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

281–290 of 330 posts

Re: Response to Google open letter

#281

Post by senectus1 »

jacquesm wrote: post #267
Karupan wrote: post #137

Looks like Google has now started showing a popup [0] in Australia which links to the open letter [1]. [0] https://i.imgur.com/A3IPkQy.png [1] https://about.google/intl/ALL_au/google-in-australia/an-open...

Desperately in need of footsoldiers.

yeah my 12 yr old son just got this pop up on his phone. His response was "not cool Gov.." I had to explain that the situation is actually more complicated than that and he shouldn't trust one source for the truth.

I think he's starting to understand that there is no good guy here.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#282

Post by clouddrover »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #250
clouddrover wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or the government could just make Google pay for what it uses. It's simpler and more direct.

Haha, no it is not. Taxing a specific organization for a specific policy purpose is much more complicated than paying for that policy purpose out of the general fund and paying for it with general taxation. To see the truth of my claim, consider what's going to happen if Google declines to "use" the Australian news media after this law is passed. I doubt any serious person believes this will be helpful to the news me…

Of course it is. Industry specific regulation exists for all industries. This is nothing new.

Why do you believe that everyone else must pay Google's costs? Why do you think Google shouldn't pay its own way? It's a bizarre position to take.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#283

Post by glenstein »

zmmmmm wrote: post #40

This is a very disappointing response from the ACCC. It seems to be extremely misleading in its own right. > Google will not be required to charge Australians for the use of its free services Google did not state this. The ACCC - the supposed detached "fair" regulator, in charge of creating this code, just made something up to suit their own ends. > Google will not be required to share any additional user data with A…

Wow, excellent pull from the code. I suppose you can say that the letter of the code is only informing news organizations of how they may go about accessing data, which isn't the same as actually providing the data, although even that seems like a bit of a disingenuous distinction to me.

There's no point in helping facilitate sharing of that data by providing information about how to access it unless you are intending for it to be accessed, and so denying that that's being accessed is disingenuous.

It's entirely banking on people getting lost on these distinctions and not putting the effort in to figuring out who is right. That approach is straight up contemptuous of the intended audience.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#284

Post by shirro »

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…

The ACCC is there to enforce competition laws and if those laws are designed to benefit the government's mates then I expect that is what they will do without fear or favour.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#285

Post by CarbyAu »

mthoms wrote: post #242
arethuza wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More "message discipline" I suspect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_discipline

Interesting. I wonder who coined that phrase? It's a curiously positive sounding phrase for something that's actually quite nefarious.

The discipline, applied to its own name. :-)

Re: Response to Google open letter

#286

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

clouddrover wrote: post #282
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha, no it is not. Taxing a specific organization for a specific policy purpose is much more complicated than paying for that policy purpose out of the general fund and paying for it with general taxation. To see the truth of my claim, consider what's going to happen if Google declines to "use" the Australian news media after this law is passed. I doubt any serious person believes this will be helpful to the news me…

Of course it is. Industry specific regulation exists for all industries. This is nothing new. Why do you believe that everyone else must pay Google's costs? Why do you think Google shouldn't pay its own way? It's a bizarre position to take.

I am not clear on what you're talking about when you discuss "paying Google's costs." It doesn't "cost" Google anything to link to a news article. And it doesn't "cost" a news media company anything to be linked to. "Everyone" is not paying Google's costs in any of the scenarios we're discussing.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#287

Post by clouddrover »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #286
clouddrover wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it is. Industry specific regulation exists for all industries. This is nothing new. Why do you believe that everyone else must pay Google's costs? Why do you think Google shouldn't pay its own way? It's a bizarre position to take.

I am not clear on what you're talking about when you discuss "paying Google's costs." It doesn't "cost" Google anything to link to a news article. And it doesn't "cost" a news media company anything to be linked to. "Everyone" is not paying Google's costs in any of the scenarios we're discussing.

Google profits from the content. Google must pay for it. We're not talking about just linking to articles. We are talking about people's news reading being entirely mediated through Google.

It's disappointing that you've failed to understand the issues. Read more:

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/australian-news-media-...

Re: Response to Google open letter

#288

Post by aplummer »

> This will address a significant bargaining power imbalance between Australian news media businesses and Google and Facebook.

This is so untrue. News Corp is easily the most powerful political entity in Australia. It’s not a stretch to say they pick prime ministers.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#289

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

clouddrover wrote: post #287
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not clear on what you're talking about when you discuss "paying Google's costs." It doesn't "cost" Google anything to link to a news article. And it doesn't "cost" a news media company anything to be linked to. "Everyone" is not paying Google's costs in any of the scenarios we're discussing.

Google profits from the content. Google must pay for it. We're not talking about just linking to articles. We are talking about people's news reading being entirely mediated through Google. It's disappointing that you've failed to understand the issues. Read more: https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/australian-news-media-...

If Google removes all news links from their services (assuming that would allow them to avoid this tax), and remains profitable in Aus, please remember to update your beliefs on this subject. I will do the same if Google's removal of news links causes a material decline in profitability or allows for the creation of a profitable upstart that deals with the Aus news media on these terms.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#290

Post by jwlake »

boloust wrote: post #192
jwlake wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the goal here to just have Google shutdown Google News in Australia? Seems like that's the only logical result.

This affects Google search as well.

Not indexing the sites and shutting down google news is effectively the same thing.
Post reply on HN