Google vs Australian Goverment

Remove this Banner Ad

TradeDraft

TradeDraft

Post-Human
Veteran Collingwood - Beau McCreery Player Sponsor 2023 10k Posts 30k Posts Collingwood - Caleb Poulter Player Sponsor 2022 HBF's Milk Crate - 70k Posts Collingwood - Josh Daicos Player Sponsor 2021 Collingwood - Tyler Brown Player Sponsor 2020
Oct 18, 2009
151,619
80,506
Mornington Peninsula
AFL Club
Collingwood
Google are so pious.
They are attacking the use of peoples data by others as a negative.
They are the biggest user of private data on the internet. From data taken to target you with ads, to the data they collect from your speech in your home with their digital assistant, and they record EVERYTHING.
Google forget that years ago they were the disrupter, they destroyed other search engines by doing it better. But the bargain they entered with the public was that they would invade your privacy in exchange for a better search experience.
But today I use DuckDuckGo for my search engine. They are the new disrupter. The search experience is fine, and they don’t gather my data.
Do whatever you feel the need to do Google, because there are alternatives to you, just as good as you, without selling you my life.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

TradeDraft said:

Google Promises to De-index 'Proxies' and 'Mirrors' of Pirate Sites in Australia * TorrentFreak

Google reached a new agreement with copyright holders in Australia to block proxies and mirrors of pirate sites without a court order.
torrentfreak.com torrentfreak.com
Click to expand...
Dave no matter what happens, nothing we can do about it. It will just mean with all the streaming services available, downloading will be a think of the past.

Google is just doing what it must to avoid paying money for news.
 
Maggie5 said:
Dave no matter what happens, nothing we can do about it. It will just mean with all the streaming services available, downloading will be a think of the past.

Google is just doing what it must to avoid paying money for news.
Click to expand...

I rather Download then Streaming stuff. Prefer having the File to watch and don't worry something Happening to the Streaming Service
 
This is just legacy media wanting to charge rent to prop up their failing business models.

Google and Facebook are making the most noise because it will effect them the most, and the media wants to keep the focus on them because there’s a stench of evil coming from them. But it will effect all social media and search engines.

Murdoch and nine are pushing this, using their influence to get the government to legislate a shakedown.
 
Last edited:
Chameleon75 said:
This is just legacy media wanting to charge rent to prop up their failing business models.

Google and Facebook are making the most noise because it will effect them the most, and the media wants to keep the focus on them because there’s a stench of evil coming from them. But it will effect all social media and search engines.

Murdoch and nine are pushing this, using their influence to get the government to legislate a shakedown.
Click to expand...
Simple fact is both organisations you name spend to gather the news.
Google and Facebook don’t. They simply steal it.
And now the are worried. Because if this gets through in Australia, every country in the world will follow.
And Thats going to hurt their bottom line.
Im not delusional, I know that for the media organisations it’s all about money. But for Google and facebook, it’s also all about money.
None of these organisations actually care about you and me.
 
Black_White said:
Simple fact is both organisations you name spend to gather the news.
Google and Facebook don’t. They simply steal it.
And now the are worried. Because if this gets through in Australia, every country in the world will follow.
And Thats going to hurt their bottom line.
Im not delusional, I know that for the media organisations it’s all about money. But for Google and facebook, it’s also all about money.
None of these organisations actually care about you and me.
Click to expand...
never suggested any one cares, never suggested it’s not about money, but it’s beside the point.

It’s not about stealing at all, in fact the legislation is not drafted on copyright law but competition law. And the precedent being sent is not for copyright but for charging rent for having traffic directed to the media sites. It’s akin to you recommending a cafe to someone, and the cafe sending you a bill for making the recommendation. Both google and Facebook already have licensing agreements with media organisations worldwide based on copyright when they are using content, yesterday google entered into agreement with 450 publishers in France on that basis, this is very different.

Say for example you do a google search for “news” and one of the links listed is “news.com.au”, Murdoch wants to get paid for that, it doesn’t have to be a link to an article, just the link to his website. He could just add a line on code to the site if he doesn’t want to be listed but he doesn’t want that, he wants the traffic but also wants to be paid for the traffic being directed to to him. It’s got nothing to do with content at all, just the link directing you there.

Similarly for facebook, it’s not about content, If a users posts a link to share with a friend, the media wants payment, you don’t need to post the article just the link. It’s not limited to those two either it will apply to all digital media, forums too, post a link here and bigfooty will need to pay.

But it goes even further than that, it involves ip and the control of that ip. The digital media need to hand over their algorithms to legacy media, and will not be permitted to make changes to the algorithms without the explicit consent of the legacy media. Murdoch and co want to make sure they are always ranked higher than competitors, this will disadvantage independent media from competing with media empires.

But it goes further again, google for example cannot opt out and say we won’t index Australian news sites, which would be a solution if it were about copyright which it isn’t, that effectively removes any leverage in negotiations, and what if there’s a dispute, access to the courts are restricted, there’s a limited arbitration process instead. This basically gives Murdoch and co the power to compel organisations to carry their content and pay whatever price he sets with little recourse.

This legislation is just about propping up mates, nothing more. We already have a saturated media landscape with news limited owning 80% of our market, giving them control over digital media algorithms is basically handing him control over other companies and what users can see without paying for it. It’s not good for taxpayers either, google pay $100m in tax, not enough, but it’s something, news limited pay zero.

There are serious issues with social media, particularly in relation to privacy, there should be legislation to tackle it, but you don’t do that be giving Beelzebub the keys to the city and pay him for it at whatever price he sets.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Chameleon75 said:
This is just legacy media wanting to charge rent to prop up their failing business models.

Google and Facebook are making the most noise because it will effect them the most, and the media wants to keep the focus on them because there’s a stench of evil coming from them. But it will effect all social media and search engines.

Murdoch and nine are pushing this, using their influence to get the government to legislate a shakedown.
Click to expand...

Well Murdoch runs the Liberal Propaganda Machine so I can see Morrison Siding with Rupert
 
Thanks for the excellent explanation Chameleon75 (I’ll take your word for it).
 
Chameleon75 said:
never suggested any one cares, never suggested it’s not about money, but it’s beside the point.

It’s not about stealing at all, in fact the legislation is not drafted on copyright law but competition law. And the precedent being sent is not for copyright but for charging rent for having traffic directed to the media sites. It’s akin to you recommending a cafe to someone, and the cafe sending you a bill for making the recommendation. Both google and Facebook already have licensing agreements with media organisations worldwide based on copyright when they are using content, yesterday google entered into agreement with 450 publishers in France on that basis, this is very different.

Say for example you do a google search for “news” and one of the links listed is “news.com.au”, Murdoch wants to get paid for that, it doesn’t have to be a link to an article, just the link to his website. He could just add a line on code to the site if he doesn’t want to be listed but he doesn’t want that, he wants the traffic but also wants to be paid for the traffic being directed to to him. It’s got nothing to do with content at all, just the link directing you there.

Similarly for facebook, it’s not about content, If a users posts a link to share with a friend, the media wants payment, you don’t need to post the article just the link. It’s not limited to those two either it will apply to all digital media, forums too, post a link here and bigfooty will need to pay.

But it goes even further than that, it involves ip and the control of that ip. The digital media need to hand over their algorithms to legacy media, and will not be permitted to make changes to the algorithms without the explicit consent of the legacy media. Murdoch and co want to make sure they are always ranked higher than competitors, this will disadvantage independent media from competing with media empires.

But it goes further again, google for example cannot opt out and say we won’t index Australian news sites, which would be a solution if it were about copyright which it isn’t, that effectively removes any leverage in negotiations, and what if there’s a dispute, access to the courts are restricted, there’s a limited arbitration process instead. This basically gives Murdoch and co the power to compel organisations to carry their content and pay whatever price he sets with little recourse.

This legislation is just about propping up mates, nothing more. We already have a saturated media landscape with news limited owning 80% of our market, giving them control over digital media algorithms is basically handing him control over other companies and what users can see without paying for it. It’s not good for taxpayers either, google pay $100m in tax, not enough, but it’s something, news limited pay zero.

There are serious issues with social media, particularly in relation to privacy, there should be legislation to tackle it, but you don’t do that be giving Beelzebub the keys to the city and pay him for it at whatever price he sets.
Click to expand...
I'm all for regulating social media, as they're companies that intentionally create addiction in order to make money through unregulated advertising and do so to people of all ages. The idea of not showing ads during things pitched at the young has gone out the window, but this is a stupid legislation. I've got no idea how it could be perceived as beneficial.
 
I’m no Murdoch empire fan.
And I understand they are closely aligned with the Australian Liberal Party.
But I don’t care if it is Murdoch pushing this agenda with the Government.
Because if and when it becomes law, many more independent Australian news sources will be able to be funded and we will not be at the mercy of the American companies.
This is what it boils down to. Do we want Australians to be writing about Australia's issues, or do we want it filtered through the lens of what is good for America?
 
Black_White said:
I’m no Murdoch empire fan.
And I understand they are closely aligned with the Australian Liberal Party.
But I don’t care if it is Murdoch pushing this agenda with the Government.
Because if and when it becomes law, many more independent Australian news sources will be able to be funded and we will not be at the mercy of the American companies.
This is what it boils down to. Do we want Australians to be writing about Australia's issues, or do we want it filtered through the lens of what is good for America?
Click to expand...
independent media isn’t covered by it, and Murdoch is American, swapping one yank for another. The issue isn’t the payment but the model, this model consolidates control of digital content in Murdoch’s hands, it should be based on copyright as the French legislation is.
 
Black_White said:
Google are so pious.
They are attacking the use of peoples data by others as a negative.
They are the biggest user of private data on the internet. From data taken to target you with ads, to the data they collect from your speech in your home with their digital assistant, and they record EVERYTHING.
Google forget that years ago they were the disrupter, they destroyed other search engines by doing it better. But the bargain they entered with the public was that they would invade your privacy in exchange for a better search experience.
But today I use DuckDuckGo for my search engine. They are the new disrupter. The search experience is fine, and they don’t gather my data.
Do whatever you feel the need to do Google, because there are alternatives to you, just as good as you, without selling you my life.
Click to expand...


Thats a different discussion imo.

The Australian Govt is creating a law to prop up Rupert Murdoch's media. Who is running this country?
 
Chameleon75 said:
independent media isn’t covered by it, and Murdoch is American, swapping one yank for another. The issue isn’t the payment but the model, this model consolidates control of digital content in Murdoch’s hands, it should be based on copyright as the French legislation is.
Click to expand...
Well Murdoch became an American for business reasons. I really don’t care about his nationality.
I do care about Australian news being sourced from Australians. And like it or not Murdoch employs a hell of a lot of Australians to do just that.
Google employ none that actually report the news.
 
Chameleon75 said:
independent media isn’t covered by it, and Murdoch is American, swapping one yank for another. The issue isn’t the payment but the model, this model consolidates control of digital content in Murdoch’s hands, it should be based on copyright as the French legislation is.
Click to expand...

Well Murdoch is the Real Leader of the Liberal Party
 
TW Sherrin said:
Thats a different discussion imo.

The Australian Govt is creating a law to prop up Rupert Murdoch's media. Who is running this country?
Click to expand...

Murdoch runs the Country
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top