91–100 of 165 posts
The quality of discussions on those platforms would also very likely benefit.
Hopefully other laws are passed with similar responses from tech companies in other countries.
It would be a great sort of reverse-monkey-paw fate. The world could certainly use some good luck right now.
I haven't followed this debate too closely but this seems pretty disingenuous. >The ACCC presumes that Facebook benefits most in its relationship with publishers, when in fact the reverse is true. News represents a fraction of what people see in their News Feed and is not a significant source of revenue for us News may not directly contribute much ad revenue but it surely is a huge driver of engagement on the website…
> Also I haven't figured out yet what part of the law actually would imply that Facebook needs to blackout news wholesale. As I read it the law merely requires that Facebook negotiate with each publisher. A negotiation is something that ends up with mutually agreeable terms, or no deal. That's not the case here. The news companies do not need to negotiate in good faith, they are allowed to force the tech companies in…
Do not try to make us feel bad for these companies that someone is also going to do it to them too.
Australian government and more specifically Rod sims, the chair of ACCC should get some counselling. Really good counselling. They clearly don't understand how publishing works and have a biased understanding of who is benefitting from this relationship. However, the entire Australian media has been nothing but puppets controlled by murdoch. The one true less biased source is ABC which has been muddied by constant fe…
I encourage everyone to have a read of the actual draft legislation along with hearing Facebook's reaction to new regulations being imposed on them. The actual legislation sounds well thought out to me: https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/news-m... The FAQs: https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/DPB%20-%20Draft%20news%... See also the ACCC response to Google's open letter, which contained misinformat…
On the ACCC response: it implies google made statements they did not, and seems to willfully ignore the reality of supporting the cost of a free service.
Do you have specific things you think this does or doesn't do? In the future it helps to start with those.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems to miss the point because normally platforms also have to pay for content. Facebook is a platform that hosts user/business produced content. No content, no reason to go to facebook. Likewise, Facebook brings attention to content owners. All of this is 'free' nominally. That's not the question, the question is who has more market power and squeezes who.
Are you saying that Google should pay me to include my website in it's search results?
https://theoutline.com/post/1399/how-google-ate-celebritynet...
Google's monopoly position gives them complete negotiating power, because you can't survive on the Internet without them. What Australia is doing here seems extreme, but only because you aren't accounting for how extreme Google and Facebook's existing negotiating power is. If you don't understand how abusive Google and Facebook are, you'll think this deal is unfair. It's not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That feels like a pretty bad take on how to review changes. You might get better mileage by looking at the context each time. In this case its pretty clear that the Australian goverment is acting on behalf of specific vested news companies and NOT for the consumer... It seems dangerous to have this kind of government-on-the-right-track reaction when the corporation cheering it on is in the business of fossil fuels, f…
Fair enough, I simply don't trust any corporation to act in my interest - if there was a trusted third party lobbying for FB/Google's position I may have another look Of course I would like to see the government go further and upset News Corp as well, but upsetting these two seems like a good first step
Australian government and more specifically Rod sims, the chair of ACCC should get some counselling. Really good counselling. They clearly don't understand how publishing works and have a biased understanding of who is benefitting from this relationship. However, the entire Australian media has been nothing but puppets controlled by murdoch. The one true less biased source is ABC which has been muddied by constant fe…
I encourage everyone to have a read of the actual draft legislation along with hearing Facebook's reaction to new regulations being imposed on them. The actual legislation sounds well thought out to me: https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/news-m... The FAQs: https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/DPB%20-%20Draft%20news%... See also the ACCC response to Google's open letter, which contained misinformat…
Yes the law doesn't imply this in any way.
But it requires Google to notify most changes "in terms that are readily comprehensible". What if an algorithm cannot be explained in comprehensible terms (e.g. machine learning)? What if they don't want their teams to be limited to changes that can be explained? What if they don't want to share their internal changes (e.g. they don't want a competitor to know, or they don't want these changes to be a "TODO how to update your site")?
What I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's impossible for a big company to decide to develop a less magic and simpler algorithm for Australia instead. And once you consider how small Australia is (in terms of population, and business opportunity), this might only sense if you combine it with a paid membership.
Note that I'm not saying this will happen, I think it's more likely that big companies will decide to opt out from displaying news or (in extreme cases) opt out from the Australian market completely (if they can't make it work).
> Google will not be required to share any additional user data with Australian news businesses unless it chooses to do so.
IANAL but section 52M(2) seems to contradict this (52M(2)(e) implies Google must make the data available to media companies)
> A healthy news media sector is essential to a well-functioning democracy.
Strongly agree with this, and I'm generally in favour of making sure media companies get their fair share of $$$.
But the idea that government can define which companies deserve an extremely unfair advantages (compared to all other companies, e.g. small media companies), and force google to explain all changes with a 28 days notice... that's just bollocks.
Australian government and more specifically Rod sims, the chair of ACCC should get some counselling. Really good counselling. They clearly don't understand how publishing works and have a biased understanding of who is benefitting from this relationship. However, the entire Australian media has been nothing but puppets controlled by murdoch. The one true less biased source is ABC which has been muddied by constant fe…
I encourage everyone to have a read of the actual draft legislation along with hearing Facebook's reaction to new regulations being imposed on them. The actual legislation sounds well thought out to me: https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/news-m... The FAQs: https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/DPB%20-%20Draft%20news%... See also the ACCC response to Google's open letter, which contained misinformat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Also I haven't figured out yet what part of the law actually would imply that Facebook needs to blackout news wholesale. As I read it the law merely requires that Facebook negotiate with each publisher. A negotiation is something that ends up with mutually agreeable terms, or no deal. That's not the case here. The news companies do not need to negotiate in good faith, they are allowed to force the tech companies in…
It's funny this is happening to Google and Facebook, two companies who have forced their take-it-or-leave-it "negotiations" on over a billion users each. They're monopolies, and the amount of power and leverage they have and exploit is insane. Their EULAs are literally a non-negotiable "agree if you want to exist on the Internet". Do not try to make us feel bad for these companies that someone is also going to do it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying that Google should pay me to include my website in it's search results?
If they're stripping your information to hand out to users via their scraping mechanics, absolutely. That's what news companies, and plenty of other sites, have been subject to for years: "Google would like to scrape your content and serve it on their own site. Agree or delist yourself from search." https://theoutline.com/post/1399/how-google-ate-celebritynet... Google's monopoly position gives them complete negotiat…
I mean, if you're arguing that news provides zero value beyond a headline, that's certainly an indictment, but not of Google and facebook.
Extending this, any aggregator would need to pay to link to things. Hackernews included. It's the link-tax all over again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems to miss the point because normally platforms also have to pay for content. Facebook is a platform that hosts user/business produced content. No content, no reason to go to facebook. Likewise, Facebook brings attention to content owners. All of this is 'free' nominally. That's not the question, the question is who has more market power and squeezes who.
> normally platforms also have to pay for content ? This doesn't seem generically true to me. Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube, Vimeo, Flickr, Instagram, Vine, FourSquare, Yelp, Pinterest, DeviantArt, LiveJournal, Xanga, Medium, etc. None of these platforms pay for user-generated content like link posting. When analyzing this issue you can't get away from considering what the platform is a platform for . If it's a…
That is true (although Youtube actually does pay creators reasonably well), but I think you can make the case that they ought to, and that I think is what the central disagreement is about.
Facebook/Google and so on basically function as distributors. In the olden days publishers had integrated distribution, which is why they basically owned the market. Now tech firms have basically seized control of distribution, and because they compete for the same revenue source as the publishers (ads) the conflict is very apparent.
But I think the issue is general. User generated content isn't paid for because the marginal value added is so low per user, and users have no opportunity to bargain, and property rights for user content are non-existent.
Just imagine if there was a sort of data-stewardship, and users could easily collectively bargain for data they submit to facebook, quickly move it, and this was enabled across all regions. I think Google and Facebook would have to very quickly part with some of their economic rents.