Google says Australian pay-for-news code means it can’t quit the country

Google’s Australian limb has continued its campaign against the nation’s pay-for-content "News Media Bargaining Code" with a more detailed dive into the reasons it opposes the plan. Google has run an impossible-to-miss campaign that has seen its Australian services peppered with links about bad things that will happen to …

[Sampler]

Murdoch

I'm all for fair journalism, so if this aids that, all the better (I'll be honest, haven't been following it and this article makes Google's side seem like poor excuses) but, whilst we're at it, can we get some laws against Murdoch too? To make sure his empire actually reports the news, not just the opinions he favours..

[Chris G]

Re: Murdoch

Murdoch is 89, so unless they have cloned him or found a body donor for a brain transplant, he shouldn't be a bother in the not too fsr distant future.

My impression of Google is that they simply want to hsve full control all of the time, the supercorps all seem to believe they are above government meddling of any kind.

[A Non e-mouse]

Re: Murdoch

Wasn't Murdoch lining up his children to take over his empire?

[DavCrav]

Re: Murdoch

Turns out they were shit at it.

[Sampler]

Re: Murdoch

Here's hoping!

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: Murdoch

Murdoch was lining his kids up for leadership roles, but for various reasons it's not happened. However his kids don't seem to share his political views anyway, so it's not like there's going to be a continuation of whatever editorial line he's advanced. It should also be remember that his media empire is by no means monolithic - in that his outfits often push the political views that sell most copies. The Times and the Sun have completely different editorial lines, for example - as do Sky News and Fox News.

There's often an argument that the media agenda drives their readership. And to some extent, their must be some truth in that - as you can only be aware of the news stories that you actually see. But people also like to consume media that reflects their pre-exisiting prejudices back at them, rather than challenging them. Hence I think it's more likely that the readers influence the editorial line as much as the owners / editors do. And that an editor who consistently goes against what the readers want - will soon lose readers.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Murdoch

"There's often an argument that the media agenda drives their readership."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHimia_Fxzs

[vtcodger]

Re: Murdoch

My impression of Google is that they simply want to hsve [sic] full control all of the time

They do want complete control of course. But I suspect that they are more motivated by a strong desire not to pay every web site they index for the privilege of indexing it. That looks to be where the pay-for-news road ends. They would surely see that sort of thing as a threat to their core business -- which it is of course.

While I'm not all that big a fan of Google because I think they are getting crazier with every passing year, I don't think a world where search engines are no longer financially viable would be a good thing.

[PTW]

Re: no longer financially viable

I'm starting to think a world where Google is no longer financially viable, would be no bad thing

[hoola]

Re: Murdoch

"My impression of Google is that they simply want to have [sic] full control all of the time"

Whilst not paying anything for the privilege. They are only interested in maximising their advertising revenue and entrenching their monopoly.

It does not appear to occur to them that if all the new sources they scrape and summarise disappear, they won't have anything.

[Graham Cobb]

Re: Murdoch

Whilst not paying anything for the privilege.

Do you have any idea how much it costs to run a spider across the whole web and meaningfully index and access that information? In a better world they would be charging the newspapers to be in their index. It is very unfortunate for us that we have ended up paying for it (by becoming the product Google sells).

[Doctor Syntax]

Re: Murdoch

"the supercorps all seem to believe they are above government meddling of any kind"

They certainly don't seem to think government meddling is beneath them.

[big_D]

Re: Murdoch

Anything that means changing the way their platform works has FUD slung at it, if that doesn't work, they throw lawyers at it. It is only when lawyers and fines exceed development costs and income reduction that they seem to comply.

[TeeCee]

Re: Murdoch

To make sure his empire actually reports the news, not just the opinions he favours..

Sorry to break the bad news (hah!), but every news organisation has an editorial policy of some sort. This is why the Grauniad these days reads like a sort of Stalinist version of the Faily Wail. Same blinkers on, just looking in a different direction.

They all pander to some demographic or other and nobody actually wants the whole truth, just the bits they like.

[SundogUK]

Re: Murdoch

"To make sure his empire actually reports the news, not just the opinions he favours." Why? It's his business - he can do what he wants with it. If you don't like what they say, go elsewhere.

[Anonymous Coward]

'changed its search Code more than 3,600 times last year alone'

Ten times per day, once every 2.4 hours on average? All security flaws or need to promote some specific content? Looks to me a lot of manual 'optimization' is used....

[Graham Cobb]

Re: 'changed its search Code more than 3,600 times last year alone'

How many developers do you think they have working on search code? Each one making largely independent changes for all sorts of reasons.

I am surprised it isn't higher,

[Dan 55]

Re: 'changed its search Code more than 3,600 times last year alone'

When it comes to a change 2.4 hours a day, it means the results are human driven, not algorithm driven, something they are always at pains to say it isn't (because that would be publishing).

[a pressbutton]

Re: 'changed its search Code more than 3,600 times last year alone'

Algorithms _are_ human defined and so human driven.

[Strahd Ivarius]

Re: 'changed its search Code more than 3,600 times last year alone'

Now we just have to wait for some country to state it explicitly in a law...

And then it will be the end for Google News.

[Mister Dubious]

Re: 'changed its search Code more than 3,600 times last year alone'

I worked as a Google search developer for a couple years close to a decade ago. At that time I think "ten changes per day" would have been a gross UNderestimate of the amount of ferment in the search product(s).

Things may have changed since I left, of course. I'm sure we're all startled at how staid and stolid Google has become ...

[Pascal Monett]

28 days ?

Isn't that a bit long for "advance notice of algorithm changes" ?

I perfectly agree with Australia's desire to see news outlets get their fair share - which Google has never worried about until now - and I totally support any effort that reigns in this out-of-control behemoth that does whatever it feels like and whines like a child when someone steps up to curb the rampant tracking and broken ad system, but this is the age of Internet and near-instantaneous worldwide communication.

28 days of notice is a perfectly administrative mindset defined by people who do nothing but talk all day long, then agree to meet tomorrow to talk some more. If we admit that an advance notification is useful and necessary, then we also have to admit that five working days is more than enough time to get the notification, read it, understand the impact and explain to the higher-ups.

Especially since Google is just notifying, there's no acceptance to be had. So basically Google could just make a web page listing the changes, send the notification and implement the changes. Why wait ?

Then the page could serve as an ongoing log of what changes Google made, and that would become historical reference at the same time.

Good enough.

[DavCrav]

Re: 28 days ?

"Isn't that a bit long for "advance notice of algorithm changes" ?"

It's about right to be notified, read it, understand it, realize it is bad, write down why it's bad, send it to legal, get a formal objection written up, submit it to a court, and for the court to hear the arguments and grant an injunction.

It's easier to stop a change than reverse one. These 'move fast and break things' companies know that very well.

[Graham Cobb]

Re: 28 days ?

As far as I know (from the reporting - I haven't read the legislation) there is no option to object.

The notification is supposed to be to allow the websites to change the way they do their SEO to handle Google's changes. Why should they have that right?

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: 28 days ?

The notification is supposed to be to allow the websites to change the way they do their SEO to handle Google's changes. Why should they have that right?

They need to have that right, because Google and Facebook have the power to arbitrarily remove access to whole segments of media. And have both done so at various times. Not that it isn't always for reasons, but if we want to have viable news gathering organisations, they need to make money. And having your revenue randomly drop by 50% in a month because Google have changed their search algorithm is not a terribly stable business model.

Google have become a utility. That's their own tough shit at having been so successful at building their global search monopoly. As far as I can see, Google's future is to slowly get more and more regulated by governments. Perhaps this will degrade their service so badly that competition will mean they cease to be a monopoly - but because they've become the gatekeeper to the internet - that is now the situation that they find themselves in.

It alll interacts of course. Google are probably about as aggressive about leveraging their monopoly into other markets as either Microsoft or IBM in their day. But the difference is that Google interact with how we read news - and that's an issue that politicians are deeply invested in. The fact that Goolge and Facebook were enthusiastically taking cash to display fake news - or just doing it themselves out of incompetence (and over-reliance on the magic of algorithms and machine learning) - has added to the pressure on them. Until every couple of months they're up in front of Parliamentary / Congressional committees, or monopoly regulators or privacy regulators or enquiries into election interference... They're being so shit and so aggravating on so many different fronts that Google and Facebook are utterly trashing their public reputation and also their credit with politicians. And they both seem to arrogant and stupid to realise it. Eventually the dam will break - and they'll start losing all the battles simultaneously, and the effect will start to bleed across from different countries - where regulation in one will make regulation in another more likely (and harder for them to fight).

[Alan Brown]

Re: 28 days ?

" That's their own tough shit at having been so successful at building their global search monopoly. "

The problem isn't that. The problem is Doubleclick.

When they acquired THAT poison pill, "Don't be Evil" became one of "Google's Failed Experiments"

Look at who's on the board of Alphabet, from a company that would have been out of business within days if Google hadn't acquired it, thanks largely to their obnoxious behaviour causing widespread backlash

[SundogUK]

Re: 28 days ?

Google are not a utility by any rational definition. I never use them and haven't for years.

[SundogUK]

Re: 28 days ?

"... submit it to a court, and for the court to hear the arguments and grant an injunction."

On what grounds? The change would have to be unlawful and no one is suggesting that is happening, or going to happen.

[Strahd Ivarius]

Re: 28 days ?

So you want to take Google at their word when they say that they don't do anything illegal?

I have a bridge to sell to you then...

[big_D]

Typical Google

They seem to do this time and again. They deliberately misinterpret the proposed laws and spread FUD in the hope that nothing will change and the law will be quietly dropped.

If the law goes through, they try to deliberately ridicule the law by misapplying it, in the hope it will be quickly repealed...

[NinjasFTW]

Re: Typical Google

Have you read the proposed law at

https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/DPB%20--20Draft%20news%20media%20and%20digital%20platforms%20mandatory%20bargaining%20code%20Q%26As.pdf?

I don't see how there is any misinterpretation in it.

It reads as if it was written directly by NewsCorp. Its an abomination of a proposal that will have far reaching implications for the internet as a whole

[maffski]

Google and Facebook need to up their bribery, sorry, funding.

'Australia doesn’t want Google or Facebook to leave, it just wants them to pay news organisations on terms set by Australia'

Or, more accurately, those with political influence want to extract a rent

[Graham Cobb]

Re: Google and Facebook need to up their bribery, sorry, funding.

Exactly. I don't want my news reporting to be limited to traditional news sources (on some establishment-approved list). I want organisations I support to be able to get their news out through channels not controlled by Murdoch!

Yes, a press is valuable. But if it needs financial support, make it very clear it is really coming from government (with all the issues that creates): feel free to tax search engines to get the money, but let's make sure there is an open discussion about which entities the government is choosing to subsidise, and how much.

[a pressbutton]

Re: Google and Facebook need to up their bribery, sorry, funding.

An establishment approved list is a bad thing.

A google generated list is not a bad thing.

... but hasn't Google become the establishment?

[OffBeatMammal]

Who benefits from the code?

Not taking Google's side here, but who benefits from this push by the LNP?it specifically enriches Murdoch and Parker (back scratching for election success) and excludes the ABC and SBS at a time when the Govt is bleating about not being able to afford the services of our public broadcasters.

If it is going to be pay to play then distribution of funds should be spread across all content creators and reflect their value to the ecosystem, not be a politically motivated subsidy

[Mark192]

Someone could make easy money...

Someone could make easy money with a series of half-assed news sites designed to make money out of those click throughs from Google News.

[Anonymous Coward]

Google needs regulation but this ain't it

Ultimately this concept of paying creators can be applied to all search engines. Likewise the idea that showing any part of a scraped website makes you liable for payment. I am old enough to remember what searches just returned a list of URLs and, later, page titles. I don't want to go back to that creaky and somewhat creepy world

[whitepines]

Re: Google needs regulation but this ain't it

searches just returned a list of URLs and, later, page titles

In the current climate just clicking on some links can put you in prison. Without page snippets how exactly do people avoid prison short of sticking with Facebook, Twitter, etc.?

Or was that the intent?

[D. Evans]

Ex-pat laughs

I left Oz in 2000 and will be going back home to retire in a decade. It's so good too see so little has changed.