Google threatens to pull out of Australia over new "link tax" laws

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Australia already has already adopted the Beer Economy.

 

Fair enough. As barter economies go the most common one was cigarettes.  Fewer people smoke now though.  I could see beer taking its place.

[Spotty]

9 hours ago, TargetDron3 said:

So Google is getting mad that they make insane profit off of others and get upset when the people they are making a profit on wake up and realize how Google is screwing them over.

 

France passed a similar law over Google using snippets from news sites.  Google negotiated and agreed to that law in France.  

 

Google by including snippets IS preventing news sites from revenue due to lost add views.  But Google still gets to make money on their own ads.

 

I get a kick out of people that think the internet is or should be free.  If it was free it would collapse. It costs a lot of money to run "the internet". I think people are finally waking up to the realization that it's "free" because your data and surfing habits are the actual product being sold without you knowing it to fund most of it. 

The difference between the Australian proposal and what happened in France is the proposed law in Australia applies to links, not snippets from the article. If someone google searches "news" and Google search shows www.news.com in its search results Google would have to pay the website. 

 

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6652

 

Quote

The news media bargaining code aims to level the playing field between media companies and online giants. It would do this by forcing Facebook and Google to pay Australian news businesses for content linked to, or featured, on their platforms.

 

In a submission to the Senate inquiry about the code, Berners-Lee wrote:

Specifically, I am concerned that the Code risks breaching a fundamental principle of the web by requiring payment for linking between certain content online. […] 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.

Currently, one of the most basic underlying principles of the web is there is no cost involved in creating a hypertext link (or simply a “link”) to any other page or object online.

https://theconversation.com/webs-inventor-says-news-media-bargaining-code-could-break-the-internet-hes-right-but-theres-a-fix-153630

 

 

 

Simply linking to another website would legally be classed as hosting that website's content and would be required to pay for that "content".

That's why Google is saying this proposed law would break its search engine. They would not be able to show search results for news content - not even a link to news websites - without paying those websites for the privilege of directing traffic to their website. This is why Google has been trialling removing search results for news websites, or threatening to withdraw its search engine from Australia.

 

 

Are people so quick to hate the big tech giants like Google and Facebook they don't realise what a stupid proposal this is? I'm not against reigning in how much power Google, Facebook and others have, but this proposal is idiotic. Even if the definition of content was changed to not include links it would still be a bad idea.

The only person this proposal would benefit is Rupert Murdoch. 

[514_AppleGuy]

F in chat for all the Australians who'll be stuck with Bing

[Spotty]

4 minutes ago, 514_AppleGuy said:

F in chat for all the Australians who'll be stuck with Bing

Who says this proposed law won't also apply to Bing? You can't write laws that target a specific company, though it sure seems like they're trying...

 

The proposal is extremely vague on what companies will be affected by this. We know Facebook and Google as that's who they're targeting, but it's certainly not limited to them. It's any company that is a "designated digital platform". What is a "designated digital platform"? There's no guidelines to define it. The proposal only states that it's up to the (communications?) Minister to decide which companies are designated digital platforms. 

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, Spotty said:

The difference between the Australian proposal and what happened in France is the proposed law in Australia applies to links, not snippets from the article. If someone google searches "news" and Google search shows www.news.com in its search results Google would have to pay the website. 

 

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6652

 

https://theconversation.com/webs-inventor-says-news-media-bargaining-code-could-break-the-internet-hes-right-but-theres-a-fix-153630

 

 

 

Simply linking to another website would legally be classed as hosting that website's content and would be required to pay for that "content".

That's why Google is saying this proposed law would break its search engine. They would not be able to show search results for news content - not even a link to news websites - without paying those websites for the privilege of directing traffic to their website. This is why Google has been trialling removing search results for news websites, or threatening to withdraw its search engine from Australia.

 

 

Are people so quick to hate the big tech giants like Google and Facebook they don't realise what a stupid proposal this is? I'm not against reigning in how much power Google, Facebook and others have, but this proposal is idiotic. Even if the definition of content was changed to not include links it would still be a bad idea.

The only person this proposal would benefit is Rupert Murdoch. 

Similar is not the same.  There are apparently some critical differences. Link vs snippet. 

[Bombastinator]

56 minutes ago, 514_AppleGuy said:

F in chat for all the Australians who'll be stuck with Bing

Lol.  That won’t happen for long though.  There’s DuckDuckGo for one.  I don’t know why Microsoft’s search is so bad. Bing is the worst of the search engine choices.  It doesn’t HAVE to be that way. I doubt microsoft would be more likely to pony up though. That link thing would be hard to implement.  It could be done I suppose but then everything would read like apple news, which is bluntly frustrating.  If I was a Australian legislator in on this I would be looking at the French stuff pretty closely.  They probably have of course.

[mcgyvah]

Sorry I missed this  and posted the below elsewhere. which was merged. ( late to the party.)

 

I think you guys are missing the point. Whatever the rule is, agree or not, you don't threaten a government like that. And, although it was couched in a "sorry but your forcing us"... from google. That's not what it was, It was a Giant corporation threatening the Australian population (ie google users= pretty much everyone) that they would remove services and

 its not just Australia, this is a global test case, and it effects everyone.

So how about all you other Government pussies getting behind Australia and see if Google will remove their services from the planet. And yeah Australia is a small population. But people, you lose here, you set a precedent for the rest of the world.

 

What I wrote earlier before seeing this thread...worth checking the link.

 

Maybe something for the Wan show?

Apparently Google this week has threatened to remove all google support from the Australian public.... if the Australian government doesn't change media laws,

which as far as I understand, require google to pay for news stories that they copy / disseminate which Google do not want to pay for ? I'm not sure how this works, I don't really care if I agree or disagree with the rules made.

But I'm pretty sure if you have an issue with a law you don't threaten a government...?

 Have I got this right, Google thinks they are too big to pay money for something every other media outlet has to pay for?

What are you Google ?  Sixers?

This needs a Wade Watts style response if its true.

Oh and lets face it,  They are reading this right now and can pretty likely track who I am so maybe I'm in trouble already.....

I gotta agree with the Aussie Prime Ministers reply:

https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/we-don-t-respond-to-threats-pm-responds-to-google-s-ultimatum-20210122-p56w6c

 

[Spotty]

The super short, super simplified TLDR version for anyone who doesn't know what the proposed law does...

• Google will be required to provide news companies with information on its users, how its users interact with the site in relation to their content.
• Google will be required to provide news companies with details of how its search and ranking algorithms work, and provide notice of any changes to the algorithms that will affect news companies. (Currently this excludes anything that will be considered "Trade Secrets" that could damage Google's position in the market, but NewsCorp is petitioning for that exemption to be removed)
• Google will be required to pay media companies to host their content. The definition of "content" includes displaying a LINK to a news website.
• ... This doesn't just apply to Google. This applies to any "Designated Digital Platforms", which has no definition or requirements within the law. The Government chooses which companies are deemed "Designated Digital Platforms" and in effect means they choose which companies they want this law to apply to. This means that laws that apply to Google might not apply to its direct competitors such as Bing or DuckDuckGo.

 

This is why Google has threatened it would have no option but to pull its Google Search services out of the Australian market if the law is passed.

 

 

The longer version for people who have too much time on their hands.

Spoiler

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r6652_first-reps/toc_pdf/20177b01.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

 

This is my summary...

 

Definitions of who this law applies to;

• Any company or service deemed to be a "Designated Digital Platform"
  • Companies/services are deemed to be "Designated Digital Platforms" at the discretion of the (communications?) Minister
  • There is no definition or requirements for what a Designated Digital Platform is. Whatever the minister deems to be a Designated Digital Platform is one.
• News Companies include any "Registered News Business". To register news coorperations are required to;
  • Submit an application in writing
  • Have an annual revenue in excess of $150,000
  • Abide by editorial standards
  • Serve predominately Australian audiences

 

Definitions of Content;

• The law considers the Designated Digital Platform to be hosting the content of a Registered News Business if;
  • The content is reproduced or otherwise placed on the service
  • a link to the content is provided on the service
  • an extract of the content is provided on the service
• The law considered services interacting with the content of a Registered News Business if;
  • The content is reproduced or otherwise placed on the service and users interact with the service
  • a link to the content is provided on the service and the user interacts with the link
  • an extract of the content is provided on the service and a user interacts with the extract

 

Definitions of Distributing Content;

• The law considers the service as Distributing the content if;
  • The service distributes content that is made available by;
    • Ranking the content
    • Curating the content
    • Making the content more or less prominent
    • Making a user more or less likely to interact with the content
  • They make alterations to the way the content is made available by the type of content,
    • alterations based on the type of content (ie. video, written article, etc)
  • They make alterations to the way the content is made available based on the content creator,
    • alterations based on the content creator (ie. if their website loads quickly, if content is created automatically, if content is from a website that has made attempts to manipulate rankings previously, if the content is from a prominent individual or celebrity)
  • Or they make alterations to the way the content is made available based on the user
    • Alterations based on who is using the service (ie. altering content made available to children, altering content made available to users of a particular age, altering content made available to users who have indicated they do not wish to see such content, altering content made available to users who are affected by natural disaster if content contains information about the disaster)

 

The requirements of Designated Digital Platforms:

• Companies/services which are deemed to be a Designated Digital Platform must;
  • Provide registered news businesses with information on how its users interact with their service in relation to the registered news business
    • Updated information on how the Digital Platform users interact with their service is delivered to the Registered news business annually
  • Provide information on how their search and ranking algorithms work and how content is delivered to users
    • Provide news media companies with at least 14 days notice of any changes to their algorithms that are responsible for search or rank of websites
    • Provide 14 days notice and details of changes to the algorithm that affect pay-walled content
    • Provide 14 days notice and details of changes to the algorithm that affect advertising
  • Any significant change is defined as having a significant variation of the proportion of covered news content made available on the Designated Digital Platform in relation to the registered news business
  • Are responsible for recognition of the original news content created by registered news businesses

 

Designated Digital Platforms are not required to;

• Reveal trade secrets
• Provide personal information of its users within the definition of the Privacy Act 1988

 

The service supplied by the Designated Digital Platforms cannot differentiate based on;

• The registered news business being engaged in a bargaining agreement with the designated digital platform
• A notice by the registered news business to engage in a bargaining agreement
• The remuneration provided to the registered news business for making available the registered news business's covered news content on the designated digital platform service

 

Bargaining Agreements

• A registered news business may notify a Designated Digital Platform of its intent to enter negotiations for a bargaining agreement and seek remunerations for the registered news business content being used on the Designated Digital Platform
• The parties must negotiate in good faith
• If an agreement is not reached the ACMA (Australian Communications and Media Authority) will assign an arbitrator and mediate the bargaining agreement
  • An arbitrator can be assigned if the concerns is a core bargaining agreement;
    • The remuneration to be paid to a registered news business for making available the registered news business covered news content by the designated digital platform service
    • If an agreement regarding remuneration has not been made in 3 months
  • If an agreement is not made the arbitrator will make the final decision.
    • The bargaining agreement and remuneration amount decided by arbitration to be provided to the registered news business will be valid for a period of 2 years

 

 

 

What all this means is that digital platforms (Google, Facebook, etc) will be required to provide information to news outlets on how the search and rank algorithms work to deliver content to its users. If Google makes a change to how its search or ranking algorithm works they must provide at least 14 days prior notice to the news companies.

It will also require digital platforms to pay to host content on their service. By the definition of this law, content also includes a LINK to their website. This means that Google would need to pay news companies to provide links to their website. The news companies can force digital platforms in to bargaining agreements and if they do not reach an agreement on how much the digital platform has to pay the news company the ACMA will assign someone to make a decision on how much should be paid, and the digital platform will be forced to pay this for a period of 2 years.

 

 

NewsCorp's response to the proposal has requested that the exemptions relating to trade secrets be removed.

Quote

News CorpAustralia submits that it is not necessary to include a trade secret carveout. It is highly unlikely that the minimum standards or the information request provisions of the Draft Code would require digital platforms or news businesses to provide 'trade secrets' as that phrase is usually understood, but the intent of the Code could be frustrated by an expansive interpretation of 'trade secrets'. The Code legislation would not be invalidated for failure to include a carve out for trade secrets. This carveoutmay have been included because of a concern that the Draft Code could result in an acquisition of property (ie, trade secrets) otherwise than on just terms. However, New Corp Australia submits that there is no basis on which the legislation could be said to do this (because media organisations are not acquiring any property) and the legislation would in any case be read down to avoid invalidating the legislation in its entirety.

 

For these reasons, News Corp Australia proposes that the 'trade secrets' exceptions (ie, ss 52V and 52ZC(7)) be removed from the Draft Code.

 

Google's response to the draft proposal

https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Google_0.pdf

 

Facebook's response

https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Facebook_0.pdf

 

[Lii]

isn't this whole thing a winwin for the medias(and government)?

if google (and not only) is forces to pay (and "cooperate" with) those scumbags they win

if google (and not only) is forced to pull out from the market, it will basically reopen (and let it dominate) the whole market from them

 

if this scales down, the implications might be worse than china's policies

 

[Zodiark1593]

6 hours ago, mcgyvah said:

Sorry I missed this  and posted the below elsewhere. which was merged. ( late to the party.)

 

I think you guys are missing the point. Whatever the rule is, agree or not, you don't threaten a government like that. And, although it was couched in a "sorry but your forcing us"... from google. That's not what it was, It was a Giant corporation threatening the Australian population (ie google users= pretty much everyone) that they would remove services and

 its not just Australia, this is a global test case, and it effects everyone.

So how about all you other Government pussies getting behind Australia and see if Google will remove their services from the planet. And yeah Australia is a small population. But people, you lose here, you set a precedent for the rest of the world.

 

What I wrote earlier before seeing this thread...worth checking the link.

 

Maybe something for the Wan show?

Apparently Google this week has threatened to remove all google support from the Australian public.... if the Australian government doesn't change media laws,

which as far as I understand, require google to pay for news stories that they copy / disseminate which Google do not want to pay for ? I'm not sure how this works, I don't really care if I agree or disagree with the rules made.

But I'm pretty sure if you have an issue with a law you don't threaten a government...?

 Have I got this right, Google thinks they are too big to pay money for something every other media outlet has to pay for?

What are you Google ?  Sixers?

This needs a Wade Watts style response if its true.

Oh and lets face it,  They are reading this right now and can pretty likely track who I am so maybe I'm in trouble already.....

I gotta agree with the Aussie Prime Ministers reply:

https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/we-don-t-respond-to-threats-pm-responds-to-google-s-ultimatum-20210122-p56w6c

 

Legally speaking, is there anything forcing Google to do business in Australia? If not, they’re fully at rights to pull out if they deem the laws to be overly hostile to the bottom line. I’m not terribly familiar with Aussie law, but should the above ring true, this os probably one of the few instances of a threat being entirely legal. 
 

To force Google’s hand, you’d need at least several nations with high traffic volumes (for Google) working in unison. Dropping Australia might only be a blip for Google, but half the EU (because the US certainly won’t do anything to reign Google in) for example, will hurt a lot more. 
 

Another tidbit is this will apply to all search engines, not just Google. The prospect of Australia not having a search engine at all could become reality. 

[Bombastinator]

7 minutes ago, Lii said:

isn't this whole thing a winwin for the medias(and government)?

if google (and not only) is forces to pay (and "cooperate" with) those scumbags they win

if google (and not only) is forced to pull out from the market, it will basically reopen (and let it dominate) the whole market from them

 

if this scales down, the implications might be worse than china's policies

 

Depends on how you cut it up.  It seems to be win win for Australian government or they wouldn’t be  even looking at it.  For Australian media it’s probably a less strong win win. They either get some money from Google, or they either wait for another competitor to step into the void.  If no one does it could be trouble.  The Australian government would probably have to foster something then.  It would make Australia search effectively a protected market that a search engine could grow from.  A little patch of soil for a seed to germinate.  The thing is is Australia wouldn’t be the only protected space like that though. There are Chinese app systems that aren’t even seen in the west because the whole nation is a protected market.  Japan did that with cell phones for a while and wound up with types of cell phones used nowhere else in the world 

[cj09beira]

On 1/23/2021 at 12:38 PM, Rheostat. said:

The Australian news media companies have realised that there medium through which they show there news media is dying due to free online news sources, since nobody uses newspapers anymore, and watching very little TV for news. So they are poking a stick at Google to try to disrupe on how moden free news is deiverd, and try a buck of it. It's just plain greed from a dying industry, that is replaced by the internet. 

 

lets be honest the reason the new "free news sources" are as popular as they are is because they group up a bunch of relevant news from actual news sources for each day, rarely do they actually have their own news, now i am not against the new news guys doing their thing but they need to start to have their own journalists instead of using other companies news

[n0stalghia]

12 hours ago, Spotty said:

Who says this proposed law won't also apply to Bing? You can't write laws that target a specific company, though it sure seems like they're trying...

Who says Bing won't accept the payments?

[514_AppleGuy]

12 hours ago, Spotty said:

Who says this proposed law won't also apply to Bing? You can't write laws that target a specific company, though it sure seems like they're trying...

 

The proposal is extremely vague on what companies will be affected by this. We know Facebook and Google as that's who they're targeting, but it's certainly not limited to them. It's any company that is a "designated digital platform". What is a "designated digital platform"? There's no guidelines to define it. The proposal only states that it's up to the (communications?) Minister to decide which companies are designated digital platforms. 

Bro it's a joke. 

[TetraSky]

Oh this whole crap is only about "media outlets" demanding Google pays them to promote their links ?

Google doesn't have to pull out entirely, they could just give them the middle finger and block every media outlets in Australia from appearing on Google Search and other Google services. Should be easy enough to add domain exceptions to Google Search, for their bots to not crawl through them.

I'm sure they already have that system in place... Heck, can't these media outlets add something to the code of their sites exactly to stop the crawling, pretty sure that exist.

 

Honestly, if Google pulls out/blocks the media outlets, they(the media) will see their views be reduced immensely, prompting them to crawl back and asking to be reinstated on it.

[Zodiark1593]

8 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

Oh this whole crap is only about "media outlets" demanding Google pays them to promote their links ?

Google doesn't have to pull out entirely, they could just give them the middle finger and block every media outlets in Australia from appearing on Google Search and other Google services. Should be easy enough to add domain exceptions to Google Search, for their bots to not crawl through them.

I'm sure they already have that system in place... Heck, can't these media outlets add something to the code of their sites exactly to stop the crawling, pretty sure that exist.

 

Honestly, if Google pulls out/blocks the media outlets, they(the media) will see their views be reduced immensely, prompting them to crawl back and asking to be reinstated on it.

I could see them wanting to avoid being forced to negotiate with media outlets (as in France), and went straight to the nuclear option instead. 

[Spotty]

40 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

Oh so it's just about "media outlets" ? Google doesn't have to pull out entirely, they could simply give them the middle finger and block every media outlets in Australia from appearing on Google Search and other Google services.

Watch them have their views be reduced immensely, only to crawl back and asking to be reinstated on it.

Could they though?... 

 

This proposed law actually prevents that.

Companies/services designated as digital platforms cannot discriminate against news companies based on whether or not they engage in a bargaining agreement (agreement to pay for links).

6 hours ago, Spotty said:

The service supplied by the Designated Digital Platforms cannot differentiate based on;

• The registered news business being engaged in a bargaining agreement with the designated digital platform
• A notice by the registered news business to engage in a bargaining agreement
• The remuneration provided to the registered news business for making available the registered news business's covered news content on the designated digital platform service

(That's my personal summary and interpretation, the original proposal is linked in my previous post if you want to read it yourself. Division 5 - non differentiation)

Spoiler

 

 

Google couldn't block news outlets from showing up in the results if Google doesn't want to meet their demands and pay as they would be discriminating against them and altering the provided service, which is a violation of this proposed law whether they have an agreement with the news companies or not. 

 

Edit: actually now that I've read it again, maybe they could. The proposal says the service they provide must not "differentiate between registered news businesses..."

As long as Google blocks them all it would be okay as the service they're providing is not differentiating between them.

I'm pretty sure that section is so that Google cannot for example rank higher news sites that give them a better deal and bury sites that charge them more per link.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Spotty

[TetraSky]

23 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Edit: actually now that I've read it again, maybe they could. The proposal says the service they provide must not "differentiate between registered news businesses..."

As long as Google blocks them all it would be okay as the service they're providing is not differentiating between them.

I'm reading it and that was my interpretation as well. If they don't "discriminate" one news source over another, they are in the clear... Meaning they can block ALL news outlets in Australia and be done with it.

 

Else, they'd be forcing Google to carry on the continued services to the news outlet, whether they wanted to or not. Sounds like something that'd be illegal in most countries, except if it's imperative for the national safety or something (like the gov telling companies to manufacture medical stuff).

[spartaman64]

On 1/22/2021 at 2:42 AM, Mark Kaine said:

Yes, please google, let's gooooo (home)! 

 

I hope they do it. 

 

I agree sounds stupid but a small price to pay to get rid of the tyranny that is google, I suppose.

 

On 1/22/2021 at 8:58 AM, gabrielcarvfer said:

Meh, if it makes less people rely on Google, it's a good thing. It's the first step on killing this giant.

you realize this applies to every search provider right? google is probably in a better position to pay the link taxes than anyone else. and they are more likely to get deals with media companies to wave the tax. 

[Bombastinator]

51 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

 

you realize this applies to every search provider right? google is probably in a better position to pay the link taxes than anyone else. and they are more likely to get deals with media companies to wave the tax. 

This needs to be remembered.  It won’t be google leaving and everyone else staying.  There might be a plan already sequestered away, but what this does is kick every traditionally organized news search out of australia.  An entirely new model will need to be developed.  Now myself I’m not sure that is actually a bad thing, but that sort of stuff is never instant or cheap.  If I was designing a potential replacement I might name it “project drop bear” or something because drop bears don’t actually exist and the concept is used specifically to mess with non aussies.  Which would be the eventual point of such a thing.  The real danger for Google, and what might make them knuckle under, is it gives a something-other-than-Google a place to breed and grow.  Decent chance such a thing could come back and bite google.  Maybe eat it. 

[cretsiah]

as much as I have loved the debate from @Spotty and i get it about the links.

 

Problem is the links AND THE CONTENT of those links are quite frankly crawled/ botted by google and facebook and cant easily be seperated.

 

Im trying to understand how you mind bendingly  ignore the fact that both Facebook and Google have had Legal "Policy Conditons "  that state in no uncertain terms

 

"Your content created by you is considered your own however you hereby give us complete and duplicate and free ownership / copyright rights to do with your   content as we please from

a) using in our advertising to promote our crap

b) to make money from however we see fit without paying you a dime

c) you will not be entitlted to copyright or usage payments at any point 

 

 

 

[Belgarathian]

On 1/22/2021 at 8:23 PM, Master Disaster said:

Nah, what it means is that, if Google were to provide a user with a link and a summary of a news article written by Bloomberg then Google will need to pay a fee to Bloomberg (Bloomberg is just the first example I though of, replace it with any News outlet you want).

 

The implications of this are much wider than it seems on the surface though, this very section of this very forum might not be able to exist without LMG being on the line for royalty payments to every news article we link to here.

Without being an expert on the new law, wouldn't the fact that we link as a source but add additional commentary and thoughts to the link exempt the forum from having to pay? Additionally, as the links are posted by users it's likely exempt. 

 

Whereas Google and other search engines (such as Alexa, Siri, Cortana, etc) just regurgitate the information verbatim and therefore derive their value from others' work without paying for, or crediting the original creator.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, cretsiah said:

Problem is the links AND THE CONTENT of those links are quite frankly crawled/ botted by google and facebook and cant easily be seperated.

Yes you can, at least when it comes to Google. Post of mine from the first page.

 

On 1/23/2021 at 3:33 AM, leadeater said:

The difference is with Google Search you can control what is indexed and/or displayed in a search or completely disable it, I don't know if the same applies to Google News.

 

And with that only page title will be displayed in a search.

 

https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/crawling/control-what-you-share

https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/crawling/block-indexing

https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/crawling/prevent-images-on-your-page

 

https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/7489871

 

Not sure, my level of give a crap about web design is low otherwise I would likely know more about the above or would have a deeper look. In any case it's either news companies not doing the above to protect their content or Google is not being so clean cut with the above and with services like Google News, I really don't know.

[Serin]

As with everything LNP, one wonders as to the impetus set forth by Murdoch with regards to this, even if it does appear to be rational on its face.
It'll be interesting to see if they really do push it through. Dunno if they're really capable of the level of 'trillion dollar corps bad' that'll be required to win a PR war.

Guess it'll come down to which Aussies like less. The LNP or some multinational. 

[thundercats_nz]

On 1/22/2021 at 2:33 PM, leadeater said:

The difference is with Google Search you can control what is indexed and/or displayed in a search or completely disable it, I don't know if the same applies to Google News.

 

And with that only page title will be displayed in a search.

 

https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/crawling/control-what-you-share

https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/crawling/block-indexing

https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/crawling/prevent-images-on-your-page

 

https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/7489871

 

Not sure, my level of give a crap about web design is low otherwise I would likely know more about the above or would have a deeper look. In any case it's either news companies not doing the above to protect their content or Google is not being so clean cut with the above and with services like Google News, I really don't know.

@leadeater As you say it's a mix of news companies wanting a bigger slice of the pie and Google taking bigger and bigger liberties with how much content it can scrape from a site and provide as a "snippet".

 

A lot of it fueled by smart devices. I can get my Google Home to read me recipes, sports scores, medical information, and news... none of which Google create, and we all know they aren't doing it out of the kindnes of their hearts! 

 

If there should be revenue (ads or otherwise) associated with that information, then surely the actual content creator should get some of that sweet sweet cheddar, right? Google would be within its rights to get a cut for providing the "platform" for users to access the content, but at the end of the day it's not their content and they they need to incentivize the creators to keep producing it in one way or another.

 

Google are abusing their market position IMO, as they know that if a site turns off link crawling and snippets, they'll fall into an SEO blackhole. (91% of internet searches never go past page 1 of the search results).

 

Good on the Aussies for at least raising the issue, at least they are willing to take a stand on things (right or wrong!)... bonus points for calling China out on their cr*p too!