Never said journalism and facts were failing business models, great strawmanning. The way they distribute that information and how they earn money off of it is their business model.
-
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
- Thread starter Lightning Count
- Start date
- News
Sorry, but when the Australia government are Murdoch bootlickers, I really have a difficult time thinking this is good for anyone but the evil that is that person.
What the fuck does the average citizen in Australia get if Google starts paying for this? Zero, nil, nada. It's just another ruse to get higher profits from the media, which is pretty fucking bad.
Google's entire news division is just a collection of headlines that link to their original news source, curated for the user by the algorithm.
If they were reprinting news articles on Google websites, there would be a better point here. Ultimately Google probably generates more clicks and subs for MSM news sites than any other single thing and that's what makes this seem like Murdoch and company lobbying for a double-dip of income they have nothing to do with.
I'm really not sure about this. Both harm journalism and raise fake news on almost the same level while Google is way bigger and has the upper hand leverage on several thousand private data points on each of the several billion shadow profiles.
It really shouldn't matter who you view as "bad" or more "evil". Look at the case, not the companies.
-What makes news companies any different than any other website in the search indexes?
-If you don't want your content (this includes news articles) from being crawled, there's tons of ways to have yourself removed from the list.
The bigger issue that was mentioned is why is google paying such low taxes? Perhaps go after them for that bullshit.
-What makes news companies any different than any other website in the search indexes?
-If you don't want your content (this includes news articles) from being crawled, there's tons of ways to have yourself removed from the list.
The bigger issue that was mentioned is why is google paying such low taxes? Perhaps go after them for that bullshit.
I don't understand this law at all.
If a news site is one of the top hits and is displayed on page 1 in a Google search, who benefits more? Google or the news site?
It's the site. Because any site, no matter what type, makes more money the more people visit them. And the best way to do that, by far, is to be indexed by Google. And now Australia is saying Google should pay those companies for the content Google helps them monetize? Hell, many companies pay Google just to appear higher on search results.
I don't get it. Google is right in telling them to fuck off.
If a news site is one of the top hits and is displayed on page 1 in a Google search, who benefits more? Google or the news site?
It's the site. Because any site, no matter what type, makes more money the more people visit them. And the best way to do that, by far, is to be indexed by Google. And now Australia is saying Google should pay those companies for the content Google helps them monetize? Hell, many companies pay Google just to appear higher on search results.
I don't get it. Google is right in telling them to fuck off.
Yeah I think people are conflating this issue with what you said. Google not paying taxes is abhorrent, but it has nothing to do with this.
This is just a cashgrab by Newscorp.
The less google/facebook/apple/microsoft/twitter influece have, the better. All states need to join hands to tackle the worrisome power of american big tech. It's time to kill them.
That's a bad statement using flawed logic and I'm not going to patronize you by pretending you can't see that.
Murdoch doesn't need the google money. It will be a rounding error for his empire, ok? Let's get real. Also, he's 90 years old and not likely to run out of money, no matter what, even if he lives to be 130 years old (god forbid!). He will live like a king until the day he dies. Guaranteed.
are the news sites max that people don't have them as their home page and don't want people jumping direct into article pages?
I don't get it. I assume like 75%+ of their traffic comes through google
Likely does, which is why they don't want to choose to block google and instead are wanting money.
They have a solution to stop google from using their context, they're actively choosing not to... for the very reason you pointed out.
I'm more for making google pay their damn taxes. Fuck these corporations who all get away without paying their share. We should make them pay their share or not allow them access to our markets.
Also I do think we need something to change because right now real journalism is dying and the alternative is a scary prospect (basically only getting news from social media). I just don't think this change will have any real impact.
Also I do think we need something to change because right now real journalism is dying and the alternative is a scary prospect (basically only getting news from social media). I just don't think this change will have any real impact.
The Google monopoly is bullshit, but I also don't understand the publisher's argument. I remember something like this coming up in Germany as well. Google doesn't just post your article, it provides a way for your content to be found and read on your website. Why should that result in Google giving them money?
What's that their Dues? Why should google pay the news sites in these instances?
Well you could just close the tax loopholes and publicly fund news.
I'll be honest, I think my deep cynicism of big tech has clouded my judgement a bit on this, lol.
I still think their claim that they'd need to pull out is ridiculous hyperbole though.
Last edited:
Google literally profits off the work these companies puts in and quadruples the money with add money they exclusively control.
Like google books google is profiting with control and data based of the journalism the news companies produce. same with with facebook. they also control which news sites pop up and which stories you get when you google " inauguration"
They absolutely should pay up for using the IP of the news company. Especially when a lot of their value of news diminishes greatly over time and which google can destroy at any moment (like facebook killing off a bunch of sites due to their favoritism towards video which facebook could put video ads on. )
Google isn't just "indexing" they have google news, they prioritize what news stories you see under the search box, never mind how they likely share data between google news and the cesspool that is youtube. And even on top of that google is the adplatform that these sites have to use money on.
It's a theft of information for google's benefit. Google is in the business of goobling up data for free and looking the around and saying fuck you, I'm not paying for it. they should be
And they should follow the laws not make them.
Like google books google is profiting with control and data based of the journalism the news companies produce. same with with facebook. they also control which news sites pop up and which stories you get when you google " inauguration"
They absolutely should pay up for using the IP of the news company. Especially when a lot of their value of news diminishes greatly over time and which google can destroy at any moment (like facebook killing off a bunch of sites due to their favoritism towards video which facebook could put video ads on. )
Google isn't just "indexing" they have google news, they prioritize what news stories you see under the search box, never mind how they likely share data between google news and the cesspool that is youtube. And even on top of that google is the adplatform that these sites have to use money on.
It's a theft of information for google's benefit. Google is in the business of goobling up data for free and looking the around and saying fuck you, I'm not paying for it. they should be
And they should follow the laws not make them.
Again, I'm not familiar with Australian antitrust law. I don't know how legally they would do it. It'd be nice if they could just force Google to spin off it's Australian search division, but I don't know if they have that power.
Ultimately that would just replace one monopoly with a new one.
The only government that could break google would be the US.
This is insane to discribe it this way.
You know who makes money on those links? GOOGLE because theyre getting a cut of that ad money on the sites. Sure the sites want traffic but their completely dependent on the person theyre already paying to not destroy them. To divorce the two is illogical. Google is like the mob here they create the problem for the news companies and offer to "fix" it for a fee
And their not "in control" Like facebook on social media, google is the only game in search and not social media ads with their adsense most of these sites need to use. Google is in control and can destroy these sites at will (by upping ad cuts, changing an algorithm, promoting them or demoting them on youtube, etc)
Journalism and facts are what news is, you cant seperate news from it's ability to be distributed. they are 'failing business models' because the means of distribution has been superseded by tech giants like google and facebook that skim headlines to put an ad next to, and give nothing back to the thing that brought the eyeballs to see those ads.
You might say that the news outlets have failed to make a better business model, but honestly the deck is stacked against them, by google's practice of skimming them. And that sounds like a basic libertarian argument anyway that amounts to 'if journalism can't figure out how to survive in this new monopoly that's emerged, then fuck 'em'. You might call that a strawman, but it isn't, it's just pointing out the crux of your argument, like the first reply was.
With news outlets having their headlines and first paragraphs being siphoned off and getting nothing in return, then all we will be left with is the natural conclusion of what google/facebook etc is forcing.... news as sensationalist entertainment and pure clickbait.
The solution you suggested of having the news outlets block themselves from being searched by google, the worldwide search monopoly is not a solution, it's death for them. It's to pretend that google isn't in fact a monopoly. What is so wrong with government legislation that makes google pay something for work done by news outlets? Or at least entertaining the idea.
Don't give into corporations empty threats. This is why we don't tax companies more and why so many people in society suffer. Don't be scared of upsetting the big boys.
Some are saying this is just licking Murdochs boots and I'm afraid the man's right this one time. Companies should pay royalties if they're using other places news articles and not giving that website the advertising revenue. This may benefit Murdoch, but it will benefit many smaller publications and help actual investigative journalism survive.
Some are saying this is just licking Murdochs boots and I'm afraid the man's right this one time. Companies should pay royalties if they're using other places news articles and not giving that website the advertising revenue. This may benefit Murdoch, but it will benefit many smaller publications and help actual investigative journalism survive.
What if the opposite is also true though?
What if people are led to news articles thanks to search engines like google. Companies hire for this exact purpose (SEO or Search Engine Optimization). Would you then agree news organizations and businesses should pay google for the traffic?
So, Google indexes news content. Would-be readers are most familiar with Google, so they use Google to get to news outlets.
Are they just saying that Google needs to pay news providers for the indexing process? Or are they upset that Google tells you to use Chrome if you're using something else? At what point does a person searching become a "customer" rather than a simple user?
From the onset, I kinda hate this legislation.
Are they just saying that Google needs to pay news providers for the indexing process? Or are they upset that Google tells you to use Chrome if you're using something else? At what point does a person searching become a "customer" rather than a simple user?
From the onset, I kinda hate this legislation.
If someone clicks the link to go to the news site, then yeah google could get some money for that click.... and then google would also get money from the google ads on that news site. That would be fine.
The problem as I see it is when you scroll through the 'News' tab on the google search page, it's filled with all the news headlines that the journalists have created, along with a picture and the first paragraph of the article. AND a google ad that the news site doesnt get paid for. Let's be honest, for most people, for most stories, the headline and first paragraph is enough for them. They aren't going to go to the actual news site (unless it's some click bait headline, which is what google's practices encourage), so google wins that round for free.
Does this mean everything Google would be unusable in Australia? For example Google maps, gmail, YouTube and many Android phones and apps would stop working? That would be terrible.
So that things like that dont happen if websites don't want to be found through Google cant they just block such sites from Google search?
So that things like that dont happen if websites don't want to be found through Google cant they just block such sites from Google search?
This is the part where I said I was confused. Totally open to being more educated on tracking etc. I assume if you land on 'murdoch.au' from a google search, that'll include some affiliate/tracking stuff in the URL, but wont' the news site itself be rsponsible for serving ads? Does google attach itself to ad clickthroughs and somehow get a slice of that - I expect they'll know when you click through with their tagging but that would help them build up a picture of the user for serving google ads later on - not the actual ads on the news sites
Feels like Australia are just looking for excuses to extract money out of big companies. The idea of charging a company for providing a service that allows people to find your news is just absurd.
I seem to remember France proposing something like this a few years ago, and back then Google just said they'd stop listing French news sites in their search results. Google should just do something similar here, so they can stay available in Australia without having to pay anything. They already do it for torrent sites, so it's not like they don't have the technology to implement it.
I seem to remember France proposing something like this a few years ago, and back then Google just said they'd stop listing French news sites in their search results. Google should just do something similar here, so they can stay available in Australia without having to pay anything. They already do it for torrent sites, so it's not like they don't have the technology to implement it.
I think Google overvalue how much people want to use Google specifically. People use Google because it's convenient and out of habit. If Google goes then people will just use something else.
This would make sense, if these headlines wasn't the primary way how the news sites generate clicks. If google would stop doing this it's basically a death sentence for the majority of news outlets out there. That's why news-sites aren't lobbying for Google to stop doing this. This is just fuck you give me money. Not to mention the creation of headlines seems to fall under fair use. Do you suggest that resetera should start paying newsites as well?
Last edited:
If google did actually stop all of it's services, or even just google search in Australia, all the other countries around the world would be so fucking skeptical of google from that point on that they'd have to assess what kind of a risk it is to their economy and wellbeing to have this kind of tech company holding a virtual monopoly over it's flow of information and businesses.
Countries would be forced to make their own legislation so that they aren't at risk of having a huge part of it's information system pulled at any time by a private company.
Countries would be forced to make their own legislation so that they aren't at risk of having a huge part of it's information system pulled at any time by a private company.
Google just came to an agreement with French publishers on a similar issue. I don't know the details of that agreement but it might show a way forward on this issue for Australia.
More and more it seems like Google try to give you the info without requiring a click.
I could see that as a use case.
Seems sorta backwards otherwise.
I could see that as a use case.
Seems sorta backwards otherwise.
Riiiiiiight..... Our government lets Murdochs News corp pay zero tax for years now and yet is going to the ends of the earth to tax Google who paid $100 million (albeit small for a company like google) last year.... yep nothing fishy there at all.
OP
OP
What a strange chart. Amazon and Twitter are search engines now? I mean, they have a search functionality for their hosted content, but that's a different thing.
Murdoch owns more than three-quarters of the newspapers in Australia and he also owns the Liberal Party who are in Government. Before you get to any of the issues here, you get this disgusting corruption. Same as the Channel Ten shenanigans a while back.
It makes me want to throw up hearing this feckless Party say a strong media is vital for democracy. They are the ones who spend the last 30 years systematically removing every protection and ownership law so we could be in the current Murdoch monopoly.
Oh, I hate them so much.
It makes me want to throw up hearing this feckless Party say a strong media is vital for democracy. They are the ones who spend the last 30 years systematically removing every protection and ownership law so we could be in the current Murdoch monopoly.
Oh, I hate them so much.
France actually ended up winning with that one. Google were forced to the negotiating table by the French Competition Watchdog and are now paying an undisclosed sum to use news snippets from about 300 IPG-certified news sources.
TechCrunch Link
Quote for those that can't be arsed to click:
I think part of Google's agreement to pay (other than government strong-arming them) was that they could use the snippets - possibly in some kind of expanded way compared to previously - in their Google News Showcase initiative.
So I'd expect Google to quietly cave in to Australia's demands..... but not without getting itself some added benefits to justify the spend.
Last edited:
good thing we are right now pulling for
*checks notes*
The Murdoch owned media empire.
who hasent paid any tax in Australia
