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

251–260 of 330 posts

Re: Response to Google open letter

#251

Post by extropy »

chris_wot wrote: post #230
zentiggr wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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by turning every response page into a "Tell your government that this bill is ridiculous and we'll be back when it's repealed.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."

Given how badly Facebook and Twitter screwed up dealing with misinformation and hate speech, I would not in any way be unhappy if they did so.

What makes you think that the news companies will do a better job?

Re: Response to Google open letter

#252

Post by TheMblabla »

harikb wrote: post #177
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…

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

Does Google really steal revenue with AMP? Honest question, since I've read otherwise blog.amp.dev/2018/08/28/are-you-leaving-revenue-on-the-table-with-amp/

Re: Response to Google open letter

#253

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Response to Google open letter

#254

Post by yorwba »

thu2111 wrote: post #247
yorwba wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The draft does not explicitly name foreign companies, it only refers to generic "digital platforms", so it's not a free trade issue. Free trade agreements tend to only be concerned with equal treatment, e.g. Most Favored Nation status. If, say, a country requires mining companies to implement certain minimum safety standards, that's totally acceptable from a free trade perspective if it applies to all companies, even…

That's interesting. Other posters on this topic have asserted that the directive names Google and Facebook specifically, and nobody else. That's why I say it looks like a clear cut WTO sanctions case. The law would not apply even to Twitter at the moment, let alone Australian services. BTW are you saying joint venture requirements no longer exist in China? Can non Chinese citizens get IP addresses now?

The draft of the bill is here https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill... Probably Google and Facebook (and maybe Twitter) were mentioned as a justification for introducing the bill in the first place, but they aren't mentioned explicitly in the text.

Regarding joint venture requirements in China, a new law on foreign investment went into effect this year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Investment_Law_of_the_... that supersedes the previous separate regulations for wholly foreign-owned enterprises, equity joint ventures and cooperative joint ventures with a unified framework for foreign investment. There're still some sectors where 50% or more of a company's shares need to be held by Chinese nationals, but those exceptions are on their way out. E.g. restrictions in the automotive sector will be fully lifted by 2022 https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-to-ease-rules-on-foreign-...

If you want a Chinese IP address, you might have to file a bunch of paperwork, but it should've been possible for a long time. Otherwise I can't explain how https://www.google.cn/ continues to be operated by Google. (Of course they only redirect to https://www.google.com.hk/ because otherwise they'd lose that ICP license displayed in the footer and get their website shut down, but that's a different issue.)

Re: Response to Google open letter

#255

Post by dlubarov »

r0m4n0 wrote: post #222

I’m just curious if anyone knows... does this specifically call out Google or does this also potentially have implications for other news aggregators that work in a similar way? Could this also target reddit or even hacker news? I couldn’t find where they define the platform that is Google.

The draft doesn't name Google or Facebook, but 52C gives the Treasurer the ability to deem specific corporations and services "designated digital platform corporations/services", and they have announced that Google and Facebook will be the initial targets. E.g. in the explanatory materials,

> In the first instance, the Government has announced that the mandatory code of conduct will apply to Facebook and Google. However, the Treasurer may also make subsequent instruments in the future designating other platforms where fundamental bargaining power imbalances with Australian news businesses emerge.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#256

Post by morei »

RVuRnvbM2e wrote: post #23
nl wrote: post #17

From the ACCC's own release: In addition, the platforms must give news media businesses clear information about the data they collect through users’ interactions with news on digital platforms; for example how long users spend on an article, how many articles they consume in a certain time period, and other information about user engagement with news content across digital platform services. [1] Sure sounds like they…

> Sure sounds like they have to collect and share user data to me. This seems to be aimed at AMP. News sources get any information that google collect about users reading the articles. Seems fair. Google could always not collect that information in the first place if they wanted to actually take the moral high ground. But of course they won't do that.

No it doesn't seem fair. Why should my information be given to the news publishers!?

I trust Google with my browsing history _way_ more than that random commercial news org.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#257

Post by nitwit005 »

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…

Facebook and Google are not dependent on the news companies. They can make plenty of money without them. We've already seen Google shut down Google News in Spain when they tried to force payments there.

Even with this form of government intervention, I expect both companies to remove or block links to news wherever the law allows it, rather than pay the publishers.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#258

Post by bezmenov »

renaicirc wrote: post #249
BurningFrog wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that in no other case provides that level of autonomy. I, like all FB users, can delete comments to my own FB posts.

Excellent, but why enshrine the ability to do this in law only for sufficiently wealthy media companies ? Seems a bit ridiculous, doesn't it?

As opposed to only sufficiently wealthy American technology companies...

Re: Response to Google open letter

#259

Post by renaicirc »

bezmenov wrote: post #258
renaicirc wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excellent, but why enshrine the ability to do this in law only for sufficiently wealthy media companies ? Seems a bit ridiculous, doesn't it?

As opposed to only sufficiently wealthy American technology companies...

Well yes, Facebook has an obvious right to moderate their own platform. News Corp, on the other hand, does not own the Fox News Facebook page.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#260

Post by throwaway45349 »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #195
throwaway45349 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actual org is small, but it's caused thousands to pull their license fee, which is no small sum of money for the Beeb. It's not like they're rolling in profit.

There are around 65 million UK residents. Even if thousands pull their license fee it's not gonna move the needle that much. And if it did move the needle, I suspect the government would address the issue by enforcing the license fee more aggressively, or by doing the sensible thing and funding the BBC via the general fund.

They can't legally enforce it because the BBC guy has no special power to inspect your telly set and it's not technically a tax (as long as you don't consume BBC content). They also include YouTube/iPlayer consumption of BBC so it's unenforceable on a technical level too.

They've tried to scare people into compliance since the 50s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_detector_van

Post reply on HN