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

311–320 of 330 posts

Re: Response to Google open letter

#311

Post by clouddrover »

brokenmachine wrote: post #303
clouddrover wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They aren't perfectly free to do it and that's the point. Read what the ACCC is doing and why it is doing it:

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

Re: Response to Google open letter

#312

Post by kdtsh »

brokenmachine wrote: post #300
kdtsh wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it’s highly unlikely they would exit the Australian market - the threat could be useful, but they have little to gain from responding to what is effectively a bargaining process with a lockout, at least as a permanent solution (e.g. it’s a captive market which would be immediately filled by a competitor, and Google only stands to lose money from such a move). However, consumers might not see it this way - I agree that their veiled threat includes withdrawing from the Australian market.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#313

Post by h2onock »

taneq wrote: post #66
gundmc wrote: post #6

> Google will not be required to charge Australians for the use of its free services such as Google Search and YouTube, unless it chooses to do so. > Google will not be required to share any additional user data with Australian news businesses unless it chooses to do so. I don't think Google actually made either of these claims in their letter. They didn't mention charging for services at all. They said "the free ser…

> They said "the free services you use may be at risk". This sounds more like a threat. "If you don't give us whatever data we want, for free, then we will cut you off from some of our online services as punishment. > Given the context, I took that to mean the quality of the service would tank if they had to share their algorithm changes. I see this argument from them all the time and honestly, I see very little evid…

> This sounds more like a threat. "If you don't give us whatever data we want, for free, then we will cut you off from some of our online services as punishment.

Or start charging for things that used to be free, like news results.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#314

Post by ImaCake »

wokwokwok wrote: post #42
ImaCake wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Mmm... Stereotype much? I see why you don’t mind the newscorp news. Then ACCC is far from in the right here; this seems to be being driven by political motivations, not some motivation to do the best for Australia / Australians. The ACCC has plenty of opportunity to explain why it’s better this way, and don’t seem to have clearly articulated it. “Better for democracy” or “better for newscorp”? You tell me; why the AB…

>Mmm... Stereotype much? I see why you don’t mind the newscorp news.

I don't like the newscorp news actually. But it is revealing that you would think this. One might suspect we just have different views on who should be controlling things in this case. I am not as confident as I suspect you might be about who should be controlling media access. But I think google is being very disingenious in their letter, and the ACCC seems far less so.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#315

Post by bioipbiop »

sukilot wrote: post #125
bioipbiop wrote: post #68

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.

It’s deceptive to directly quote them?

Re: Response to Google open letter

#317

Post by cutemonster »

CarbyAu wrote: post #285
mthoms wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. :-)

arethusa, thanks, interesting.

I guess this is something taught in paid classes to business leaders and politicians, so they want a positively sounding name.

Also, except for when the person has evil / corrupted intentions, then, is this technique neutral or sometimes even good

Can at least save time via fever of topic discussions

Re: Response to Google open letter

#318

Post by cwhiz »

Quarrel wrote: post #151
cwhiz wrote: post #73

I am for any law or policy that hurts Google. And I really don’t care whether it’s fair or unfair. I’m not sure any two companies have caused more worldwide carnage, in the history of the world, than FB and Google.

This is an idiotic attitude when the law is purely for the purposes of benefiting NewsCorp, who have surely done even worse. If it gave consumers a better outcome, then maybe, but it won't.

It’s not about choice. It’s about destroying Google as a company. They are a spyware business that have destabilized the entire internet economy.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#319

Post by bilbopotter »

zokier wrote: post #190
roenxi wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weaselly words or otherwise, there is a big power imbalance here. The ACCC can ultimately make Google do what it wants and is backed by a government on this matter. Google has no control over the ACCC. The ACCC is being irresponsible not dealing with - in precise terms - what Google actually said. Anything less verges on bullying. This isn't a public shouting match between equals.

> 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?

Google obviously. F2f

Re: Response to Google open letter

#320

Post by chongli »

indigochill wrote: post #144
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…

> They're able to make of break businesses overnight by changing the stream of traffic Maybe small businesses wake up to the fact that building the core of their livelihood on the foundation of a whimsical megacorp is a Bad Idea. Google attracts businesses to work with them because they make visibility easy. But if they screw over those same businesses, then maybe the bait isn't worth taking in the first place? Maybe…

If you don’t use Google to drive traffic and your competitor does, you lose. It doesn’t matter that your competitor gets screwed over by Google a few years down the road. You will already be gone.

This is part of why capitalism is said to have boom/bust cycles. Stable equilibriums are less favourable than unstable ones. Taking advantage of every available opportunity is the only way to compete.

Post reply on HN