NATION

PASSWORD

Google to take down search function over new Australian law

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Saiwania
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22269
Founded: Jun 30, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Saiwania » Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:30 pm

Websites in general don't earn much money from advertising anyways (from at least some users). The model of how online websites are profitable relies upon the majority of internet users either being ignorant of or not tech savvy enough to utilize ad-blockers and so on to avoid all of the advertising a website wants to show them or to get rid of all the page elements that are a bandwidth burden.

It might arguably be a better idea to have ISPs pay websites for their content and pass the fees onto the customers of internet service. The more visitors a webpage gets in a day, the more they can be paid. The less traffic, the less they get paid- but also perhaps the lower their costs will be.

The way I see it, online ads are going obsolete. Nobody really want to view ads anymore for any reason, unless perhaps if they're shopping. At least not myself.

And there are an abundance of plug-ins and etc. that will give you an ad-free web browsing experience, which means websites get less or no money from someone viewing their page in that fashion. The internet is just not like televison, despite how lots of corporate people wish they could try making online spaces more like that.
Last edited by Saiwania on Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:37 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Sith Acolyte
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken!

User avatar
Picairn
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10553
Founded: Feb 21, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Picairn » Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:31 pm

Is Max Barry going to be okay if Google shuts down the search function?
Picairn's Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Minister: Edward H. Cornell
WA Ambassador: John M. Terry (Active)
Factbook | Constitution | Newspaper
Social democrat, passionate political observer, and naval warfare enthusiast.
More NSG-y than NSG veterans
♛ The Empire of Picairn ♛
-✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯-—————————-✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯-
Colonel (Brevet) of the North Pacific Army, COO of Warzone Trinidad

User avatar
Infected Mushroom
Post Czar
 
Posts: 39287
Founded: Apr 15, 2014
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Infected Mushroom » Fri Jan 22, 2021 8:24 pm

For the sake of Max Barry, I may have to side with Australia on this one.
Last edited by Infected Mushroom on Fri Jan 22, 2021 8:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Destyntine
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 406
Founded: Jul 22, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Destyntine » Fri Jan 22, 2021 9:07 pm

I side with Australia, Google needs to calm down and let journalism be. Google is meant to be a browser for information, not a browser for biased propaganda decided by their team. Australia is doing the right thing.
▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄ I do stuff n' thangs.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀

Spaceship go Vroooom!

NS stats are not 100% accurate, but they do represent my nation slightly!
Yeah, I'm sassy! Get over it!

User avatar
Saiwania
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22269
Founded: Jun 30, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Saiwania » Fri Jan 22, 2021 9:27 pm

Destyntine wrote:I side with Australia, Google needs to calm down and let journalism be. Google is meant to be a browser for information, not a browser for biased propaganda decided by their team. Australia is doing the right thing.


Google doesn't want to pay news media websites just for linking to them though. At scale, it'll arguably be too expensive. Besides, the viewer of the article should pay if they want to, if its not paid for by just third party advertising. Lets be real, most people if confronted by a paywall aren't going to pay up, they'll get something to bypass the block or voluntarily leave for another website because they obviously won't want to read the article that badly.

It rediculous to expect people to pay subscriptions to each and every news website. It unaffordable for average person. No subscription makes sense unless they're a regular consumer and they really like the product that much, as opposed to a casual viewer that does so on and off at random.
Last edited by Saiwania on Fri Jan 22, 2021 9:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Sith Acolyte
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken!

User avatar
Xmara
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5373
Founded: Mar 31, 2014
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Xmara » Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:03 pm

Page wrote:God, I don't want to side with Google but having to pay sites you link in a search engine is fucking preposterous, it would be like making the phone book pay the pizza place to have their number in the book.

This

The law makes no sense
/ˈzmaːrʌ/
Info
Our Leader
Status- Code Green- All clear
I mostly use NS stats, except for population and tax rates.
We are not Estonia.
A 16.8 civilization, according to this index.
Flag Waver



Support
Ukraine

User avatar
The Free Joy State
Senior Issues Editor
 
Posts: 16402
Founded: Jan 05, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby The Free Joy State » Fri Jan 22, 2021 11:45 pm

If Facebook bans linking from news sites as a result of this decision (also mentioned), it seems it'll be a lot harder for users to counter the misinformation spreading among certain other users on their platform.

Also, I'd have thought most people find sources quickest and easiest with a quick Google search, which brings more eyes to the site. Unless a website is a private, subscriptions-only site, most websites make money by selling adspace, which requires people to know the sites exist. This seems like it might be counterproductive to Australian news websites (via. Google, I've found what news reporters are saying on things all across the world).

Much as I loathe having to side with Google.
Last edited by The Free Joy State on Fri Jan 22, 2021 11:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"If there's a book that you want to read, but it hasn't been written yet, then you must write it." - Toni Morrison

My nation does not represent my beliefs or politics.

User avatar
Eahland
Senator
 
Posts: 4330
Founded: Apr 18, 2006
Libertarian Police State

Postby Eahland » Sat Jan 23, 2021 12:23 am

This is just ridiculous nonsense. I'd be willing to bet that most of these news sites' revenue-generating eyeballs are sent to them by Google. If they're worried about people not clicking through because they're getting all the information they wanted from the Google teaser, a restriction on how much of their content Google can feature in the preview would be a reasonable approach. Going, "Nuh-uh, you have to pay us to send readers to us," is actively counterproductive. If you want people to look at your website, you want anybody and everybody to link to you. Especially Google. Because that's how people find you.
Eahlisc Wordboc (Glossary)
Eahlisc Healþambiht segþ: NE DRENCE, EÐA, OÞÞE ONDO BLÆCE!

User avatar
An Alan Smithee Nation
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7623
Founded: Apr 18, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby An Alan Smithee Nation » Sat Jan 23, 2021 3:55 am

I think Google and Facebook will back down, otherwise countries will be queueing up to drive them out. Their time of making profit hand over fist and bending laws has passed, and now they need to get used to smaller profit margins and less market power.
Everything is intertwinkled

User avatar
Odreria
Minister
 
Posts: 2309
Founded: Jun 15, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Odreria » Sat Jan 23, 2021 4:00 am

If it’s really about previews than that’s fine, but forcing people to pay to link a website is insanity and should never happen.
Valrifell wrote:
Disregard whatever this poster says
Pro: Christianity, nuclear power, firearms, socialism, environmentalism
Neutral: LGBT, PRC, charter schools, larping
Anti: mind virus, globalism, racism, great reset

User avatar
Incredible Bums
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 419
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Incredible Bums » Sat Jan 23, 2021 4:28 am

I´d say, almost everything able to hamper, disturb or even bring down a notch the so-called data-octopi like Alphabet (owner of google and an uncountable number of other "useful" engines, services and tools) is a step in the right direction; you all shouldn´t forget, that protective measurements (like laws, customs or taxes) have been a tool of governments for centuries to somehow protect own industries or fine foreign ones (which commonly avoid paying taxes in said nations).
And dont forget, google is not only a useful search engine, in the end it´s a business model to collect data and create money.
I´d say, Australia is bloody right, and I would like to see more nations to follow their lead. In the end Aphabet will back down - there´s simply to much money they loose, when they miss the profits gained on a whole continent (and maybe followers).
Last edited by Incredible Bums on Sat Jan 23, 2021 4:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Incredible Bums
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 419
Founded: Mar 11, 2011
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Incredible Bums » Sat Jan 23, 2021 4:40 am

As for Mr. Barry, I´m pretty sure Max will find a way to live without the google search engine (just in case), if he even does use it.

User avatar
Montanity
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 46
Founded: Mar 13, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Montanity » Sat Jan 23, 2021 4:41 am

I support Google here, I find it obnoxious that Google, a search engine, has to pay the news reporters to have them to be discovered on the most used search engine, I understand Australia is trying to protect these reporters, but against a search engine? No, Google should be able to have these news reports show up on their search engine without being having to pay the reporters
Last edited by Montanity on Sat Jan 23, 2021 4:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
A New Era has Begun
<WORK IN PROGRESS>

User avatar
Northern Socialist Council Republics
Senator
 
Posts: 3761
Founded: Dec 13, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Northern Socialist Council Republics » Sat Jan 23, 2021 4:44 am

Odreria wrote:If it’s really about previews than that’s fine, but forcing people to pay to link a website is insanity and should never happen.

Seconded. Google borrows content from other websites in a way that it should pay for (previews, snippets, etc.) but I would not consider a bare link one such.
Call me "Russ" if you're referring to me the out-of-character poster or "NSRS" if you're referring to me the in-character nation.
Previously on Plzen. NationStates-er since 2014.

Social-democrat and hardline secularist.
Come roleplay with us. We have cookies.

User avatar
A-Series-Of-Tubes
Minister
 
Posts: 2708
Founded: Dec 16, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby A-Series-Of-Tubes » Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:02 am

It's effectively copyright over URL's. France's approach of requiring payment for snippets (though those are surely short enough to pass for Fair Use) seems somewhat more rational.

The Australian Broadcasting Commission is prohibited in its charter, from carrying advertising. They are a pretty common source for Australians, particularly in bandwidth (on demand video) so there might be some concern about Australian taxpayers subsidizing foreigners to use it.

The other "news providers" though used to support themselves through advertising, so I don't see why they can't just run sidebar ads for non-subscribers.

Something more subtle is at stake. It's very hard to define the "fair price" for information, at all, and particularly for news which loses value very quickly as other (globally bigger) news platforms repeat it. I think it's too subtle to deal with by a "link tax" even if it's small for showing the link and bigger for clicking it. I expect junk news sites will set up, with stories that are just a bit old or just a bit clickbaity, looking for link money or to sue Google if they're deliberately rated down to page 2.
True Centrist: Someone who changes the subject whenever it sounds like politics.
Please don't report each other to find out if a rule was broken ... If you're not sure, do not report.

User avatar
A-Series-Of-Tubes
Minister
 
Posts: 2708
Founded: Dec 16, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby A-Series-Of-Tubes » Sat Jan 23, 2021 5:07 am

Northern Socialist Council Republics wrote:
Odreria wrote:If it’s really about previews than that’s fine, but forcing people to pay to link a website is insanity and should never happen.

Seconded. Google borrows content from other websites in a way that it should pay for (previews, snippets, etc.) but I would not consider a bare link one such.


You could see it as a door charge. You can enter the site, but only if Google pays. It's hard to be sympathetic to Google, considering they make billions from Australian users and don't pay any tax. These are Australian sites, Google paying for Australians to use them ... is just a tax.

Still, just displaying the links whether or not the person opens them, is a crazy tax which hurts the site and the user, more than it hurts Google.
True Centrist: Someone who changes the subject whenever it sounds like politics.
Please don't report each other to find out if a rule was broken ... If you're not sure, do not report.

User avatar
Arvenia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13182
Founded: Aug 21, 2014
Father Knows Best State

Postby Arvenia » Sat Jan 23, 2021 7:55 am

Kowani wrote:Source 1

Source 2

Google says it would have "no real choice" but to shut down its search engine in Australia if Australia passes a new law requiring Google to pay news sites to link to their articles. This would "set an untenable precedent for our business and the digital economy," said Google's Mel Silva in Friday testimony before the Australian Senate.

News organizations around the world have been struggling financially over the last decade or two. Many have blamed Internet companies like Google and Facebook that—in their view—have diverted advertising revenue that once went to news organizations. Some in the news industry argue that Google benefits from including news stories in its search results and should compensate news sites for the privilege of doing so.

So last year, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission proposed a new mandatory arbitration process designed to correct a supposed power imbalance between tech giants and Australian news sites. Under the new framework, news sites can demand that tech platforms (initially Google and Facebook) pay them for linking to their stories. Google and Facebook are required to negotiate "in good faith" toward a payment agreement.

You might think that Google would simply stop linking to Australian news sites. But that won't be allowed under the ACCC proposal. New non-discrimination rules require Google to treat sites the same whether or not it has to pay to link to them.

Australia's proposal has provoked a broad backlash from advocates of the open Web—including the inventor of the Web itself. In a letter to the Australian Senate earlier this week, Tim Berners-Lee argued that Australia's proposal would set a damaging "To my knowledge, there is no current example of legally requiring payments for links to other content," Berners-Lee said. "The ability to link freely—meaning without limitations regarding the content of the linked site and without monetary fees—is fundamental to how the Web operates."

Google is under pressure around the world

Australia isn't the only country where Google is facing increasing pressure to pay news sites. This week, Google announced it had negotiated a framework to pay French news sites for the right to include them in its search results.

Technically, the French law is different from Australia's proposal. In its law implementing the 2019 EU Copyright Directive, France required Google to pay for the use of news "snippets" in search results. Google stopped using the snippets to avoid paying. But then France's competition authority objected, arguing that refusing to use snippets—and pay news sites for them—was an abuse of Google's market power. Despite reservations about the French law, Google announced an agreement with French news organizations this week. As we wrote on Thursday, France's success provides a roadmap for other European countries that want to force Google to pay their news organizations, too. And it may undermine Google's bargaining power in Australia as well. In Australia, Google has portrayed free links as a principle so sacrosanct that it would shut down its search engine before agreeing to pay. But in France, Google seems to have accepted a similar arrangement without shutting down its French search engine.

This may be because France has more leverage than Australia. Not only is France a larger country than Australia, but France's membership in the EU may have given it added leverage.

On the other hand, it may be that the specifics of the Australian proposal make it more offensive to Google. One area of concern for Google is the use of baseball-style arbitration rules. Under this bargaining system, each side (in this case Google or Facebook on one side and a news publisher on the other) submits a single proposal to a neutral arbitrator. The arbitrator must then decide which of the two proposals is more "reasonable" and adopt it. In theory, this structure gives both sides an incentive to meet the other party halfway. But Google worries that the system will be based on "biased criteria" and will create "unmanageable financial and operational risk for Google."

Australia's proposal requires Google to notify Australian news sites of changes to its search algorithm 28 days in advance. Google has traditionally kept details about its algorithm secret and argues that disclosing this information to Australian news publishers would give those publishers an unfair advantage over other websites.

The new Australian law would also require Google to share traffic data with news sites, raising concerns about user privacy.

In any event, Australian officials don't seem worried about Google's opposition.

We don’t respond to threats," said Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Friday. "Australia makes our rules for things you can do in Australia."


Google has threatened to close its search engine in Australia — as it dials up its lobbying against draft legislation that is intended to force it to pay news publishers for reuse of their content.

Facebook would also be subject to the law. And Facebook has previously said it would ban news from being shared on its products owing if the law was brought in, as well as claiming it’s reduced its investment in the country as a result of the legislative threat.

“The principle of unrestricted linking between websites is fundamental to Search. Coupled with the unmanageable financial and operational risk 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,” Google warned today.

Last August the tech giant took another pot-shot at the proposal, warning that the quality of its products in the country could suffer and might stop being free if the government proceeded with a push to make the tech giants share ad revenue with media businesses.

Since last summer Google appears to have changed lobbying tack — apparently giving up its attempt to derail the law entirely in favor of trying to reshape it to minimize the financial impact.

Its latest bit of lobbying is focused on trying to eject the most harmful elements (as it sees it) of the draft legislation — while also pushing its News Showcase program, which it hastily spun up last year, as an alternative model for payments to publishers that it would prefer becomes the vehicle for remittances under the Code.

The draft legislation for Australia’s digital news Code which is currently before the parliament includes a controversial requirement that tech giants Google and Facebook pay publishers for linking to their content — not merely for displaying snippets of text.

Yet Google has warned Australia that making it pay for “links and snippets” would break how the internet works.

In a statement to the Senate Economics Committee today, its VP for Australia and New Zealand, Mel Silva, said: “This provision in the Code would set an untenable precedent for our business, and the digital economy. It’s not compatible with how search engines work, or how the internet works, and this is not just Google’s view — it has been cited in many of the submissions received by this Inquiry.

“The principle of unrestricted linking between websites is fundamental to Search. Coupled with the unmanageable financial and operational risk 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.”

Google is certainly not alone in crying foul over a proposal to require payments for links.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the world wide web, has warned that the draft legislation “risks breaching a fundamental principle of the web by requiring payment for linking between certain content online”, among other alarmed submissions to the committee.

In written testimony he goes on:

Before search engines were effective on the web, following links from one page to another was the only way of finding material. Search engines make that process far more effective, but they can only do so by using the link structure of the web as their principal input. So links are fundamental to the web.

As I understand it, the proposed code seeks to require selected digital platforms to have to negotiate and possibly pay to make links to news content from a particular group of news providers.

Requiring a charge for a link on the web blocks an important aspect of the value of web content. To my knowledge, there is no current example of legally requiring payments for links to other content. The ability to link freely — meaning without limitations regarding the content of the linked site and without monetary fees — is fundamental to how the web operates, how it has flourished till present, and how it will continue to grow in decades to come.

However, it’s notable that Berners-Lee’s submission does not mention snippets. Not once. It’s all about links.

Meanwhile, Google has just reached an agreement with publishers in France — which they say covers payment for snippets of content.

In the EU, the tech giant is subject to an already reformed copyright directive that extended a neighbouring right for news content to cover reuse of snippets of text. Although the directive does not cover links or “very short extracts”.

In France, Google says it’s only paying for content “beyond links and very short extracts”. But it hasn’t said anything about snippets in that context.

French publishers argue the EU law clearly does cover the not-so-short text snippets that Google typically shows in its News aggregator — pointing out that the directive states the exception should not be interpreted in a way that impacts the effectiveness of neighboring rights. So Google looks like it would have a big French fight on its hands if it tried to deny payments for snippets.

But there’s still everything to play for in Australia. Hence, down under, Google is trying to conflate what are really two separate and distinct issues (payment for links versus payment for snippets) — in the hopes of reducing the financial impact versus what’s already baked into EU law. (Although it’s only been actively enforced in France so far, which is ahead of other EU countries in transposing the directive into national law.)

In Australia, Google is also heavily pushing for the Code to “designate News Showcase” (aka the program it launched once the legal writing was on the wall about paying publishers) — lobbying for that to be the vehicle whereby it can reach “commercial agreements to pay Australian news publishers for value”.

Of course, a commercial negotiation process is preferable (and familiar) to the tech giant versus being bound by the Code’s proposed “final offer arbitration model” — which Google attacks as having “biased criteria”, and claims subjects it to “unmanageable financial and operational risk”.

“If this is replaced with standard commercial arbitration based on comparable deals, this would incentivise good faith negotiations and ensure we’re held accountable by robust dispute resolution,” Silva also argues.

A third provision the tech giant is really keen gets removed from the current draft requires it to give publishers notification ahead of changes to its algorithms which could affect how their content is discovered.

“The algorithm notification provision could be adjusted to require only reasonable notice about significant actionable changes to Google’s algorithm, to make sure publishers are able to respond to changes that affect them,” it suggests on that.

It’s certainly interesting to consider how, over a few years, Google’s position has moved from “we’ll never pay for news” — pre- any relevant legislation — to “please let us pay for licensing news through our proprietary licensing program” once the EU had passed a directive now being very actively enforced in France (with the help of competition law) and also with Australia moving toward inking a similar law.

Turns out legislation can be a real tech giant mind-changer.

Of course the idea of making anyone pay to link to content online is obviously a terrible idea — and should be dropped.

But if that bit of the draft is a negotiating tactic by Australian lawmakers to get Google to accept that it will have to pay publishers something then it appears to be a winning one.

And while Google’s threat to close down its search engine might sound “full on”, as Silva suggests, when you consider how many alternative search engines exist, it’s hardly the threat it once was.

Especially as plenty of alternative search engines are a lot less abusive toward users’ privacy.


Tl;dr: Australia, attempting to protect journalism, is forcing Google to go through an arbitrator to decide on an amount, and pay news sites that they link to in their search results. Google, for obvious reasons, is not happy with this, and is threatening to pull down the search function for the entire country.


So, NSG, who do you support? Do you think Australia is in the right and Google is taking advantage of news publications? Or do you think this constitutes too large of an infringement of the functioning of the web? Is Google overreacting?
And how do you think all of these shenanigans will end?

We need a new Google.
Pro: Political Pluralism, Centrism, Liberalism, Liberal Democracy, Social Democracy, Sweden, USA, UN, ROC, Japan, South Korea, Monarchism, Republicanism, Sci-Fi, Animal Rights, Gender Equality, Mecha, Autism, Environmentalism, Secularism, Religion and LGBT Rights
Anti: Racism, Sexism, Nazism, Fascism, EU, Socialism, Adolf Hitler, Neo-Nazism, KKK, Joseph Stalin, PRC, North Korea, Russia, Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Communism, Ultraconservatism, Ultranationalism, Xenophobia, Homophobia, Transphobia, WBC, Satanism, Mormonism, Anarchy, ISIS, al-Qaeda, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, 969 Movement, Political Correctness, Anti-Autistic Sentiment, Far-Right, Far-Left, Cultural Relativism, Anti-Vaxxers, Scalpers and COVID-19

User avatar
Glorious Hong Kong
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1357
Founded: Nov 01, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Glorious Hong Kong » Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:02 am

I don't know which is worse: a tech giant attempting to blackmail an entire country into getting its way, or an overbearing government attempting to force a search engine to pay simply to link to news articles with the buck inevitably being shifted to end-users similar to a VAT or GST.

I don't know who the good guys are supposed to be anymore.

I support regulating and breaking up Big Tech given just how powerful they've become, but it has to be done in a way that doesn't screw with end-users or undermine internet freedom.

Arvenia wrote:
Kowani wrote:Source 1

Source 2

Google says it would have "no real choice" but to shut down its search engine in Australia if Australia passes a new law requiring Google to pay news sites to link to their articles. This would "set an untenable precedent for our business and the digital economy," said Google's Mel Silva in Friday testimony before the Australian Senate.

News organizations around the world have been struggling financially over the last decade or two. Many have blamed Internet companies like Google and Facebook that—in their view—have diverted advertising revenue that once went to news organizations. Some in the news industry argue that Google benefits from including news stories in its search results and should compensate news sites for the privilege of doing so.

So last year, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission proposed a new mandatory arbitration process designed to correct a supposed power imbalance between tech giants and Australian news sites. Under the new framework, news sites can demand that tech platforms (initially Google and Facebook) pay them for linking to their stories. Google and Facebook are required to negotiate "in good faith" toward a payment agreement.

You might think that Google would simply stop linking to Australian news sites. But that won't be allowed under the ACCC proposal. New non-discrimination rules require Google to treat sites the same whether or not it has to pay to link to them.

Australia's proposal has provoked a broad backlash from advocates of the open Web—including the inventor of the Web itself. In a letter to the Australian Senate earlier this week, Tim Berners-Lee argued that Australia's proposal would set a damaging "To my knowledge, there is no current example of legally requiring payments for links to other content," Berners-Lee said. "The ability to link freely—meaning without limitations regarding the content of the linked site and without monetary fees—is fundamental to how the Web operates."

Google is under pressure around the world

Australia isn't the only country where Google is facing increasing pressure to pay news sites. This week, Google announced it had negotiated a framework to pay French news sites for the right to include them in its search results.

Technically, the French law is different from Australia's proposal. In its law implementing the 2019 EU Copyright Directive, France required Google to pay for the use of news "snippets" in search results. Google stopped using the snippets to avoid paying. But then France's competition authority objected, arguing that refusing to use snippets—and pay news sites for them—was an abuse of Google's market power. Despite reservations about the French law, Google announced an agreement with French news organizations this week. As we wrote on Thursday, France's success provides a roadmap for other European countries that want to force Google to pay their news organizations, too. And it may undermine Google's bargaining power in Australia as well. In Australia, Google has portrayed free links as a principle so sacrosanct that it would shut down its search engine before agreeing to pay. But in France, Google seems to have accepted a similar arrangement without shutting down its French search engine.

This may be because France has more leverage than Australia. Not only is France a larger country than Australia, but France's membership in the EU may have given it added leverage.

On the other hand, it may be that the specifics of the Australian proposal make it more offensive to Google. One area of concern for Google is the use of baseball-style arbitration rules. Under this bargaining system, each side (in this case Google or Facebook on one side and a news publisher on the other) submits a single proposal to a neutral arbitrator. The arbitrator must then decide which of the two proposals is more "reasonable" and adopt it. In theory, this structure gives both sides an incentive to meet the other party halfway. But Google worries that the system will be based on "biased criteria" and will create "unmanageable financial and operational risk for Google."

Australia's proposal requires Google to notify Australian news sites of changes to its search algorithm 28 days in advance. Google has traditionally kept details about its algorithm secret and argues that disclosing this information to Australian news publishers would give those publishers an unfair advantage over other websites.

The new Australian law would also require Google to share traffic data with news sites, raising concerns about user privacy.

In any event, Australian officials don't seem worried about Google's opposition.

We don’t respond to threats," said Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison on Friday. "Australia makes our rules for things you can do in Australia."


Google has threatened to close its search engine in Australia — as it dials up its lobbying against draft legislation that is intended to force it to pay news publishers for reuse of their content.

Facebook would also be subject to the law. And Facebook has previously said it would ban news from being shared on its products owing if the law was brought in, as well as claiming it’s reduced its investment in the country as a result of the legislative threat.

“The principle of unrestricted linking between websites is fundamental to Search. Coupled with the unmanageable financial and operational risk 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,” Google warned today.

Last August the tech giant took another pot-shot at the proposal, warning that the quality of its products in the country could suffer and might stop being free if the government proceeded with a push to make the tech giants share ad revenue with media businesses.

Since last summer Google appears to have changed lobbying tack — apparently giving up its attempt to derail the law entirely in favor of trying to reshape it to minimize the financial impact.

Its latest bit of lobbying is focused on trying to eject the most harmful elements (as it sees it) of the draft legislation — while also pushing its News Showcase program, which it hastily spun up last year, as an alternative model for payments to publishers that it would prefer becomes the vehicle for remittances under the Code.

The draft legislation for Australia’s digital news Code which is currently before the parliament includes a controversial requirement that tech giants Google and Facebook pay publishers for linking to their content — not merely for displaying snippets of text.

Yet Google has warned Australia that making it pay for “links and snippets” would break how the internet works.

In a statement to the Senate Economics Committee today, its VP for Australia and New Zealand, Mel Silva, said: “This provision in the Code would set an untenable precedent for our business, and the digital economy. It’s not compatible with how search engines work, or how the internet works, and this is not just Google’s view — it has been cited in many of the submissions received by this Inquiry.

“The principle of unrestricted linking between websites is fundamental to Search. Coupled with the unmanageable financial and operational risk 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.”

Google is certainly not alone in crying foul over a proposal to require payments for links.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the world wide web, has warned that the draft legislation “risks breaching a fundamental principle of the web by requiring payment for linking between certain content online”, among other alarmed submissions to the committee.

In written testimony he goes on:

Before search engines were effective on the web, following links from one page to another was the only way of finding material. Search engines make that process far more effective, but they can only do so by using the link structure of the web as their principal input. So links are fundamental to the web.

As I understand it, the proposed code seeks to require selected digital platforms to have to negotiate and possibly pay to make links to news content from a particular group of news providers.

Requiring a charge for a link on the web blocks an important aspect of the value of web content. To my knowledge, there is no current example of legally requiring payments for links to other content. The ability to link freely — meaning without limitations regarding the content of the linked site and without monetary fees — is fundamental to how the web operates, how it has flourished till present, and how it will continue to grow in decades to come.

However, it’s notable that Berners-Lee’s submission does not mention snippets. Not once. It’s all about links.

Meanwhile, Google has just reached an agreement with publishers in France — which they say covers payment for snippets of content.

In the EU, the tech giant is subject to an already reformed copyright directive that extended a neighbouring right for news content to cover reuse of snippets of text. Although the directive does not cover links or “very short extracts”.

In France, Google says it’s only paying for content “beyond links and very short extracts”. But it hasn’t said anything about snippets in that context.

French publishers argue the EU law clearly does cover the not-so-short text snippets that Google typically shows in its News aggregator — pointing out that the directive states the exception should not be interpreted in a way that impacts the effectiveness of neighboring rights. So Google looks like it would have a big French fight on its hands if it tried to deny payments for snippets.

But there’s still everything to play for in Australia. Hence, down under, Google is trying to conflate what are really two separate and distinct issues (payment for links versus payment for snippets) — in the hopes of reducing the financial impact versus what’s already baked into EU law. (Although it’s only been actively enforced in France so far, which is ahead of other EU countries in transposing the directive into national law.)

In Australia, Google is also heavily pushing for the Code to “designate News Showcase” (aka the program it launched once the legal writing was on the wall about paying publishers) — lobbying for that to be the vehicle whereby it can reach “commercial agreements to pay Australian news publishers for value”.

Of course, a commercial negotiation process is preferable (and familiar) to the tech giant versus being bound by the Code’s proposed “final offer arbitration model” — which Google attacks as having “biased criteria”, and claims subjects it to “unmanageable financial and operational risk”.

“If this is replaced with standard commercial arbitration based on comparable deals, this would incentivise good faith negotiations and ensure we’re held accountable by robust dispute resolution,” Silva also argues.

A third provision the tech giant is really keen gets removed from the current draft requires it to give publishers notification ahead of changes to its algorithms which could affect how their content is discovered.

“The algorithm notification provision could be adjusted to require only reasonable notice about significant actionable changes to Google’s algorithm, to make sure publishers are able to respond to changes that affect them,” it suggests on that.

It’s certainly interesting to consider how, over a few years, Google’s position has moved from “we’ll never pay for news” — pre- any relevant legislation — to “please let us pay for licensing news through our proprietary licensing program” once the EU had passed a directive now being very actively enforced in France (with the help of competition law) and also with Australia moving toward inking a similar law.

Turns out legislation can be a real tech giant mind-changer.

Of course the idea of making anyone pay to link to content online is obviously a terrible idea — and should be dropped.

But if that bit of the draft is a negotiating tactic by Australian lawmakers to get Google to accept that it will have to pay publishers something then it appears to be a winning one.

And while Google’s threat to close down its search engine might sound “full on”, as Silva suggests, when you consider how many alternative search engines exist, it’s hardly the threat it once was.

Especially as plenty of alternative search engines are a lot less abusive toward users’ privacy.


Tl;dr: Australia, attempting to protect journalism, is forcing Google to go through an arbitrator to decide on an amount, and pay news sites that they link to in their search results. Google, for obvious reasons, is not happy with this, and is threatening to pull down the search function for the entire country.


So, NSG, who do you support? Do you think Australia is in the right and Google is taking advantage of news publications? Or do you think this constitutes too large of an infringement of the functioning of the web? Is Google overreacting?
And how do you think all of these shenanigans will end?

We need a new Google.


DuckDuckGo.com
Last edited by Glorious Hong Kong on Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
LIBERATE HONG KONG. REVOLUTION OF OUR TIMES. CCP DELENDA EST.
VIVE LE FRANCE. JE SUIS SAMUEL PATY. I STAND WITH EUROPE AND ISRAEL AGAINST RADICAL ISLAM.
ALL LIVES MATTER.
Wuhan coronavirus is racist but Japanese encephalitis is A-OK. The CCP has nothing to do with this double standard whatsoever. Nothing to see here.
The case against communism
Definition of radical Islam

User avatar
Silvedania
Minister
 
Posts: 3161
Founded: Apr 17, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Silvedania » Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:18 am

Glorious Hong Kong wrote:I don't know which is worse: a tech giant attempting to blackmail an entire country into getting its way, or an overbearing government attempting to force a search engine to pay simply to link to news articles with the buck inevitably being shifted to end-users similar to a VAT or GST.

I don't know who the good guys are supposed to be anymore.

I support regulating and breaking up Big Tech given just how powerful they've become, but it has to be done in a way that doesn't screw with end-users or undermine internet freedom.

Arvenia wrote:We need a new Google.


DuckDuckGo.com

I use duckduck go. It works, but I don't know if it's available in Australia. I doubt the law will pass anyways.
Silvedania, the majestic nation.
NS Stats are mostly accurate except for a few things, like this nation is capitalist and the death penalty isn't in effect

News:All trade with Crabaiaia and Pikala has stopped as diplomats meet in Trenaka.  Silvedanians are confused by Quentin Tarantulatino's new film, Seasonal Snackbox(This is a Bojack Horseman reference.) Weird song goes viral for making no sense.

Co-founder of LITA | Member of ICDN | Former Member of SETA | Member of IFTC | He/Him/His | Airport: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=493569#p37851012
Being president looks like the worst job in the world. -John Mulaney

User avatar
Ors Might
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8514
Founded: Nov 01, 2016
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Ors Might » Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:53 am

Seems kinda stupid and ultra-boomer to charge a search engine for displaying links. It makes about as much sense as requiring libraries to pay royalties to every author whose book they have.
https://youtu.be/gvjOG5gboFU Best diss track of all time

User avatar
An Alan Smithee Nation
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7623
Founded: Apr 18, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby An Alan Smithee Nation » Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:34 am

Ors Might wrote:Seems kinda stupid and ultra-boomer to charge a search engine for displaying links. It makes about as much sense as requiring libraries to pay royalties to every author whose book they have.


Ever heard of Public Lending Rights?
Everything is intertwinkled

User avatar
Risottia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 55272
Founded: Sep 05, 2006
Democratic Socialists

Postby Risottia » Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:10 am

Kowani wrote:Do you think Australia is in the right and Google is taking advantage of news publications?
Yes.

Australians should better start using other search engines.
.

User avatar
Cordel One
Senator
 
Posts: 4524
Founded: Aug 06, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Cordel One » Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:38 am

Good for Australia, oOogle's a monopoly and needs to be weakened.

User avatar
A-Series-Of-Tubes
Minister
 
Posts: 2708
Founded: Dec 16, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby A-Series-Of-Tubes » Mon Jan 25, 2021 5:22 am

It makes more sense if you break it down:

1. Government wants to favor Australian media, mainly to get positive coverage
2. Government wants to make Google pay some tax in some way somehow

Maybe 2 could stand alone. Have a small click-through tax on everything, not just news.

Without 2, I think 1 would collapse. We should subsidize for-profit media why??
True Centrist: Someone who changes the subject whenever it sounds like politics.
Please don't report each other to find out if a rule was broken ... If you're not sure, do not report.

User avatar
Der Befreier
Secretary
 
Posts: 29
Founded: Dec 13, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Der Befreier » Mon Jan 25, 2021 5:40 am

Cordel One wrote:Good for Australia, oOogle's a monopoly and needs to be weakened.


Image
Join the Revolution!

German Born | Member of the Socialist Party of Germany | #Munich

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ifreann, Philjia, Spirit of Hope, Valyxias

Advertisement

Remove ads