• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

BBC: Google threatens to withdraw search engine from Australia

Lightning Count

Lightning Count

Member
Jan 27, 2019
16,083
Fuck off
www.bbc.co.uk

Google threatens to withdraw search engine from Australia

The tech giant says it will remove its main search function from Australia if it passes a new law.
www.bbc.co.uk

Google has threatened to remove its search engine from Australia over the nation's attempt to make the tech giant share royalties with news publishers.
Australia is introducing a world-first law to make Google, Facebook and potentially other tech companies pay media outlets for their news content.
But the US firms have fought back, warning the law would make them withdraw some of their services.

Australian PM Scott Morrison said lawmakers would not yield to "threats".

Though Australia is far from Google's largest market, the proposed news code is seen as a possible global test case for how governments could seek to regulate big tech firms.

Australia's code would tie Google and Facebook to mediated negotiations with publishers over the value of news content, if no agreement could be reached first.
Google Australia managing director Mel Silva told a Senate hearing on Friday that the laws were "unworkable".

"If this version of the code were to become law, it would give us no real choice but to stop making Google Search available in Australia," she said.
But lawmakers challenged this, accusing Google of "blackmail" and bullying Australia for raising the reform.

"It's going to go worldwide. Are you going to pull out of every market, are you? Is this about stopping the precedence?" asked Senator Rex Patrick.
Ms Silva replied that the code was "an untenable risk for our Australian operations".

Mr Morrison said his government remained committed to progressing the laws through parliament this year.

"Let me be clear: Australia makes our rules for things you can do in Australia. That's done in our parliament," he told reporters on Friday.
Why is Australia pushing this law?

Google is the dominant search engine in Australia and has been described by the government as a near-essential utility with little market competition.
The government has argued that because the tech platforms gain customers from people who want to read the news, the tech giants should pay newsrooms a "fair" amount for their journalism.

In addition, it has argued that the financial support is needed for its embattled news industry because a strong media is vital to democracy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Google are really desperate for this law not to pass, but I doubt they would be willing to cut off Australia over this, the data loss they would incur by cutting off Australia would have a fairly significant impact.

Plus I very much doubt they are willing to flush all that advertising revenue down the drain, we're taking hundreds of millions at the least.
 

Deleted member 86105

Banned
Nov 18, 2020
1,408
"We do not see a way, with the financial and operational risks, that we could continue to offer a service in Australia," she said.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

image.png


I think they can weather the financial and operational risks of sharing a fraction of their income. They have, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly over search engine monetization.

"Google, by contrast, has been performing well. Last year the social media giant made almost $4bn from Australia, while paying $45m in tax."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's a whopping 1.1% tax rate 🤣
 
Grug

Grug

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,647
Scott Morrison with his nose lodged firmly up Rupert Murdoch's backside. Business as usual.

As for Google, how about they pay taxes instead?
 

Ravensmash

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,797
"If this version of the code were to become law, it would give us no real choice but to stop making Google Search available in Australia," she said."

I call bullshit on this.

Just pay your bloody dues.
 
Ephonk

Ephonk

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
1,971
Belgium
Lightning Count said:
Google has a 90% market share of search engine usage, it would take any replacement service a hell of a long time to fill that void if google pulls out.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There's a big risk for Google to experiment with this though. What if they go through with it and duck duck go actually gets popular there, and international media write about it. This could potentially threaten their monopoly everywhere (even for a few %) imo.
 
OP
OP
Lightning Count

Lightning Count

Member
Jan 27, 2019
16,083
Fuck off
Ephonk said:
There's a big risk for Google to experiment with this though. What if they go through with it and duck duck go actually gets popular there, and international media write about it. This could potentially threaten their monopoly everywhere (even for a few %) imo.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Which is exactly why they won't do it, they are not about to voluntarily give up their dominant market share
 
Grug

Grug

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,647
SinkFla said:
Truth.

I say do it.

Bing ain't that bad.

"Put another shrimp on tha bing-ie!"

"That's not a search engine. This.... is a search engine."

I can keep butchering these if people are ok with it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Bing appears upside down on Australian monitors.

It also shows the least relevant responses first.
 
CharlesAznable

CharlesAznable

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,654
I understand the knee jerk reaction to say "fuck google" but honestly that new Australian law is pretty bullshit. Big tech needs to be reigned in, but this doesn't do that. All it does it forces them to subsidize a failing industry. If it's a battle between Rupert fucking Murdoch and google, I think I'll take Google's side.
 
wollywinka

wollywinka

Member
Feb 15, 2018
3,109
Ephonk said:
There's a big risk for Google to experiment with this though. What if they go through with it and duck duck go actually gets popular there, and international media write about it. This could potentially threaten their monopoly everywhere (even for a few %) imo.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Equally, complying could open the floodgates, encouraging non-Australian publishers to push for a cut of royalties.
 
Wubby

Wubby

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,872
Japan!
Didn't Amazon also pull something similar when Australia started forcing net shops in other countries to do their work for them for free in regards to collecting taxes?

Australia always seems to be the first ones to pull this stuff.

Edit: yeah that was it

www.abc.net.au

The tyranny of distance: What Amazon's global ban means for you, and how you can get around it

Customers were thought to be the winners when Amazon Australia launched. But from July 1, all access to international Amazon stores will be blocked by the retail giant. Here's why they are doing it, and how you can still get those international bargains.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au
 
OP
OP
Lightning Count

Lightning Count

Member
Jan 27, 2019
16,083
Fuck off
I will echo some if what had been said, google are definitely the lesser of two evils here when matched up to Murdoch, but holding their services as a ransom in response is massively shitty.

Silicon Valley has gone unregulated too long, that needs to be challenged.
 
Rosebud

Rosebud

Two Pieces
Member
Apr 16, 2018
44,013
Why Google should share royalties with news publishers though?

They need to pay more taxes.
 
Serebii

Serebii

Serebii.net Webmaster
Verified
Oct 24, 2017
13,171
As a publisher who is subject to the whims of Google and has lost a percentage of traffic overnight due to the whims of Google...

I'm with Google on this. It makes no sense for them to pay publishers for displaying their site. I don't get the logic behind it
 
hijukal

hijukal

Member
Oct 25, 2017
234
Am Australian. Switched to DuckDuckGo a few years back. Then more recently to Bing (mostly for Rewards points). Results from both are close enough in 99% of cases and I do often search for very weird specific things for work.

After initial adjustment a different search engine is no big deal. You want to leave, Google? Go for it.

(Unless you take Android and Gmail too, then I'm stuffed)
 
Arex

Arex

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,583
Indonesia
I mean people will just adapt. The easiest way to make people change to other search engine is to force them lol. People are just too used to using google.
 
ColdSun

ColdSun

Together, we are strangers
Administrator
Oct 25, 2017
3,307
I don't believe thriving businesses should be responsible for failing business models. If you don't want Google using your content, put up a robots.txt.
Pretty sure that while it'd cost them, them caving would cause media companies in other countries to push for the same.

Not to mention, this does nothing in regards to the real issue, the fact that other search engines really aren't a threat to them (and this wouldn't change that).
 
PS9

PS9

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
5,066
Hey Google, how about you pay more than 1% tax on the $4 billion you make here.
 

Deleted member 5491

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,249
Smae shit happened in Spain and same shit will happen anywhere, when they start to think they could pull that shit.
 
Armadilo

Armadilo

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
9,877
Sounds like communism from the Australian government, right , right ?? That's what people on right like to say from these people.

But lol they like to stop some monopolies but are fine with others. Pick and choose huh, what happened to letting businesses to do as they wish ?

- looked up and seems Robert Murdoch owns almost all the big media companies and the little newspapers for news and most likely a way to make him money for businesses that are dying on it's own.
 
Last edited:
Syriel

Syriel

Banned
Dec 13, 2017
11,088
Lightning Count said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Google threatens to withdraw search engine from Australia

The tech giant says it will remove its main search function from Australia if it passes a new law.
www.bbc.co.uk



Google are really desperate for this law not to pass, but I doubt they would be willing to cut off Australia over this, the data loss they would incur by cutting off Australia would have a fairly significant impact.

Plus I very much doubt they are willing to flush all that advertising revenue down the drain, we're taking hundreds of millions at the least.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ephonk said:
There's a big risk for Google to experiment with this though. What if they go through with it and duck duck go actually gets popular there, and international media write about it. This could potentially threaten their monopoly everywhere (even for a few %) imo.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Google has and would. This was tried in part of Europe.

Media outlets sued, saying that they deserved a cut of revenue if Google was indexing them.

Google said "Ok, we won't index you. Problem solved."

ALL of the media companies quickly did an about face and asked Google to index them for no charge.

Lightning Count said:
I will echo some if what had been said, google are definitely the lesser of two evils here when matched up to Murdoch, but holding their services as a ransom in response is massively shitty.

Silicon Valley has gone unregulated too long, that needs to be challenged.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

1) No one should have access to the search algorithm. That's just an incentive to game it.
2) The media outlets can opt out from search today if they want. They won't though. Because being indexed doesn't cost them money. It brings them money. Not being indexed means less traffic and less revenue.

ColdSun said:
I don't believe thriving businesses should be responsible for failing business models. If you don't want Google using your content, put up a robots.txt.
Pretty sure that while it'd cost them, them caving would cause media companies in other countries to push for the same.

Not to mention, this does nothing in regards to the real issue, the fact that other search engines really aren't a threat to them (and this wouldn't change that).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This. No one is going to want to index media outlets in a search engine if they have to pay the outlets. They'll just get blocked entirely.
 
StarStorm

StarStorm

"This guy are sick"
Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
7,624
Siding with Google here. Why share royalties with the media outlet? Between Google and fucking Rupert Murdoch, I pick Google. All Google has to do is not index those media outlets in Australia. They would be pretty screwed.

I do agree that Google should pay more tax than 1%.
 
Peleo

Peleo

Member
Nov 2, 2017
2,656
Can someone with more knowledge explain why news outlets here? The concept here is paying outlets for the right of displaying them in the search results? Seem a bit couter intuitive to me considering Google doesn't host or own any of the articles but rather directs traffic.
 
gozu

gozu

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
10,442
America
I don't understand. Didn't google just agree to pay news outlets in France?

Why not Australia?

I hope Google lose. Serves them right for removing "don't be evil" from their motto.

SMH...
 
gozu

gozu

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
10,442
America
Zerokoolpsx said:
Siding with Google here. Why share royalties with the media outlet? Between Google and fucking Rupert Murdoch, I pick Google. All Google has to do is not index those media outlets in Australia. They would be pretty screwed.

I do agree that Google should pay more tax than 1%.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Oh so there is no australian press besides murdoch news? No liberal outlets getting shafted as well? Good to know!!!
 
MrKlaw

MrKlaw

Member
Oct 25, 2017
33,266
Ravensmash said:
"If this version of the code were to become law, it would give us no real choice but to stop making Google Search available in Australia," she said."

I call bullshit on this.

Just pay your bloody dues.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

whats the use case they're pushing against here?

If you google something which provides results from news sites - doesn't that normally provide a snippet of the headline, a picture and a link to the destination page? So most of the consumption is done on the news site. Links and incoming traffic that they want, surely?

Or am I missing some google news aggregation service that is just pulling the articles without accreditation or linkbacks?

The sites themselves will presumably have SEO optimisation in there specifically so they *do* appear on google. If they don't want to, they are in control of that.

I'm confused
 
TooFriendly

TooFriendly

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,034
ColdSun said:
I don't believe thriving businesses should be responsible for failing business models. If you don't want Google using your content, put up a robots.txt.
Pretty sure that while it'd cost them, them caving would cause media companies in other countries to push for the same.

Not to mention, this does nothing in regards to the real issue, the fact that other search engines really aren't a threat to them (and this wouldn't change that).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Failing business models, as in Journalism and facts?
that's one way of thinking about it...
I wonder why journalism and facts are going extinct? Probably has nothing to do with google.
 
gozu

gozu

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
10,442
America
Shroki said:
Nobody is getting shafted. There's no good reason Google should have to share ad royalties with the sites they're directing people to.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You know, a lot of this boils down to what we, the people, think is in the best interest of the public. That is the definition of a "law". Google is saying "fuck you! and you! and you! Ya'll just a bunch of unsophisticated bogans! No respect for our hard work! Trying to pick our pockets like thieves!!!"

And australia is saying "Oy mate, share and share alike, nah yeah nah yeah?"

and the public has to choose between:

A. the island that gave us Chris Hemsworth AND Hugh Jackman

B. The company that removed "don't be evil" from their motto (and conduct, remember how they illegally fired people for pro union work? Allowed Q and white supremacy to spread like a cancer on youtube, DESTROYING FAMILIES AND LIVES, and calling it free speech for years? And then going oopsie guess the left was right! Let's all forget about the blood money we made off this whole thing, yeah?)

Sorry, Google can't be trusted, their word is shit and I hope Australia shows them what's what.

Ask me again when they change their entire leadership. What a disappointment...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.