Google says it will disable Search in Australia if it's forced to pay for news | Hacker News Reader

Google says it will disable Search in Australia if it's forced to pay for news

engadget.com

33 pointsoriggm14 comments

On the one hand, Google plagarizes everything. Search for "how to boil an egg" and Google will paraphrase the answer for you so you don't even have to click anything.

That means Google essentially takes the ad revenue right out of the mouth of content creators whom Google relies on.

On the other hand Australia needs to recognize that they are playing someone else's game. If Australia wants the boon of having Google popularize their content they can't expect to push Google around.

On a side note: I find it ironic that nobody looked twice at how the record labels killed competition. Nobody cared that oil companies sandbagged renewable energy for 60+ years. All these conservative companies who's lobbyists literally created American capitalism were fine with immoral behavior so long as they were the ones flying the "trickle down" flag. Now that "liberal" (read: progressive) tech companies played the capitalism home game and won all those once too big to fail industries are screaming that social media is too big and cancel culture, once the nation driver of our economy, is now bad.

Gee, it wasn't bad when you ran the world. At least tech companies pay a livable wage.

Ironically, as you describe that most search results provide scrapped content, Google provides more flow through traffic to news organizations than they do the rest of the Internet. For news, you need to click through to get more than the headline.

Oil companies pay a living wage. At least they used to, before "Big Tech".

People used to care about environmmental degradation. It used to be a headline issue in the 1970s.

It is depressing to think of how much energy is required to keep Google alive. That is no small amount of oil.

Google's mission is to keep online advertising alive. Without it, they cannot sustain the high life they are living. They serve only advertisers. To do this, they need massive amouts of data, more than any single media publication could collect. People using Google search and Android are just ad targets. At least the media employs journalists, and they have a purpose to inform. Google's purpose is just to collect personal data and serve advertisers, including political campaigns.

Even media can be described in a similar fashion, a lot of them promote content that generates the most clicks - which is often biased and polarising. There are sides to every discussion. I am no fan of google's data collection policies, but at the same time cannot refute the value they have created as a company.

I was refering to Google's reliance on online advertising. The media unlike Google does have something to sell: journalism. The media relies in part on advertising, but not greater than 90%, as Google does. I never mentioned the concept of value or the media's dirty tactics. I am refering to operating as a middleman and having a nearly 100% dependence on advertising. As far as I know, those are facts.

I don't disagree with your last paragraph. I don't like the Google business model either. But it works, and in capitalism that's all that matters. And they've climbed to the top so why should it be easy to unseat them?

Google and Facebook did what any capitalist organization should do. Grow unapologetically, pivot into new areas, absorb competition, and take over the world.

In one sense I wish it weren't Google or Facebook that this happened to but on the other hand I'm glad it was progressive companies who treat their employees right instead of the status quo McDonald's and Wal Mart and holding firms.

You know they are the ones complaining that tech is taking over. Isn't it ironic that last years world leaders are upset about being booted from the table by executives who don't even believe in capitalism. If that's not an enormous "we're better at this than you" then I don't know what is.

I don't like FB or Google's revenue streams... but that doesn't matter in capitalism. They have a stable business model and they deserve to see where it goes.

You say you disagree with the last paragrah but you did not offer any argument against any of the assertions in the last paragraph. The asserions were factual, having to do with the need for advertisers. Unless you can claim Google does not need advertisers and offer arguments in support, then you have not disagreed with the last paragraph. Instead you changed the subject. Something about capitalism and Wal Mart. Has nothing to do with whether or not Google relies on advertising to survive.

I think Australia should call their bluff. Even if they have to pay, they’ll still be making a profit. It’s just a matter of degree of greed.

I disagree. Search engines fundamentally cannot pay for the links that they provide. It breaks the whole model. Google is right in saying it would have to pull out of Australia. It's not a threat, it's a statement of fact.

I have worked in SEO for 11 years and am no fan of Google. I think Google over this period has become corrupted.

The right avenue to fix what is broken with Google is to go after AdWords / Ads. Google should be required to show what each advertiser paid in each auction. Right now, advertisers are often not even bidding against each other but against Google itself. Google Ads is extremely scammy unfortunately and harms small business.

Another Big Tech bluff.

I don't think it's a bluff. Amazon threatened to shutdown in France entirely if they were forced to pull off sale restrictions in an impossible amount of time and their French warehouses went offline entirely, as promised.

Google is betting the government doesn't have the political capital to fight them, and they're probably right.

The mostly Murdoch owned media is behind this.

Many Australians have no love for the right wing fascist breading Murdoch media.

Many of us support Google on this.

Many people just see the mostly dishonest by-lines on Google Search talking about how the Australian government is threatening media in Australia and formulate their decision based on that.

Honestly, if I had to choose to support either a tech giant with an enormous amount of control over the content we consume and surround ourselves with, or a media giant with an enormous amount of control over the content we consume and surround ourselves with, I am going to have a hard time choosing. Ultimately, we lose either way - either traditional media remains entrenched, or it remains prohibitively difficult for all content producers (especially smaller, independent ones) to effectively produce content in a way which is not cost-prohibitive. Maybe the code being considered should be reconsidered - but that does not seem to be up for question.

Still, I hope Australia calls Google’s bluff, because this style of negotiation should send chills down the spine of people who support a democratic society. It is purely in bad faith - it is not a fair negotiation of one party with enormous bargaining power makes this kind of ultimatum at the first hurdle. Also, despite Murdoch’s media empire being behind legislative efforts here, even the ABC is behind it. I take Aunty’s opinions on these kinds of things quite seriously, and if they think this action from Google is damaging, I am inclined to agree.

Many, but evidently not a majority. News Corp's web properties outrank ABC Australia, including the clickbaity news.com.au.

I also think it's a little bit disingenuous to call it "right wing fascist" news, given it's the most popular. By extension you're calling most Australians right wing fascists, when according to research the majority of Australians support immigration, for example.

So essentially you're saying the immigration-supporting majority of Australians are right-wing fascists, no?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com