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

291–300 of 330 posts

Re: Response to Google open letter

#291

Post by clouddrover »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #289
clouddrover wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're still not getting it. It's not about if Google is profitable or not. That's beside the point.

There's not much I can do for you anymore. It's up to you now.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#292

Post by bryan_w »

clouddrover wrote: post #188
stephen_g wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Let them die - that ship has sailed. News Ltd and Nine have destroyed most of the quality journalism on their platforms already, and I honestly don't think anything this bill proposes will make it better. I don't have all the answers, but the best way I think I can support quality journalism is to subscribe to some independent news sites now (Michael West, MacroBusiness, Anthony Klan's new site The Klaxon. Migh…

You mean those journalists who spent decades working for News Corp papers? Michael West did. Anthony Klan did. Anthony Klan is proud of his News Corporation Australia journalist of the year awards. Seems like News Corp helped them both get started. Why shouldn't News Corp continue to fund others as well?

Not if they don't innovate. Music TV and movies have had to do so in the last 20 years, I don't see why news should be different.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#293

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg »

clouddrover wrote: post #291
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're still not getting it. It's not about if Google is profitable or not. That's beside the point. There's not much I can do for you anymore. It's up to you now.

In the comment I was replying to, your first sentence was "Google profits from the content." How then is it not about whether Google is profitable or not? I am contradicting your assertion that Google profits materially from this content. If Google removes the content and remains profitable, that strikes directly at your claim that Google profits from the content. It's not beside the point. It is exactly responsive to what you wrote. Maybe that is not the point you were trying to make, but IMO that is an issue with what wrote, not my understanding of it. The language you used was about profits, plain as day.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#294

Post by bryan_w »

clouddrover wrote: post #291
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're still not getting it. It's not about if Google is profitable or not. That's beside the point. There's not much I can do for you anymore. It's up to you now.

Thank goodness you've given up because your points were so incoherent that it was borderline spam.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#295

Post by brokenmachine »

9nGQluzmnq3M wrote: post #160
threeseed wrote: post #5

They really should stop saying "Australian news media" when they are referring to commercial entities only. The fact that the public ABC and SBS media are not allowed to be compensated says everything about the intent and motivation of this policy.

Yup, the actual wording of the bill uses the awkward term "registered news business corporation" specifically for this reason, since ABC/SBS are not "business corporations".

Registered with who?

Where do I register to get some of this free google money?

I've got some breaking news stories to share about corrupt bills being proposed.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#296

Post by [deleted] »

mattoxic wrote: post #113
jacquesm wrote: post #98

When Murdoch and Google duke it out using the Australian people as their human shield I find nothing to be happy about and plenty to be sad about. Both parties here are disingenuous about their stated positions, both are rather cynical in how the perform their negotiations. In the end the public, no matter what, will end up the loser because neither of these parties has their best interest at heart. Murdoch just want…

The Australian consumer has already lost. This whole country is an exercise in trussing up the public and making sure they pay the very most for the very least. I've long given up on Australian journalism - at least in the main stream. Obviously the Murdoch papers are garbage, but the Age and SMH are almost (and becoming) as appalling. The ABC and SBS have been cowered to the extent that they jump at their own shadow…

[deleted]

Re: Response to Google open letter

#297

Post by clouddrover »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #293
clouddrover wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still not getting it. It's not about if Google is profitable or not. That's beside the point. There's not much I can do for you anymore. It's up to you now.

In the comment I was replying to, your first sentence was "Google profits from the content." How then is it not about whether Google is profitable or not? I am contradicting your assertion that Google profits materially from this content. If Google removes the content and remains profitable, that strikes directly at your claim that Google profits from the content. It's not beside the point. It is exactly responsive t…

> In the comment I was replying to, your first sentence was "Google profits from the content."

Which is not the same as "Google is profitable."

Good grief. This is about making sure journalism survives. Google bleeding it dry doesn't help it survive.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#298

Post by clouddrover »

bryan_w wrote: post #292
clouddrover wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean those journalists who spent decades working for News Corp papers? Michael West did. Anthony Klan did. Anthony Klan is proud of his News Corporation Australia journalist of the year awards. Seems like News Corp helped them both get started. Why shouldn't News Corp continue to fund others as well?

Not if they don't innovate. Music TV and movies have had to do so in the last 20 years, I don't see why news should be different.

What is the innovation you expect to see when Google siphons off their revenue?

Re: Response to Google open letter

#299

Post by clouddrover »

bryan_w wrote: post #294
clouddrover wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still not getting it. It's not about if Google is profitable or not. That's beside the point. There's not much I can do for you anymore. It's up to you now.

Thank goodness you've given up because your points were so incoherent that it was borderline spam.

It seems incoherent to you because you haven't understood the issue. You haven't understood the issue because you're only listening to what Google tells you. Google wants you to have that narrow perspective because it makes you exploitable and that's good for Google's business.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#300

Post by brokenmachine »

kdtsh wrote: post #266
intended wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not implying a charge. It’s a positive adjective meant to fluff up/activate the positive association of using google when people read it. Saying “the top quality services” “world class services” would come across as tone deaf. Free here is not meant to be added as a veiled reference to negotiating items.

I don’t see how this is the case. What is being put at risk if not the price tag/lack thereof?

The services themselves. Google could simply decide to not do business with unprofitable Australia.

It's a veiled threat of course.

They don't want to specify exactly what's in jeopardy - the services themselves, the free status of the services, the quality of search results, or simply google's profitability.

Post reply on HN