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

321–330 of 330 posts

Re: Response to Google open letter

#321

Post by bryan_w »

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?

Btw, the above was an attempt at a GPT3 trap. I could tell by the sentence structure that the person I was replying to didn't seem normal

Re: Response to Google open letter

#322

Post by clouddrover »

bryan_w wrote: post #321
bryan_w wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Btw, the above was an attempt at a GPT3 trap. I could tell by the sentence structure that the person I was replying to didn't seem normal

Attempt failed.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#323

Post by chris_wot »

cookie_monsta wrote: post #262
extropy wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The content that they publish?

Not sure why you are being voted down. The news media, for all their faults, can be sued for defamation and in fact have been sued. They also have editorial policies and a clear method of publishing articles which have inbuilt checks and balances.

Sure, it’s not perfect but unlike Facebook, Google and Twitter, they do have processes in place to handle misinformation and prevent the worst excesses, and if these break down it is very clear who you can sue. Ergo, they can be held accountable.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#324

Post by burkaman »

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #248
burkaman wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you seeing a requirement to pre-moderate?

There is no such requirement. But that is the capability they want that they do not currently have. They already have the capability to delete comments, just like you can delete comments on your own posts.

If they want that, why wouldn't they put it in the law? And if they want it but it's not in the law, then why do we care?

Re: Response to Google open letter

#325

Post by brokenmachine »

clouddrover wrote: post #311
brokenmachine wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

Nothing in that link that I can see prevents the news businesses from excluding themselves from being scraped by google using robots.txt.

Well, nothing except for the fact that their own sites are not compelling enough for customers in order to be profitable, so they don't want to do it.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#326

Post by clouddrover »

brokenmachine wrote: post #325
clouddrover wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

Nothing in that link that I can see prevents the news businesses from excluding themselves from being scraped by google using robots.txt. Well, nothing except for the fact that their own sites are not compelling enough for customers in order to be profitable, so they don't want to do it.

So you're saying the only problem is practical reality. Good insight.

What do you think this is all about? The ACCC is acting to address the practical realities of the situation. That's what the ACCC is there for.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#327

Post by brokenmachine »

clouddrover wrote: post #326
brokenmachine wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing in that link that I can see prevents the news businesses from excluding themselves from being scraped by google using robots.txt. Well, nothing except for the fact that their own sites are not compelling enough for customers in order to be profitable, so they don't want to do it.

So you're saying the only problem is practical reality. Good insight. What do you think this is all about? The ACCC is acting to address the practical realities of the situation. That's what the ACCC is there for.

I think this is about crony capitalism. The old mates want to have their cake and eat it too and get paid as well, and their mates are making that happen.

Just the fact that the ABC and SBS are excluded says it all really. This is clearly not about journalism.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#328

Post by clouddrover »

brokenmachine wrote: post #327
clouddrover wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying the only problem is practical reality. Good insight. What do you think this is all about? The ACCC is acting to address the practical realities of the situation. That's what the ACCC is there for.

I think this is about crony capitalism. The old mates want to have their cake and eat it too and get paid as well, and their mates are making that happen. Just the fact that the ABC and SBS are excluded says it all really. This is clearly not about journalism.

To quote the ACCC chair: “We note that 88 smaller media businesses teamed up to submit a joint submission as part of the process of developing the code. Under our plan, these businesses could again work together to negotiate with the platforms over fair payment for their content.”'

You really are failing to understand this. You must try harder.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#329

Post by brokenmachine »

clouddrover wrote: post #328
brokenmachine wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is about crony capitalism. The old mates want to have their cake and eat it too and get paid as well, and their mates are making that happen. Just the fact that the ABC and SBS are excluded says it all really. This is clearly not about journalism.

To quote the ACCC chair: “We note that 88 smaller media businesses teamed up to submit a joint submission as part of the process of developing the code. Under our plan, these businesses could again work together to negotiate with the platforms over fair payment for their content.”' You really are failing to understand this. You must try harder.

OK, and ABC/SBS?

I understand and it's ridiculous. Just because your business is not profitable shouldn't mean another business should be forced to subsidise it. Unless you have mates that can make laws, that is.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#330

Post by underwater »

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…

What digital platform is open and neutral? Everything is either controlled by Google, Facebook or Apple, and optimised for engagement and their ability to earn revenue.

Imagine if a company controlled not just the main street in your town, but also in every town in the world. The analogue would be to tell shopkeepers to build their own city and convince people to live their so they can run their shop.

Post reply on HN