by tgvaughan on 2/12/21, 8:49 AM with 269 comments
by underwater on 2/12/21, 10:19 AM
They spent multiple days inserting unremovable yellow banners on top of every search results page for every Australian that directed everyone to YouTube. Their spokesperson spoke to users like they were kindergarten children; their literal argument was that the legislation would be "like if you had to pay to tell your friends about a new coffee shop"[1].
They also started running "tests" where they would silently blackhole Australian news sites for a subset of users. They simply pretended that ABC.net.au didn't exist, even though 90% of the content on that site is not news.
I don't know what their PR team were thinking, but they've successfully demonstrated that they both have too much power and neither respect nor care about their end users.
by anotherevan on 2/12/21, 12:23 PM
This [2] may provide some helpful commentary.
From Google/Facebook's viewpoint, one of the more distasteful aspects which is rarely mentioned in most coverage is that they must give two weeks notice of algorithm changes to registered news businesses.
There's a perception in some circles that this is a fairly unnuanced money grab by the government on behalf of Murdoch media[3]. A perception that was not helped by earlier drafts excluding the public Australian Broadcasting Corporation and SBS from the trough. Two organisations the current federal government is seen as being hostile towards.
As I understand it:
- The bill would not allow Google to simply drop Australian news sites from search results (hello Spain News!), hence really only leaving the option to block Oz altogether.
- There is no acknowledgement at all of the value search engines provide to media organisations by the links provided.
- The forced arbitration conditions are quite... forceful. (I'm not really across this aspect.)
A common nickname for our our Prime Minister among his detractors is "Scotty from Marketing" [4]
[1] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi...
[2] https://www.gtlaw.com.au/insights/its-here-news-media-digita...
[3] https://youtu.be/2BPLBIgKjN8
[4] https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2020/01/where-the-legend-of-sc...
by graeme on 2/12/21, 1:33 PM
That’s not why. They’re threatening to withdraw because the law requires two week advance notice of algo changes. If you have any idea how google works you know this is impossible.
Brexiteers scorned critics and are now learning that indeed some things are impossible, such as control over borders and regulations and unfettered free trade with the eu.
People seem to have such distaste for google that they’re not wrestling with how impossible Australia’s demands really are. Google has faced similar news demands in europe before and didn’t threaten to leave. But those demands didn’t come with impossible to comply with algorithm requests.
by throwaway3699 on 2/12/21, 10:52 AM
:(
by wombatmobile on 2/12/21, 12:20 PM
Strategically, Google has played the wrong card. It has a better card up its sleeve called GNI [0], which might ultimately be how this standoff gets resolved.
The conservative Australian government, which is in Murdoch's pocket, used audacious logic to justify the extortion play, claiming Google's near monopoly has strangled journalism and so New Limited deserves to be compensated.
However, Google doesn't steal News Limited content - it just links to their stories, thereby sending News Limited 70% of its web traffic in Australia. Moreover, the output from Murdoch's empire isn't even predominantly news anymore - it is entertainment and ideology.
A better strategy for Google would be to take the high road and offer to support real journalism. It already has a program for that in America called Google News Initiative (GNI) [1] which has contributed to local news organs such as Berkeleyside [2] and Oaklandside [3].
If Google has to reach into its pocket and pay millions to keep doing business in Australia, where it earns billions, the best beneficiary would be local news content producers with whom it could forge symbiotic partnerships. That would be good for journalism, good for Google, and an ironic twist of fate for Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.
[0] https://newsinitiative.withgoogle.com
[1] https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/12/10/195853...
by MarkMc on 2/12/21, 12:54 PM
Google says: "There seems to be no clear or obvious distinction between news and non-news content, and the way that Google works, there is no algorithm that could navigate such a vague and broad definition." [0]
But Facebook says: "Assuming this draft code becomes law, we will reluctantly stop allowing publishers and people in Australia from sharing local and international news" [1]
So who is right?
[0] https://about.google/google-in-australia/an-open-letter/
[1] https://about.fb.com/news/2020/08/changes-to-facebooks-servi...
by weissed on 2/12/21, 10:25 AM
This is opportunistic at best and a bad idea for the internet long term. Shame Microsoft is encouraging this only to gain market share.
by docdeek on 2/12/21, 10:15 AM
"Assuming this draft code becomes law, we will reluctantly stop allowing publishers and people in Australia from sharing local and international news on Facebook and Instagram.” [1]
Google has also threatened/promised that it would pull Google Search from Australia if the code passes (though, like FB, it suggested this was a worst-case scenario. [2]
As an Aussie ex-pat, I'm fascinated to see what happens if both FB and Google go through with these worst case scenarios. It would make for a different Facebook experience, I imagine, and it would radically change the search market in Oz where Google has around 90% of the market. [3]
Personally, I think that it will hurt the media in Oz a lot more than it will hurt FB or Google. People looking for news will find ways to get around the 'Google/FB blackout' just like people in Oz have been finding ways to watch US TV shows and VPN/proxy into foreign Netflix sites for years. Maybe everyone will be back to the bargaining table after the 12 month review with a little more honesty about how much of their traffic comes because of Google and FB, and not how much they believe is lost to them.
[1]: https://about.fb.com/news/2020/08/changes-to-facebooks-servi... [2]: https://mumbrella.com.au/withdrawal-isnt-a-threat-its-a-wors... [3]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/220534/googles-share-of-...
by kbcool on 2/12/21, 10:13 AM
I don't think they will go as far as withdrawing search (note: it's just search not their 3 million other products) from Australia.
But it does set a scary precedent for them.
To repurpose their analogy in the scare campaigns they are running in Australia:
Currently when you ask about the best coffee shop in the area. Google runs down the road, taking a sample of the coffee from the local shops and fills you up with coffee then tries to sell you a bunch of related stuff.
With this legislation Google will have to pay the coffee shops for the samples.
It's a small step but Google have been profiting from "borrowed" content for the best part of a decade.
They need to pay.
by franciscop on 2/12/21, 10:17 AM
by yeahnah22 on 2/12/21, 10:38 AM
Drumming up changes in Prime Ministers just to increase their ratings. These companies are NOT champions of the people. They’re just as greedy as Google and far less ethical.
by djrobstep on 2/12/21, 10:11 AM
by roenxi on 2/12/21, 10:09 AM
However there is an argument that the price to pay might be acceptable if it pushes Google away from the Australian market. Strategically, these companies are a huge risk of foreign political interference.
by georgebarnett on 2/12/21, 10:29 AM
The outcome is uncertain, but it should be fascinating to watch.
by interactivecode on 2/12/21, 11:03 AM
by throwaways885 on 2/12/21, 1:35 PM
It won't just hit Google and Facebook, but anybody who runs a social platform. Reddit, Hacker News, Twitter even Mastodon are all in the firing line. The Australian government has unilateral control over which sites are required to funnel money Murdoch trash instead of real (maybe even independent) journalism.
My prediction is people will move to social platforms that do let you share these links, and one by one they'll find themselves regulated out of existence when they get large enough to catch the attention of the government. Even worse - think about the ways this could be abused e.g. to shut down small outlets who committed the crime of linking to mainstream sources.
I believe this is far more despicable than anything Big Tech is doing, and global adoption would be the end of a free and open web.
You thought software patents constricted the flow of information? This is 10x worse.
Edit: Please, Aussies, call your MP and tell them your thoughts. Put aside any negative feelings about Big Tech for now, and think about the future of the web. This will eventually affect all of us who operate comment sections, blogs, forums and Mastodon instances.
by AlchemistCamp on 2/12/21, 11:06 AM
That said, it would be much, much worse, if they withdrew Gmail.
by geogra4 on 2/12/21, 9:50 AM
by fen4o on 2/12/21, 12:23 PM
by ColinHayhurst on 2/12/21, 1:31 PM
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150725/14510131761/study...
A quick reading of the Bill indicates this will apply to snippets; and even a hyperlink without snippet. Who is that good for? That ended up damaging publishers in Spain.
Who else can imagine Google bargaining with the publishers for reduced paid renumeration by offsetting "value" from organic referrals?
by patchtopic on 2/12/21, 12:42 PM
by yvan-eht-nioj on 2/12/21, 11:25 PM
Public trust in the media is paramount, which is undermined when media organisations can only compete by tailoring their articles to fit into an explicitly commercialised search system.
Google is great for selling products. They’ve built their entire business around selling products. But is news a product, or a service?
by Mauricebranagh on 2/12/21, 1:16 PM
by nbar on 2/12/21, 10:39 AM
by suddenexample on 2/12/21, 6:30 PM
by bsenftner on 2/12/21, 12:13 PM
by guidedlight on 2/12/21, 10:06 AM
by karmasimida on 2/12/21, 1:33 PM
So nothing really changes, the sky is not falling.
by ollo on 2/12/21, 2:20 PM
by jonny383 on 2/12/21, 10:04 AM
Bring on bing I suppose
by dhx on 2/12/21, 3:58 PM
Instead of remunerating the obvious party, will Google instead be paying the registered news business corporations corresponding to the 5 news articles that show up in the top 10 search results for this query? The other 4 search results would miss out on being paid as they consist of 2 social media discussions of the first result, an international news organisation and an international news aggregation website.
What if instead I search for "Ancient Egyptians collected wild ibis birds for sacrifice, says study"[3] which brings up the original press release from an Australian University[4] as the third result. All other results returned are for the most part a copy and paste of the original press release and include a WikiNews article, two Australian media organisations ([6] copied from [5] copied from the original [4]) and a number of international science news websites and international media organisations. Who is Google paying in this scenario and why should anyone be paid anything for copying and pasting a press release that is returned by a Google search result? It looks like this question is unanswered according to section 52X which states it's up to companies like Google to figure it out after this legislation comes into effect:
> The responsible digital platform corporation for the designated digital platform service must ensure that: (a) a proposal is developed for the designated digital platform service to recognise original covered news content when it makes available and distributes that content
[1] https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Victorians%20Expecting... [2] https://www.betootaadvocate.com/headlines/victorians-expecti... [3] https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Ancient%20Egyptians%20... [4] https://news.griffith.edu.au/2019/11/14/genetic-analysis-sug... [5] https://theconversation.com/holy-bin-chickens-ancient-egypti... [6] https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6494482/how-egyptians...
by thethought on 2/12/21, 2:29 PM
by AlexCoventry on 2/12/21, 2:16 PM
by cryptica on 2/12/21, 10:57 AM
If you allow these big tech companies to leverage their attention oligopoly to profit from rent-seeking, they're going to become hotspots of economic parasitism and this will subvert all the incentives which capitalism relies on to function properly.
by freakynit on 2/12/21, 10:23 AM
"It's good these tech behemoths are being pushed-back. They have stifled competition for much long now just by having so many resources at their disposal and using those all together. You just can't compete with that kind of abundance.
These behemoths, when left even for a few months, would make way for other competitors to spring up, and at least have a marginal chance of winning. Without they leaving, this just seem to not happen"
by mikkoj on 2/12/21, 4:18 PM
Yes, this would (could/should?) also apply to smaller sites that make money by aggregating traffic based on the original work of others and monetizing the attention. We can start imagining what that could look like and how to implement it. Instead of "GUVERMENT IS BAD" knee-jerk reactions, this should be exciting: what would an internet look like that would have compensation of content creators among the first principles?