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

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

Now weather the claim is true, i have no clue

It's astonishingly true, just tried again in case it was a "glitch" or something lol.

 

 

 

 

PS: I think that isn't the right video that duckduckgo found ,  it definitely was last time tho, I even watched it again because it's so good haha, point is Google brings back nothing if you search for specific videos in that way,  just tried again with another random video... "No Results".

[CarlBar]

2 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

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

 

 

 

It;s job is to provide you with relevant search results. Why it's doing or not doing somthing is irrelevant, only how well it meets it's purpose. 

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

 

It;s job is to provide you with relevant search results. Why it's doing or not doing somthing is irrelevant, only how well it meets it's purpose. 

The problem with that definition is it varies.  That would be doing the job you wish it to do.  Nothing wrong with that.  It’s just that it’s situationally dependent.  The job of google search according to google could be considered to be to acquire  personal data from users for example.  Google wouldn’t give a rats ass whether you found your data or not.  They want to sell data.  But to do that you have to click the button so the search engine has to work well. 

[GDRRiley]

11 minutes ago, CircleTech said:

Now there was a second thing mentioned, that google would have to reveal how their search algorithm worked to large media companies.

can't imagine that, like how to improve your chance of showing up on youtube was hard coded. instead is likely just a blackbox ai that can't be taken apart.

[mr moose]

13 minutes ago, CircleTech said:

snip

  Reveal hidden contents

Google will be forced to provide information to how their algorithm works -

 

True, but only on the next algorithm change. If Google never changes their algorithm from this day out, they will not have to provide information on how it works. 

 

Google will be forced to hand over user data to media companies form their users -

 

True. Section 52M explicitly mentions Google is required to make this information available to news agencies, which those news agencies could then presumably use to target individuals and rank above other people.

 

This will cause search results from media companies to rank above others in google search results - 

 

True. If Media companies have access to data others do not, I could see how this would be easily abused. 

 

Big companies can't use this to force google to change how the search works in their favor.  That is both spelled out in the arbitration clauses and in the discrimination clauses. What they can do is ask google for information pertaining to the monetization of their content in searches. This does not mean specific user data, this could easily include aggregate data which I say would include at least a block diagram of the search algorithm.  By making it law that google has to tell the news agency when they change their algorithm stops google from playing lip service then carrying on with business as usual.

 

We have to remember the whole reason for this bill (the reason the ACCC wrote it) was to protect consumers from media and social media bias.  We really do not need to be worried about it,  google do because it removes one of the ways they can leverage their market power to increase revenue and control content.

 

EDIT: forgot to add that the search algorithm google uses can be treated as a trade secret, which is explicitly barred from be part of any data request.

[Mark Kaine]

15 minutes ago, CircleTech said:

forced sharing of your data with Media companies

I don't really get this one... I mean,  that can't be good yeah, but...  Google is already sharing your data with a gazillion of people,  most likely Media companies as well... so all this particular part about the bill would do is make Google less $$$, and I understand they wouldn't like this. 

 

Now,  why would a government do something like this,  it seems really weird,  but on the other hand it would make sense, in my country something similar (not quite the same thing though) as in media influenced the government so much (by influenced I mean $$$ of course) that they changed the rules that will "change the internet forever"  according to the people opposed to this law... 

 

Nothing much came out of it yet,  maybe the law isn't in effect yet,  point is media lobby indirectly made changes to the law to benefit from the new rules,  apparently. 

 

But other than that I really don't know what to make of it. 

 

I don't trust Google is all I know - and I wouldn't miss them either,  there would always be alternatives, probably better one,  their search engine is really pretty trash and only shows you what Alphabet  Inc wants you to see anyway. 

 

 

 

 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Mark Kaine said:

 

 

Now,  why would a government do something like this,  it seems really weird,  but on the other hand it would make sense, in my country something similar (not quite the same thing though) as in media influenced the government so much (by influenced I mean $$$ of course) that they changed the rules that will "change the internet forever"  according to the people opposed to this law... 

 

The ACCC is very well divorced from the government and gets no funding from the private sector.   The ACCC has a good reputation in Australia for holding corporates to account for their activities. 

 

This is not say they are perfect, there's no such thing, but the track record for lack of $$$ influence is very good.

[it_dont_work]

Long and short of this, in Australia when you use/promote part or all of a piece of media that's been developed for commercial interest, you owe the owner a royalty. The ACCC code change simply means if a party does not pay a royalty, they are required under law to ender a civil negotiation for settlement. 

 

Doesn't guarantee they have to pay, just guarantees they enter conciliation.  Why is this a program for google.

 

2019 early 2020, they refused to pay royalties to Australian media for using their materials. Google would be required to enter dispute resolution on an equal footing (ie no corporate advantage, remember this is Australia not the Us, your lobbying means shit here and they know it). The data issues comes from an evidence standpoint, show you didn't use said medias copyright protected data.

 

They don't have to disclose data, but that might end up on the balance of probabilities that they need to then pay royalties. 

[quetch1]

On 8/17/2020 at 11:00 AM, Orangeator said:

This is a really bad idea. Hope Google just pulls out if they do this. Force the Australian government to eat crow. 

Australian here. The pm better be watching he back on getting the boot out of office. We getting tired of those crocked governments. Been a revolving door for PM'S in the last few years

 

On 8/17/2020 at 11:00 AM, Orangeator said:

 

 

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, it_dont_work said:

Long and short of this, in Australia when you use/promote part or all of a piece of media that's been developed for commercial interest, you owe the owner a royalty. The ACCC code change simply means if a party does not pay a royalty, they are required under law to ender a civil negotiation for settlement. 

 

Doesn't guarantee they have to pay, just guarantees they enter conciliation.  Why is this a program for google.

 

2019 early 2020, they refused to pay royalties to Australian media for using their materials. Google would be required to enter dispute resolution on an equal footing (ie no corporate advantage, remember this is Australia not the Us, your lobbying means shit here and they know it). The data issues comes from an evidence standpoint, show you didn't use said medias copyright protected data.

 

They don't have to disclose data, but that might end up on the balance of probabilities that they need to then pay royalties. 

On top of that, google has taken huge chunks of advertising revenue out of Australia. 

 

With everyone advertising on youtube/facebook now all that ad revenue goes straight to the US,  with people buying netflix and disney plus and using spotify they are no longer listening to radio or watching tv which has reduced the value of advertising on those media.  You might have notice over the last few years radio has actually been advertising themselves as a place to advertise. That is a direct result of people swapping to digital advertising (largely run by google and facebook).  This is why the entire media industry in Australia is hemorrhaging and getting worse.

 

I don't think this new bill was designed to address that, but it will likely go someway to correcting it.  

 

 

 

Also to the comments about google pulling out of Australia, as an Australian I hope so, they can take their fucking data harvesting a fuck off with it too.  Don't let the door whack you on the arse on the way out.   without google or facbook, our small media industry will boom gain. 

[Orangeator]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Also to the comments about google pulling out of Australia, as an Australian I hope so, they can take their fucking data harvesting a fuck off with it too.  Don't let the door whack you on the arse on the way out.   without google or facbook, our small media industry will boom gain. 

This would likely be much more harmful to the people of Australia than you think. Imagine overnight, as an android user, losing access to all Google services. It would render millions of devices virtually useless, including the lack of services such as Google docs, Google Photos, and others. People are more dependent on these services then you probably think. 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

This would likely be much more harmful to the people of Australia than you think. Imagine overnight, as an android user, losing access to all Google services. It would render millions of devices virtually useless, including the lack of services such as Google docs, Google Photos, and others. People are more dependent on these services then you probably think. 

And a good thing too,  I don't like the idea that phones are tied to one company.  That is a BS situation we shouldn't be in.  Google aren't the only company that provide online maps, search engines, email accounts and document services.  If your company relies on free doc services then you are getting what you paid for.

 

Not too mention the entire legal side of things.  Australian consumer law is quite strong.

 

 

 

 

 

[Bombastinator]

8 minutes ago, Orangeator said:

This would likely be much more harmful to the people of Australia than you think. Imagine overnight, as an android user, losing access to all Google services. It would render millions of devices virtually useless, including the lack of services such as Google docs, Google Photos, and others. People are more dependent on these services then you probably think. 

How I personally would do it:

The Key is overnight. Give a week and 50% would have switched over to microsoft or Apple or whatever equivalents.  I would give em two weeks then shut it all down for only a day to explain to people that you mean it, then give em another week and shut it down again.  There will be a few squealers. At that point it can be decided whether to leave the squealers to burn or do another week before shutdown.  

[Bombastinator]

8 hours 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 ;)) 

 

 

 

Heh. If it’s  not in tier 1 or tier 2 it’s not in China.  People living in tier 3 and below have generally never seen a motorcycle in their lives.  It’s pre world war2 in a lot of China.

[it_dont_work]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Snip

I mean I understand, that data mining is what pays for the 'free service' we use. On the other hand this might patch-up traditional media for a little while, we need more innovation in this country for them to survive longer. I mean Steam tried bullying the ACCC( cost steam a few million too), and now look how Australians are the only ones with decent return rights for digital distributed games 

 

I find it fascinating that the only large media organisation to (somewhat) successfully innovate has been the ABC, who has no comercial reason to. 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, it_dont_work said:

I mean I understand, that data mining is what pays for the 'free service' we use. On the other hand this might patch-up traditional media for a little while, we need more innovation in this country for them to survive longer. I mean Steam tried bullying the ACCC( cost steam a few million too), and now look how Australians are the only ones with decent return rights for digital distributed games 

 

I find it fascinating that the only large media organisation to (somewhat) successfully innovate has been the ABC, who has no comercial reason to. 

I just want to see more Australian films, it seems the 80's was the last time we had anything really decent come out of the industry.

 

 

[it_dont_work]

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I just want to see more Australian films, it seems the 80's was the last time we had anything really decent come out of the industry.

 

 

It does feel novel hearing an Aussie voice in a film. Though I did enjoy Thunderstruck and to some extent Bran Nue Dae for more recent films. 

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, it_dont_work said:

It does feel novel hearing an Aussie voice in a film. Though I did enjoy Thunderstruck and to some extent Bran Nue Dae for more recent films. 

+1 to bran nue dae.

 

I just miss the culture more than anything.

 

Running on empty

the year my voice broke

running from the guns

malcom

 

[leadeater]

58 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I just want to see more Australian films, it seems the 80's was the last time we had anything really decent come out of the industry.

Hey, I enjoyed The Dish. That was a fun watch.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Hey, I enjoyed The Dish. That was a fun watch.

I forgot about that one.

[it_dont_work]

17 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Hey, I enjoyed The Dish. That was a fun watch.

while getting off topic, Hunt for the Wilderpeople was pretty good too. 

[leadeater]

Just now, it_dont_work said:

while getting off topic, Hunt for the Wilderpeople was pretty good too. 

Oh great another thing the Aussies are trying to steal

 

Spoiler

 

[it_dont_work]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Oh great another thing the Aussies are trying to steal

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Hehe, I do know its a Kiwi film. and that Sam Neill is a legend  

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Oh great another thing the Aussies are trying to steal

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Did you see that great Aussie film "once were warriors"?

 

BTW you can have russel crow back.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Did you see that great Aussie film "once were warriors"?

 

BTW you can have russel crow back.

You can have Auckland.

[edit]
 

Please.