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

301–310 of 330 posts

Re: Response to Google open letter

#301

Post by brokenmachine »

Thorentis wrote: post #2

Google misrepresenting something which might cut into their profits? Who'd have thought it? I hate AMP, and this law might see the death or at least reigning in of it. I hate the way Google has killed niche websites by scraping their content and then profiting from it. I hate the way Google says they want to keep user data safe, while also using that data to increase their ad revenue. Fuck Google.

I also hate all those things, but I don't see why we should be funneling that money into Murdoch's coffers.

Why should the ABC/SBS be exempt from this moneygrab?

Re: Response to Google open letter

#302

Post by brokenmachine »

renaicirc wrote: post #85
clouddrover wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm sorry, but funding media giants is obviously not a good reason to extort search giants. What is the nuance that I am missing?

You're not missing anything and there's no nuance.

It's a blatant moneygrab for fossils from a government they have by the balls.

The classified ads have dried up and they're out of ideas.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#303

Post by brokenmachine »

clouddrover wrote: post #238
visarga wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> it doesn't make business sense 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.

If the news sites do not want the traffic, they are perfectly free to use their robots.txt to stop google from scraping.

The want to have their cake and eat it too, plus get paid for the privilege.

Having said this, I have no sympathy for Google either.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#304

Post by brokenmachine »

clouddrover wrote: post #208
jddj wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The journalists doing good work would be almost entirely excluded by this law. This money would go to an organisation which largely peddles outrage and division.

> This money would go to an organisation which largely peddles outrage and division. Frankly that's Google, Facebook, and Twitter. They are aimed at maximising engagement and outrage does that for them. They keep feeding people what they think they want to see and the further down the rabbit hole they go the weirder and more extreme it gets.

> Frankly that's Google, Facebook, and Twitter. They are aimed at maximising engagement and outrage does that for them.

Please, do a google image search for "daily telegraph cover", and then give me your description of the Murdoch news media.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#305

Post by brokenmachine »

vermilingua wrote: post #168
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…

How does this protect independent journalism? The law explicitly cuts out media outlets with an annual revenue <$150k, meaning smaller and newer publications will see no benefits; and become easier targets of the Murdoch strategy of absorb and extinguish.

It even excludes the ABC and SBS. This is not about journalism in any way.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#306

Post by brokenmachine »

0xy wrote: post #172
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…

>Journalistic websites have editorial standards I disagree. The ABC has on three separate occasions delayed the issue of a retraction on false reporting I brought to their attention by months. SBS refused to issue a retraction at all for another piece of false information they reported, even though their own source had retracted it. Additionally, ACMA and the Communications Ombudsman have zero jurisdiction over the o…

Please list the articles and their retractions.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#307

Post by brokenmachine »

Spivak wrote: post #131
realmod wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally ANY content delivery network would be able to compete with google. AMP sites are sites that the companies themselves build for google(could be any cdn) to just cache. The news organizations themselves gains a lot from google crawling and indexing their sites (which do cost google money) and now this legislation would also require google to pay them for displaying the title/subtitle of their articles. In wha…

> would also require google to pay them for displaying the title/subtitle of their articles. In what world is that fair or balancing out the relationship? This is not what the legislation is about. This is about Google's practice of excerpting the actual content of the articles and putting it at the top of the page. Google is algorithmically republishing copyrighted content from these news orgs and hoping that surrou…

So the news sites can add a single "*" to their robots.txt.

Problem solved.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#308

Post by bryan_w »

clouddrover wrote: post #299
bryan_w wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google is making sense here. The evils they are fighting against helps doubleclick. See Google plus (G+) it can drop and abandon things. Big.

What do you think?

Re: Response to Google open letter

#309

Post by brokenmachine »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #270
fungi wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How about we simply ban Google and Facebook from reproducing news on their own site? News Corp is and always has been free to not have its content on Google ( https://www.robotstxt.org/ ). But that's not what they want, they want a Money just for appearing in search results. Seems more like a rent seeking for News Corp. > We're bending over backwards to try and accommodate Google The funny/bizzare bit is we are ben…

I thought the problem was that people don't click through to the newspaper, that articles are read on Google and Facebook somewhere. I agree that we should also not be writing laws that just protect large news organizations, we should write them to protect everybody.

Yes, it really sounds dodgy to me that the Treasurer is arbitrarily choosing companies that are subject to this law, and arbitrarily choosing which companies benefit from it.

The ABC and SBS don't qualify as news businesses. That says it all really.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#310

Post by clouddrover »

bryan_w wrote: post #308
clouddrover wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google is making sense here. The evils they are fighting against helps doubleclick. See Google plus (G+) it can drop and abandon things. Big. What do you think?

I think you haven't understood what the ACCC is doing and why it is doing it. It's not a mystery. They are very clear about it:

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

Post reply on HN