The way Aussies search every day on Google is at risk from new regulation

[Trik'Stari]

28 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Maybe that's why they are introducing the law then, maybe that's why google are so pissed with it.  Not only having to pay the original news outlet for the story but they also can't punish them with skewed search results.

 

 

They should not have to pay the news outlet for hosting a link to their article. IF anyone should pay, it should be the news outlet, but because that would automatically become a "pay for first page results" system, neither should pay the other.

 

If news outlets want people to actually click on their link and load their page, they should used better headlines that don't give away the story (or rather, don't outright lie about everything and create misinformation with just a headline) and instead use something that will actually make you click on the article and read it through.

[mr moose]

10 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

They should not have to pay the news outlet for hosting a link to their article. IF anyone should pay, it should be the news outlet, but because that would automatically become a "pay for first page results" system, neither should pay the other.

 

If news outlets want people to actually click on their link and load their page, they should used better headlines that don't give away the story (or rather, don't outright lie about everything and create misinformation with just a headline) and instead use something that will actually make you click on the article and read it through.

 

I don't think the news agency can charge google for a link in a search result, its for whole articles google seed in their news feeds.

 

 

[Serin]

Oh boy. I love the way google has a spaz attack every time a government seeks to make legislation to support the people who elected them.
Why are you lot simping for them? Its weird. 

[spartaman64]

3 hours ago, Vishera said:

 

With that mindset Google can do whatever they want with any content they are indexing...

The problem is that Google are using the news articles without permission,profit from it and doesn't pay a dime to the news agency.

So it seems fair that Google will have to pay if the news agency ask them for pay in order to use their articles.

well pretty much no company until now complains that their website shows up on google LUL my parents own a company and they are doing their best to make sure their website shows up near the top of the searches and here australian news companies are like nope we dont want to be on google LUL how are people going to find them? whens the last time you type a news website url in rather than just googling the news

[mr moose]

22 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

well pretty much no company until now complains that their website shows up on google LUL my parents own a company and they are doing their best to make sure their website shows up near the top of the searches and here australian news companies are like nope we dont want to be on google LUL how are people going to find them? whens the last time you type a news website url in rather than just googling the news

that's not what is happening. 

[spartaman64]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

that's not what is happening. 

ok sorry they want to show up on google/google news but they want to get paid for it also. imagine if my parents said to amazon you should pay us to have our products on your site LUL

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

ok sorry they want to show up on google/google news but they want to get paid for it also

Ah.  so the same problem every other news system has had.  Aggregators are taking their content and selling it.   Attacking google won’t help. It’s only one aggregator.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

ok sorry they want to show up on google/google news but they want to get paid for it also. imagine if my parents said to amazon you should pay us to have our products on your site LUL

The news organizations only want to be paid when google use their news content, not when they provide it in a search.

 

There is no desire for anyone to charge google for providing search results.

 

EDIT: also I am not to sure I understand the amazon relevance, as news sites are not making any money from google hosting their content.  At best they make money from returned search results only.

[it_dont_work]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

The news organizations only want to be paid when google use their news content.

Finally actually read the code, it's basically trying to ensure greater transparency and combat google (intentionally or not) third line forcing media/news. 

 

The cynic in me just sees another Us company that doesn't like consumer protection. 

[ApexMeteor]

Interesting to read a different take on this. I first read about this on slashdot and the way it reads it's more about forcing Google to negotiate with the publishers to come up with an ad revenue sharing scheme. Honestly that sounds fair. Google News doesn't work in Spain because they refused to share ad revenue with the publishers and/or pay a tax to compensate publishers from Google using links to their sources and ultimately reducing site traffic and ad revenue. Either by the inability to adapt to the new technologies or unfair competition from Google and Facebook, newspapers and the press is general are going through a rough patch, and they still play an important role on our societies.

[Bombastinator]

28 minutes ago, ApexMeteor said:

Interesting to read a different take on this. I first read about this on slashdot and the way it reads it's more about forcing Google to negotiate with the publishers to come up with an ad revenue sharing scheme. Honestly that sounds fair. Google News doesn't work in Spain because they refused to share ad revenue with the publishers and/or pay a tax to compensate publishers from Google using links to their sources and ultimately reducing site traffic and ad revenue. Either by the inability to adapt to the new technologies or unfair competition from Google and Facebook, newspapers and the press is general are going through a rough patch, and they still play an important role on our societies.

If they can do it power to them.  I’d likely like to see whatever they come up with go international.  Newspapers are in trouble, and with no non marketing information BS can flourish.  Look what happened in the US. They’re going to have to do it with all the other aggregators too though or people will just go to a different site for news.  Get something that works for google and codify it making it a requirement for all aggregators. Humanity needs reporting and no one can work for nothing. 

[CarlBar]

BBC News has an article on this. Still sparse on details though but better than nothing.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53806489

[spartaman64]

47 minutes ago, Caroline said:

 

I just use the duck now, works fine but I don't really search for a lot of stuff tbh

i never used it but i would expect it to be even worse than bing lol

[GeeKayK]

The more I see and think about this, the more I realise the absolute lows Google will go just to get consumers to simp for them... Google is doing nothing but misinforming the public, imagine if they were allowed to do this all the time. I've decided, I'm for this "code", not against.

[Mark Kaine]

On 8/17/2020 at 3:16 AM, Vishera said:

Can't Google just quit Australia?,Australians can use Google.com instead of Google.com.au

In theory yes.  But then as you know,  Google will always try to "abide the laws" and will probably just redirect them or something or be forced by the Aus government to do so - possibly! 

 

Also Google isn't as important as people think,  there are alternatives for everything.

 

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

On 8/18/2020 at 9:15 PM, Caroline said:

 

I just use the duck now, works fine but I don't really search for a lot of stuff tbh

I recently did a test. 

 

>"most popular Chinese video platform" 

 

> "copy URL"

 

> "put into Google.com"

 

> "nothing. absolutely nothing. NO RESULTS" 

 

>"put the same URL into duckduckgo"

 

>"100s of results with the first one being exactly the video I copied the URL from"

 

> conclusion??? 

 

>should be obvious 

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, Caroline said:

I clicked on a random vid and got this

 

Now all of China knows I'm here

really it’s not.  “Should be obvious” implies either 

A. The speaker has set up an argument so weak that they need the internal thought completion to allow at least some people to skip over the fractured bit.

B. The speaker makes assumptions about the listener and what line of reasoning they will follow.

 

Things that occurred to me it might be:

 

Duck duck go is a better search engine than google?

Duck Duck go is not blocked in China while google is?

DuckDuck Go is clearly in league with the communists and therefore a much worse search engine?

Google is censored and therefore a not trustable search engine?

google blocks China and therefore cannot be influenced by the CCP making it a much more trustable search engine? 
 

it just goes all over the place, based on listener attitudes about US/China relations. 

 

 

[CarlBar]

14 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

really it’s not.  “Should be obvious” implies either 

A. The speaker has set up an argument so weak that they need the internal thought completion to allow at least some people to skip over the fractured bit.

B. The speaker makes assumptions about the listener and what line of reasoning they will follow.

 

Or you know it's obvious.

 

If one gives no results and the other gives loads it shouldn't need an explanation as to the conclusion. One is doing it's job the other isn't and only a complete idiot, troll, or someone determined to stick their fingers in their ears shouldn't be able to figure that out for themselves.

 

Now weather the claim is true, i have no clue. I don't even know enough about china and it's video stuff online to be able to adjudicate the results if i ran the experiment myself.

[Bombastinator]

8 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 

Or you know it's obvious.

 

If one gives no results and the other gives loads it shouldn't need an explanation as to the conclusion. One is doing it's job the other isn't and only a complete idiot, troll, or someone determined to stick their fingers in their ears shouldn't be able to figure that out for themselves.

 

Now weather the claim is true, i have no clue. I don't even know enough about china and it's video stuff online to be able to adjudicate the results if i ran the experiment myself.

Wow.  You really didn’t like that reply did you?  “That” huh?

I translate this as 

“Why will you not assume the way I want you to assume?!l”

I don’t even know which way you want me to assume. Really.  I know which way I personally would go.   The way I already went.

 

I did come up with another which I think may be the most likely.  The “most popular” link happened apparently to be the NBA which is possibly region locked. So the NBA is monitoring Google but not duck duck go. 

Was this the assumption you wanted me to make?  That this is all a bizarre coincidence and doesn’t mean anything to begin with?

 

I personally removed google search from my browsers some time ago but it was entirely due to Google’s malware like behavior. 

[CarlBar]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Wow.  You really didn’t like that reply did you?  “That” huh?

I translate this as 

“Why will you not assume the way I want you to assume?!l”

I don’t even know which way you want me to assume. Really.  I know which way I personally would go.   The way I already went.

 

I did come up with another which I think may be the most likely.  The “most popular” link happened apparently to be the NBA which is possibly region locked. So the NBA is monitoring Google but not duck duck go. 

Was this the assumption you wanted me to make?  That this is all a bizarre coincidence and doesn’t mean anything to begin with?

 

I personally removed google search from my browsers some time ago but it was entirely due to Google’s malware like behavior. 

 

 

Let me re-quote my prior post with a bit of bolding:

 

11 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

Or you know it's obvious.

 

If one gives no results and the other gives loads it shouldn't need an explanation as to the conclusion. One is doing it's job the other isn't and only a complete idiot, troll, or someone determined to stick their fingers in their ears shouldn't be able to figure that out for themselves.

 

Now weather the claim is true, i have no clue. I don't even know enough about china and it's video stuff online to be able to adjudicate the results if i ran the experiment myself.

 

[Mark Kaine]

38 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

really it’s not.  “Should be obvious” implies either 

A. The speaker has set up an argument so weak that they need the internal thought completion to allow at least some people to skip over the fractured bit.

B. The speaker makes assumptions about the listener and what line of reasoning they will follow.

 

Things that occurred to me it might be:

 

Duck duck go is a better search engine than google?

Duck Duck go is not blocked in China while google is?

DuckDuck Go is clearly in league with the communists and therefore a much worse search engine?

Google is censored and therefore a not trustable search engine?

google blocks China and therefore cannot be influenced by the CCP making it a much more trustable search engine? 
 

it just goes all over the place, based on listener attitudes about US/China relations. 

 

 

It's indeed why I said "should"

 

Implying not everyone would get it... 

 

Edit: To be clear there's only one *likely* conclusion: Google filters out certain results, in this case for the most popular Chinese videoplatform, a direct competitor no less.

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, CarlBar said:

 

 

Let me re-quote my prior post with a bit of bolding:

 

 

Which leaves open the definition of what “doing its job” means.

 

So  do you think the answer is google because it’s “doing it’s job” of

 

blocking region locked content as requested by the content creator? 

Not scraping sites behind the great firewall?

Abiding by some sort of law pushes by the US president? (assuming there even was one.  One never knows.  That kind of stuff changes hourly with him) 

 Or do you think the answer is duck duck go because it’s “doing it’s job” of

 

-providing a search regardless of region bans because it’s so smalll the NBA probably never contacted it

-is scraping sites behind the great firewall

 

 

[Bombastinator]

11 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

It's indeed why I said "should"

 

Implying not everyone would get it... 

 

Edit: To be clear there's only one *likely* conclusion: Google filters out certain results, in this case for the most popular Chinese videoplatform, a direct competitor no less.

Yep. Saw that should.  Never been a joiner myself.  I resist being told what to do.  It’s actually not a direct competitor because Google is locked out of the chinese market.

[Mark Kaine]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

Yep. Saw that should.  Never been a joiner myself.  I resist being told what to do.  It’s actually not a direct competitor because Google is locked out of the chinese market.

Last time I checked it wasn't in "tier 1" cities, (shoulda check your intel better lol) which to be honest is the majority of people who even would use this service. 

 

Also it doesn't really matter because they're still direct competition,  every video I watch on bilibili or any other video service that's not owned by Google,  Google doesn't see a cent (which isn't the primary reason for me btw,  but it's a nice side effect ;)) 

 

 

 

[Bombastinator]

30 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Last time I checked it wasn't in "tier 1" cities, (shoulda check your intel better lol) which to be honest is the majority of people who even would use this service. 

 

Also it doesn't really matter because they're still direct competition,  every video I watch on bilibili or any other video service that's not owned by Google,  Google doesn't see a cent (which isn't the primary reason for me btw,  but it's a nice side effect ;)) 

 

 

 

Ahhh... so this wasn’t so much  “Google is bad” it was “GO bilibili!” The NBA thing was merely a red herring.  Though possibly also true if that really was their main page logo.  Might even be why they do it.  Could force google to block them so they can claim it’s for a different reason.  Classic political BS.  See, just about every time someone does that  hanging question thing it’s an attempt at manipulation.  Its practically a waving flag for “here lies BS”