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

121–130 of 330 posts

Re: Response to Google open letter

#121

Post by justsee »

stephen_g wrote: post #114
justsee wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google isn't in the wrong here, and framing this as just an honest consumer-first regulator doing their job omits critical context to help people understand what's happening. The party in power federally is the Coalition, and they are deeply entwined, in a symbiotic relationship, with Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd: illustrated by endless editorial lines supportive of the Coalition in media across the country, revolving d…

The $30 million was just last time. They got another $10 million this year [1]. Despite the fact that 75% of Australia doesn't subscribe to Foxtel and that SBS would be a better venue for sports content anyway... 1. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jul/22/coali...

Yes a good point.

It's also worth remembering Foxtel demanded it get paid to retransmit ABC and SBS content, which was reduced to some lesser, unknown figure last year [1].

Apparently content is worthless unless it is privately funded.

[1] https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/foxtel-and...

Re: Response to Google open letter

#122

Post by sukilot »

pulse7 wrote: post #34
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…

Google Open Letter is too high-level. After reading it you can't claim/prove much based on it. There are no details. Just high-level: "search is at risk", "data may be at risk", etc. For me, this is just a bone thrown to spark a political debate...

It shows the strength of the their best argument.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#123

Post by stephen_g »

clouddrover wrote: post #110
stephen_g wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you Australian? Because I'd be a little surprised if you'd be saying that if you had a lot of exposure to our media.. Especially given the quality (or lack thereof) of our mainstream "news" sources, and the fact that this specifically cuts out ABC, SBS or most independent sources... 70% of the commercial media here is controlled by one American company, and perhaps not coincidentally they have a very close relati…

> Because I'd be a little surprised if you'd be saying that given the quality of our mainstream "news" sources So your solution is to make them even worse by letting Google bleed them dry? What percentage of Australian's news reading goes through Google? What percentage of Australia's advertising spend does Google command?

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. Might think about Crikey too because it seems pretty good).

Re: Response to Google open letter

#124

Post by stephen_g »

justsee wrote: post #121
stephen_g wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The $30 million was just last time. They got another $10 million this year [1]. Despite the fact that 75% of Australia doesn't subscribe to Foxtel and that SBS would be a better venue for sports content anyway... 1. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jul/22/coali...

Yes a good point. It's also worth remembering Foxtel demanded it get paid to retransmit ABC and SBS content, which was reduced to some lesser, unknown figure last year [1]. Apparently content is worthless unless it is privately funded. [1] https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/foxtel-and...

Wow, I didn't know that. Crazy...

Re: Response to Google open letter

#125

Post by sukilot »

bioipbiop wrote: post #68
rsa25519 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think Google actually made either of these claims in their letter. Agreed. And because this ACCC response doesn't link to the letter, I think these rebuttals to non-existent claims are deceptively misleading

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.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#126

Post by justsee »

chrismorgan wrote: post #44
ajdlinux wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me that sounds like it's intended to cover comments made on posts on the news business's own Facebook page, rather than comments made on other pages or personal profiles, etc.

Agreed, that’s what the clause (ii) restriction is for.

When you consider the wider legal context, this also makes sense* .

This is because Facebook requires page owners to assume all liability for comments.

This has resulted in publishers losing defamation cases based on third-party comments made on their posts [1].

* (regardless of whether you feel, as I do, that the proposed legislation is a politically-motivated protection racket for a favoured media mogul)

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jun/01/australian-med...

Re: Response to Google open letter

#127

Post by corty »

kevincox wrote: post #91
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…

For Google at least they have the option to opt-out. They can add a robots.txt file to prevent indexing. It isn't clear to me why special legislation is required to give the media companies bargaining power. They already have the power to say no if they don't think the arrangement is fair. (For facebook it is less clear, because you can't really force people to stop sharing your links)

It is perfectly possible to create a website without direct deep links. Every other SPA does exactly that.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#128

Post by mmerlin »

hkt wrote: post #9
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.

That's.. awful. A Murdoch bill, then. Do you know if bloggers etc can be compensated?

First Murdoch stopped most of Australia from receiving the fast fibre to the home that had just begun rollout.

Instead we got lumped with using his rotting Foxtel coax cables for slow expensive unreliable broadband. Plus we spent $10 Billion extra for the current copper mashup, compared with the original fibre to the home rollout he blocked using Abbott the onion muncher.

Now he pushes his parliamentary puppets to grant another tranche of protectionist profits for his media empire.

Australia ranks third in the world for corruption... when measuring percentage of billionaires who made their fortune through political favours and giveaways.

Check out the bar graph in this article:

https://www.theage.com.au/opinion/game-of-mates-how-billiona...

Re: Response to Google open letter

#129

Post by Spivak »

kevincox wrote: post #91
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…

For Google at least they have the option to opt-out. They can add a robots.txt file to prevent indexing. It isn't clear to me why special legislation is required to give the media companies bargaining power. They already have the power to say no if they don't think the arrangement is fair. (For facebook it is less clear, because you can't really force people to stop sharing your links)

Sorta kinda. You can completely opt-out of Google Search entirely but there's no way to opt-out of having your content excepted while also appearing in organic search results.

I mean I would be pissed if I was a major news org that saw traffic drop off because Google is copy-pasting content from my site in their omnibox. This stuff is extremely good for the user and I rely on it a lot but they should have to license the content they republish.

Re: Response to Google open letter

#130

Post by ObsoleteNerd »

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…

Couldn't agree more. Both are trying to appeal for pity to the very people they're taking advantage of and it pretty much sums up everything wrong with companies having this much power. We're living in the cyberpunk future of megacorps manipulating governments for profit at the expense of everyone else and there's nothing we can do about it.
Post reply on HN