Microsoft tells Biden administration to adopt Australia’s pay-for-news plan Microsoft has said the USA should copy Australia’s plan to force Google and Facebook to pay for links to news content and suggested that doing so will help improve social cohesion and strengthen democracy. But Google has fired back with a statement asserting that Microsoft’s motives are impure. “Of course they'd be eager to …
Google could decide to negotiate only for news that it likes and not bother to link to anything else. It could pay more to news outlets that consistently make Google look good. Once dependence is achieved they could turn off the money tap and offer to buy the failing business.
The only reason I can think of for the delay is that if you are going to be evil it helps if there is a law in place demanding that you be evil. You can then be thoroughly evil for years until the law gets repealed and as a bonus you cannot get fined for doing what the law required you to do.
Actually the Austrailian law prohibits Google from censoring or not using certain news sites, basically its got to agree pay everyone and search everyone, rather than those that pay more for higher ranking or it likes, so it most certainly can't pick and choose (though you try and prove that it is when it is).
These are the best bits of the law, the payment piece is nice and will help fund proper journalism that is watched over by proper regulators rather than most of the nonsense that passes for news these days on social media and You Tube.
Despite Microsoft pouring billions into loss-making media ventures, creating new options for advertisers inside Xbox games and boasting annual search-driven ad revenue in the billions, Smith blamed others for the media’s problems.
None of which has anything to do with news. I'm not a shrill for Microsoft, Google or Facebook, but CNet could help understanding by focusing on the topic at hand.
ABC, Australia's national broadcaster, roughly equivalent to the BBC, is also being starved of funds.
The ABC also had its offices raised by police for 'national security reasons' after publishing allegations of war crimes by Australian troops in Afghanistan. A News Corp journalistic also had her flat raided.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-51526607
Stop reading his paper or watching Sky and stop using Facebook, Whatsapp and Instagram etc, ditch your GMail account, stop useing chrome, use and add blocker (be nice if I could just block adds from companies I disapprove of like Google and Facebook).
If all the people who feel these corps are bad stopped using them they may actually do something about it.
There are alternatives, some of them are even better.
People are too scared of social exclusion but these companies all started because people were looking for something different and they become must have or use in order to get on.
Only the American government and people think Canadian politics is "to the left." Your left most parties are to the extreme right of our leftmost; you are, effectively, fascists no matter WHICH American party we are talking about. Don't panic about the term "fascist" - it refers to governments that prop up their industries and corporations to the detriment of society. It does NOT mean you're about to invade someone.
Using the Capital riot as justification for this doesn’t make sense, I’m not aware of any news media or former President for that matter who can be held accountable for that event.
The idea of www links being monetised by mandate is potentially a threat to the ability to access or publish information online. I’d rather these businesses come to some private agreement for sharing revenue without affecting anyone else. A social media website could ensure that all external links to specific domains include an extra query that can be used for tracking ad revenue.
This is couched in terms that suggest Google is stealing from news organizations. To those whose knowledge of internet technology ends at "Push the Magic Button", it may seem this way but MS and others are simply pandering to ignorance.
Google is providing traffic "TO" the news sites that they would likely never receive otherwise. If any site feels that they are being somehow cheated, they can simply put a No Google Bot Tag on their page. Google honors these tags and will not index and link if requested not to by the tag.
What's happening is the news organizations love the traffic provided by Google Links, so they don't tag Google out because they want the traffic. Now they turn around and want Google to pay them for providing traffic services they want for free.
Imagine what would happen to the very foundation of the internet if everyone had to cross pay everyone for linking!
To any news site complaining, add a Google Bot Blocking Tag and go about your business. Trying to force Google (or anyone) to pay you for providing services you want is insane!
Hmmm ...... maybe the news sites should pay me for reading their site. That's the ticket, click bait payment, what could possibly go wrong!
"I can't see why Google threatened to shut off all search services (in Australia) when they could just prevent links to whatever Australian newspapers were required (all if necessary)."
The Australian Law prohibits Google from selectively blocking links to any or all Australian or other countries News sites.
The Law also has a very broad definition of what is News and what is a News source;
Core news content means content that reports, investigates or explains:
(a) issues or events that are relevant in engaging Australians in public debate and in informing democratic decision-making; or
(b) current issues or events of public significance for Australians at a local, regional or national level.
Covered news content means content that is any of the following:
(a) core news content;
(b) content that reports, investigates or explains current issues or events of interest to Australians.
News business means:
(a) a news source; or
(b) a combination of news sources.
News source means any of the following, if it produces, and publishes online, news content:
(a) a newspaper masthead;
(b) a magazine;
(c) a television program or channel;
(d) a radio program or channel;
(e) a website or part of a website;
(f) a program of audio or video content designed to be distributed over the internet.
The ACCC has structured the Law so that Google has no wriggle room, they either comply or totally remove Search. If Google were to, somehow, run a 'No News Search' application but accidently dropped a BBC article about something like Brexit into a 'no news' search they would probably be in violation of the Law and up for a big fine. Also the Law calls for arbitration but not as we know it. The Arbiter can only decide between a $ offer Google may make against a $ request from the beneficial News groups - the Arbiter cannot change the $ values!
Gee, what is Microsoft going on about? I've never searched for a news article in my life! I go to the news websites I read on a daily basis, same as I used to with a newspaper subscription.
Facebook's "news" I tend to block because it is full of garbage posts from ranting Trump-bots and the like. Most of their links are to paywall sites anyhow, and I am NOT paying some media company $10/month just to read ONE article. :)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
