger number of organizations. This doesn't seem fatal to the option I proposed.
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 da…
Advertising, engagement.
I'm ok with banning, sharply curtailing targeted advertising.
If personalized search results get impaired, darn. I'd much prefer to curate my own filter bubble any way.
Newsfeeds and other algorithmic outrage maximizers should be banned outright.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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…
The "worse results" probably stem from the part of the law about changes in pagerank algorithms: If search engines are required to notify about changes in algorithm and provide mitigations for those changes, the easiest way to provide this would be: Keep the algorithm as it is, never change it again (for Australia) and accept the degradation that will result from that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From google’s open letter > Under this law, Google has to tell news media businesses “how they can gain access” to data about your use of our products. There’s no way of knowing if any data handed over would be protected, or how it might be used by news media businesses. That seems to pretty clearly suggest Google will be forced to hand over personal data.
It's deceptive. They aren't saying they would hand over any data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My first thought was that Google would do as per Spain and just stop linking Australian news outlets. However, I was under the impression that the Australian proposition does not allow Google to treat foreign sites differently. Hence, if they carry foreign news they must carry Australian sites - and pay. Or else carry nothing at all.
> I was under the impression that the Australian proposition does not allow Google to treat foreign sites differently. Hence, if they carry foreign news they must carry Australian sites Why, if they want to carry news from other countries, should they also have to carry Australian news? Maybe they should just string match all their news results to Australian news so nothing gets through, even if they appear on third…
Because the law says so, because the law is very deliberately crafted as a mechanism to force Google to give money to Australian news companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 sit…
If it didn't make business sense then Google wouldn't be showing them in the first place. It plainly does make business sense. Google shouldn't be afraid to pay for what it uses.
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…
2 reasons. 1. the quality of the recommendations is the real competitive advantage. It's like saying that all the sports scouting agencies need to fully reveal their algorithm to finding top talent to ensure fairness, when that exact algorithm is the thing that makes them a top scouting agency. 2. The company itself doesn't really know how the recommender works.(source: I built explainable ML models for a living). Th…
In the spirit of "yes, and...":
Can't manage what we can't (or won't measure. So policy wise, we should not delegate judgement, and default to hippocratic until we know more.
ML & big data is following the fad cycle, just like optimization, expert systems, etc. I'm 95% certain that >95% ML and big data is hooey, most value has been realized, the rest is imagined.
But meanwhile, these foolsgold pathogens are wreaking the economy. Or worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?