What Happens if Google Leaves Australia?

According to news, Google threatens to leave Australia.

What do you think will happen?

Edit: for those that said VPN. VPN aren't free, and the links that Google redirects to will be under the VPN bandwidth, is it not?

Related Stores

Google
Google

Comments

  •  

    they bluffing, aus gov will back off but even if so, use bing or duck. basically the news media want to be paid more for their ad sense lol, gtfo no special treatment. i would do the same if i was running google

  •  

    I think the whole idea is politically motivated - a kind of last gasp from old media. I don't agree with either side though.

    Australia has been used by American corporations as a testing ground for things they'd like to try there as well. Their lawyers can point to some legal ruling in Australia (if successful) and say to legislators that is why we need to do this.

    And they actively targeted iinet or whatever they're called, specifically so they could get a precedent for copyright law.

    I'm sick of the world viewing Australia as a cheap way of reproaching the US and treating us as a punching bag. Just look at China's recent campaign (which is failing) to try to hurt our economy. You don't want to do business with us? Well we'll find others.

    And you have to wonder - just how much heft Google has managed to get that they are now threatening to take their bat and ball and go home. Even though I know it's an empty threat - it is actually worrying that they would ever propose it.

    I say by all means, there is nothing special about search engines, even a computer science student could create one - don't concern yourself with that. It's the encroachment on privacy and the enmeshed raveling into your life - isn't it funny how distant that 'Don't be evil' slogan is.

  • +2 votes

    I’m curious how much of news sites traffic is coming from Google in the first place?
    Isn’t it possible that the news sites are making as much money as a result of Google searches as Google is making from them? Are they really missing out on revenue because of Google?

    Google should only have a small snippet of the story in the search, and then a person goes to the news site to read further, isn’t that how it works?

    Am I missing something?

    • +1 vote

      Spain tried something similar and it turned out shit for the greedy publishers. Morons.

      https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-google-news-effect-spain-r...

      publishers saw traffic fall on average more than six percent, while smaller publications saw it drop by 14 percent drop.

      and finishing:

      The NERA analysis concludes that "there is no theoretical or empirical justification for the introduction of a fee paid by news aggregators to publishers for linking to their content".

      And here's a paper, published several years later, adding more evidence it had negative impact on publishers: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2837553

  •  

    Duckduckgo, bing, ….

  •  

    I think they're almost certainly bluffing.

  •  

    I'm going back to Yahoo search or even the dinosaur AltaVista! 😂🤣

    •  

      Altavista redirects back to Yahoo! 😭

  •  

    As long as google is making a buck here it will not leave Australia and our government knows that.

    •  

      We are also only a fraction of alphabet's revenue base and their threat might not be total guile.

      I think when they say they will close the Australian operations of Google and exit the country, they are planning to close the AU operations, forgoing 4.5b a year in direct revenue via Google Australia.

      It's a free market though and Google is ubiquitous; so people will still use google for their searches. Local companies will still advertise with Google, but it will be a different Google entity (pick a country, doesnt matter).

      I'm not sure much changes for google exiting the market. We have a bunch of office space suddenly not being used and a bunch of workers (tech + back office + everything else) without a job any more.

      We get something like 450m in GST from them and 50m in corporate tax a year, the 450m in GST will still come back via Google (pick a country, doesnt matter), but the 50m corporate tax disappears.

      *This is assuming local companies still pump 4.5b through online advertising; which invariably they will as web companies need traffic to exist and seasonal trends aside; its still a growing market.

  • +1 vote

    I'm pretty tired of Google search these days. Way, way too many ads interspersed with normal results to the point where my search results don't make sense anymore. In a moment of nostalgia I discovered that Webcrawler still exists though, my old favourite! Webcrawler and Yahoo search would be my next go-tos, not as pretty or well done but at least the results make sense.

    And as for news, these days I have to read all the news sites to form some kind of sensible conclusion as to what is going on in the world, I don't really need the Google news aggregator.

  • +1 vote

    Id say

    Google riddens and dont come back !

  • +1 vote

    This might be better in a separate thread but…

    How much do people actually use google search these days?

    My internet browsing habits are mostly visiting sites I already know about, and generally only discover new sites through links from those I already visit. Thinking about it, I very rarely use a search engine to actually search for a term or phrase anymore.

    A lot of my searches are me being too lazy to type out the full URL of where I want to go, and just using search and clicking the top link. For work I often need to search programming problems but they usually just end up at stack overflow, have never tried but could probably just search their directly.

    • +3 votes

      I can see some people don't really use search engine to find the solutions to their problems — they ended up just asking in forums such as OzBargain. A lot of threads here simply wouldn't exist if people actually just google the problem…

    •  

      That's rather surprising. I use google every day. Once you only visit sites that you already know about, the rate at which you encounter and learn new things drastically drops. But then again, I noticed that some people from the younger generation mainly interact with the web via apps and don't think about the concept of a web site much anymore.

      It's also depends on the occupation. Programmers for instance google often to find documentation, repos and stack overflow answers.

  • +5 votes

    Hey i've been calling google evil forever but i'm kinda with them on this one. Having to pay media companies to show links (which actually help direct traffic to media companies) is a joke.

    •  

      I agree with the many people here commenting about the links.

      However, google are not only showing links. They do run a news section https://news.google.com/topstories?hl=en-AU&gl=AU&ceid=AU:en that is also build into Android. This not only shows a link but also a summary of the article and also the photo of the article.
      Why should there not be a copyright on the content created by various sites and why should google not pay for using this content to create an commercial offering which supports their ad revenue ?

      • +2 votes

        Google already pays for stories in their news app, they are paying $1.4b to media companies around the world including in Aus. The proposed law is about paying for links shown in search results. Europe tried the same thing a few years back but gave up when their site traffic died after Google just stopped showing the links.

        The difference this time is our government is also not letting them stop showing links, they have to show links and they have to pay for them. It would set a precedent globally which is why Google is threatening to leave Aus completely. Don't believe anything our government or media is saying, they have misrepresented the problem to make Google look like the bad guys.

  • +2 votes

    This is no different from Uber pulling out of markets where the drivers are classified as employees, this media tax just break their model since if it works, what's stopping other company crying foul and wants a piece of the Google revenue too? Do Google have to pay every site that is included in the search engine?

    I imagine either a last minute agreement will be reached or Google will temporarily pull out of Australia until an agreement is reached.

  • +1 vote

    Who remembers AltaVista !!!!

    We want her back!

  •  

    I used to look down on China for banning things like Google, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, etc.

    How complicated things have become since then. Would be horrible if countries started banning foreign sites resulting in fractured closed gardens. But then again, can't blame them. No country feels comfortable knowing that their information flow is under complete control of silicon valley companies.

    •  

      most of which are directly linked to 1 superpower, and the majority living in those countries really don't care.

  • +1 vote

    where would this leave people with google smart devices like the home or mini could those be set to use another search engine or would they become paperweights?

  •  

    Google.com.au will redirect to Google.com and there won't be any Australian personalised results. Exactly what happened in China.

    •  

      Google.com is accessible in China?

      •  

        For China it was Google.cn redirecting to Google.com.hk

        •  

          It was a massive deal, because while google had the spat with China, chinese citizens had access to the uncensored search capability of google.com.hk (Google Hongkong)

          This was back in 2010, Google never re entered the chinese market and were blocked by the government afterwards..

  • +8 votes

    To those with the money/bluff argument ("google won't do it, its a significant market"):

    $4bn = ~$3bn USD

    $3bn is less than ~1.8% of Alphabet's 2019 reported revenue, I doubt they will even notice to be honest with you… The real cost of compliance is likely infeasible here (global engineering and public policy effort re algorithm and user data sharing)


    I have no faith Australian regulatory bodies will adjust to a workable code, which is sad, Australia is behind in the tech sector, we can't afford to outright lose certain operations here. Tech is the present and the future, just as once electricity and telephony companies were… I'm not sure why people are so oblivous to that - imagine drafting unworkable regulations to force telephony companies to shut down because the Australia Post monopoly can't make money anymore.

    Just another day Murdoch puppeting politicians to murder competitor pipelines as he has already done with the NBN (Foxtel cable vs Netflix et al).


    To those saying "good, its no big loss, lol see yah google" are very short sighted:

    1) this requires compliance by all search engines in scope, and other social media sites incl. facebook. you can't just build a new search engine and not comply. This policy was drafted to ensure at whatever cost that news sites get compensated and receive insider propietary algortihm information along with your data. What makes you think duckduckgo will be exempted?

    2) Its not just Google search itself, but the associated user base, technology, tools, advertising platform, integration (maps etc), reviews… its the future prospect of tech companies with a base here and the jobs, infrastructure and advancedments associated with that.

    3) Imagine closing your business to the rest of the world by being forced to use a service where the majority of users are Australians (a small population) and has a significantly reduced user base - good luck to businesses that transact internationally.

    Another case of selective tall poppy syndrome, who are we going to bring down next Australia? Thanks media overlords and the sheeple who never critically think about anything.

    • -2 votes

      "Another case of selective tall poppy syndrome, who are we going to bring down next Australia?"

      Slippery slope argument. Easily debunkable by implementing the law and seeing if 'Australia' "brings down" another Internet service after Alphabet's Google News service. Hint: 'It' won't.

  •  

    So if China can Iive without Google… Australia can’t?

    Hmmmm time for those Australians to kneel down and kiss the feet of Facebook and Google, and lick their toes as well while giving them money lol

    • +5 votes

      China has a population which can be considered critical mass and unlike some, recognise the value of tech instead of having overly obsessive thoughts on sucking toes. Critical mass allows them to build and maintain their own stuff at scale, theres a lot of costs involved when you provide a free service as one can imagine… even if you can build a service in Australia that can acheive a 100% national population acquisition (which you can't)… that 25 million users, verses Google's ~4bn user or ~1bn Baidu users.

      For comparison, Shanghai - the city has a population of ~25 million which is equivalent to the entirety of Australia.

      • +1 vote

        Just another note, Baidu is censored to no end because it must obey the CCP.

        People should know that this is the route we are going if publishers can bribe politicians to change the way news aggregators function.

  •  

    Gald I invested in Alexa and not google!

    •  

      Will our Google Mini become bricks? how will they compensate?

  • -2 votes

    Google is bluffing and trying to bully the Australian government into capitulating and implementing Google's own policies as law.

    I hope the government goes ahead with the changes. Call Google's bluff. They don't have any cards to play with.

  • -2 votes

    There are other search engines to use apart from Google. Duckduckgo.com works perfectly well. Call Google's bluff and implement the law. I bet Google folds.

  • +2 votes
    Merged from Google Leaving Australia in 2021

    I was reading this thread about 'What Happens if Google Leaves Australia?'.

    I was really surprised about how misguided and uninformed people are about what is happening right now.

    Right now, as far as the internet is concerned, a landmark law is being passed that's going to shape the future for years to come. Australia has the honour of being the testing ground for this new law and Google the recipient due to being a behemoth.

    At first glance it seems simple, pay for hosting a news article on your web search.

    If Google shows a news article from lets say the 'Sydney Morning Herald', they must pay them for it. Or the government can force them into arbitration

    Easy enough right? Seems fair yea?

    But here is the actual trap, a noose so big it can get its own postcode:

    Any article or website can demand Google pay them just for showing them on their search engine

    • Your neighborhood grocer can ask Google to pay him for showing a new flower on his website without his consent

    • You and your flat earther friends can ask for payment for hosting a weekly blog about your global conferences

    • That old grandpa who's chairman of that anti vax board of perpetually young farmers can also send in a letter for people seeing their pre 2000 website

    • Those articles from the Russian, Turkish, Pro Nazi German and British newspapers also get paid for all the manure they put out if this law spreads overseas and any person happens to

    • Even I can ask for payment if people search for any garbage I put on a website I host myself

    But wait!!!! Hold on, I will just use Bing/DuckDuck/Ecosia/Seznam instead!!! I am so smart, I deserve my own Nobel Prize.

    Haha funny guy. No

    Sure, you can use it for a few months, but those search engines see what’s happening too. You think your friendly Ecosia has the money to pay for any depraved web searches you do? Or that DuckDuck go is going to shell out money for you knowing whether there was another spider found in a Coles Sandwich this week?

    If at this point you genuinely believed that Google is bluffing and that they will fall in line, I have to be the bearer of sad news that you should keep away from any sort of investment decision in your lifetime. That’s a whole other topic on how to effectively use crypto and shares that I am not prepared to bother with yet.

    So what’s going to happen?

    Unless the Australian Government decides to withdraw this law, Google is going to pack up bags with their web searches followed by Bing/DuckDuck etc. The rest are keeping quiet because they know Google has unlimited funds and an army of lawyers. Its a Goliath vs Hawaii Pina Colada Morrison battle.

    In time people with just use the international Google engine instead of the Australian variant using VPN and such if Google decides to completely block access. But here is where it gets to be fun.

    The news agencies in Australia will say that their websites are still listed on the Google international search and they need to be compensated. In order to not open the door for this law spreading to other countries, Google will block any .au domains from their search engine. The final step will be other engines following suit and the creation of search engines by local Aussie companies.

    Now you might be thinking, that’s not too bad. If I can use a local engine, I'll be supporting local business right?

    Yes, but maybe not in the way you want. A normal ethical company won’t be able to afford your sad article binging with their revenue streams. So, who is left to fill the gap?

    If you guessed it, you might have redeemed yourself from earlier. The news and tech companies located in Australia. You will be supporting the same companies that feed you garbage nonstop. The same people who say Aussie whistleblowers who exposed WARCRIMES should be hanged while the best 10 ways to freshen your skin are essential oils and Avocado suppositories.

    The Australia’s Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) says Google doesn't need to charge users. This is a stupid statement, they are saying this cause they don't want any of you angry at them for when this will occur. Its slightly like that Netflix saga, pay Aussie tax. You can lower profits or pass onto consumers.

    But in this case, the ACCC is passing this law not for news organisations but for the tax revenue stream they will gain by Google paying for showing searches to YOU. The governments needs more money after this Coronavirus pandemic, they are willing to sign over your rights and future for this.

    MS Paint for the less gifted.

    https://imgur.com/a/vLfHSCH

    This is what is being fought for while you purchase your next bottle of American Water.

    The best weapon you have to fight against this future to is read and learn what's happening. Arm yourself with knowledge before it is spoon-fed to you by the same hands that close in around your neck.

    Best of luck

    • +17 votes

      I read the entire post and you literally have zero idea of what the new law will entail.
      You have certainly bought into the Google/Facebook rhetoric.

      The second half of your post…. I think tin foil is on sale at Coles go grab some.

      Your poll is also quite offensive

      • +1 vote

        What does the new law entail? Can't find a straight answer

      • +4 votes

        Ok @jimbobaus, please explain to us what the new law will entail?

        You can't just throw a statement out there and not back it up.

      • +1 vote

        I thought OP had a good grasp on the law. As others have asked can you please elaborate on what the law actually means, then?

    • +1 vote

      Still don't care. The government helping media corporations maintain control is doomed to fail anyway. I don't care if Google leaves Australia for 10 years in the meantime, that wil be a bigger show of force than anything the government could ever do. Our government anyway. So I guess I vote return to monke.

      • +1 vote

        But aren't google/twitter/fb/instangram the new bastions of 'truth' (their 'truth' of course) as the dinosaur media is almost extinct? Especially after last year and the constant stream of lies and propaganda and manufacturing consent mirrored by the electronic giants, coupled with the rampant and obsessive censorship of anyone with a dissenting point of view, regardless of experience or qualifications by the electronic media and their 'fact checkers'?

        It's true, the dinosaur media had control for many decades but that batton has pretty much been passed to the electronic media now with any real journalism being relegated to the alt-media. Hard to comment on the this new law as nobody seems to know the relevant details. Going from what the OP said if the Google shows links to say the SMH then shouldn't the SMH be paying them and not the other way around? Isn't 'ad revenue' how the googles of the world attained their dominance in the information war?

        • +2 votes

          Surely "fact checker" wouldn't lie to us?

          "What's Undetermined
          In the absence of a single, universally-agreed definition of "terrorism," it is a matter of subjective determination as to whether the actions for which Rosenberg was convicted and imprisoned — possession of weapons and hundreds of pounds of explosives — should be described as acts of "domestic terrorism."

          An excerpt from https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/blm-terrorist-rosenberg/

          •  

            @brendanm: Yes, who is checking the fact checkers?

            https://www.bitchute.com/video/rtirKL_XmGg

          • +1 vote

            @brendanm: I like how some people refer to critical media when it suits their agenda. Please…
            Fox news and alt-media (as right wing media platforms) are the bastian of sensationalism and stereotypes about terrorism. (Snopes article above mentioned Bill O'Reilly's show which is a little partial)
            I just did an essay backed up by numerous (and I mean there are hundreds of these) studies done of media and their coverage and there is indeed an enormous bias in coverage of "terrorism" and it's association with Muslims. Simple really…. It sells, especially to Christian based audiences in the Anglo-sphere who are constantly drip fed the same sensationalised data which makes it an automatic assumption that terrorism is Islam or its perceived opponents. Those who aren't critical of what they are fed lap it up. I wish I could go into a discourse but alas… (arguments online don't lead anywhere)
            Am prepared for the negs but please read some actual peer reviewed journals to help make your mind up and not judge crap by news media of all persuasions (especially propaganda ones like Fox). I can imagine a couple of links to journals in the negative but the vast majority are as what I have stated.
            /end

            Ps. Totally agree with Google's stance.

      •  

        Government has an army. Google has nerd.

      •  

        I don't care if Google leaves Australia for 10 years

        It's not going to end with google. Everyone will leave and who could provide your new search engine? Hmm. The australian government? Now that's a scary thought. Some government backed startup tech company subservient to the government? That's a recipe for massive censorship.

    • +7 votes

      Work for Google?

      They too want control of the narrative.

      The poll is as big a joke as the post. - that being it doesn’t present any alternative view.

      Eg Google drives trucks and ships through existing lax laws on taxation and brags about this, so this is only round one, they will spend a few million on lawyers and work out how to avoid paying.

      So don’t worry Google will survive, and in fact may end up benefiting more.

    • +2 votes

      Lol, what a post.

    • +1 vote

      tldr?

    • +4 votes

      I was really surprised about how misguided and uninformed

      Username doesn't check out.

      Not sure your holier than thou attitude is going to do very well for you.

      Edit - How amusing that this "informed" post comes from someone asking others if they should sell their mobile phones.

    • +4 votes

      who cares if google leaves (which it won't) we'll survive, life will go on regardless, there are more important things than google Fb etc

    • +4 votes

      Arm yourself with knowledge before it is spoon-fed to you by the same hands that close in around your neck.

      Those hands are big tech right?

    • +6 votes

      I don’t know what to choose on your poll. Please tell me again what to think…

    • +5 votes

      I think a more interesting poll option would be:

      Is this post from a:
      A) Google/Big tech employee
      B) Troll
      C) Someone genuinely deluded/misinformed as to what's best for them.

      I personally am happy for Google and other big companies to have less control. If they leave then (profanity) them, search engines aren't that special anymore. Also I think you're deluded if you honestly think Google is just going to up and leave a massive market like this - it's the same old cigarette company move of "If you remove our branding/keep raising taxes we're just going to leave!!!!!!" yet they're still all here many years later.

      •  

        Removing "control" from El Goog does not need to come with the obvious side effect of giving it all to the Murdochs.

        This is a shitty solution to a problem.

        • +2 votes

          giving it all to the Murdochs

          Sorry its not just Murdoch pushing for this.

          The Guardian is as well
          Fairfax is
          The Greens

          Your obsession with Murdoch colours rational thought.

          Murdoch makes money so, all Money is bad?
          Murdoch prints papers so all Papers are Bad?
          Murdoch pays Journalists - so paying all journalists is bad?

          Or are you saying anyone who could have a different opinion is all bad

          • +2 votes

            @RockyRaccoon: Seems to be a common trend among these people. It's either one extreme or the other. They don't seem to understand that there are lots of options in between.

            • +1 vote

              @brendanm: @brendanm Do you actually have comprehesion skills or do you just like to throw around antagonising terms like "these people"?

              I said this is A shitty solution to A problem.

              So my opinion is:
              1. There is a problem
              2. This particular solution as explained to us in the general argument is not optimal. Which in turn implies there are lots of options in between.

              Try and get people onboard with your argument if you ever want to actually get progress. If you antagonise them they won't actually listen to you.

              My original argument was simply to not cut off one's nose to spite the face.

          • +2 votes

            @RockyRaccoon:

            Or are you saying anyone who could have a different opinion is all bad

            What? Where in my argument have I said anything even remotely similar to this? I'm genuinely confused.

            I said if we deem Google as a conglomerate (in which case I should have referred to it as Alphabet I guess) to have a measurable amount of power, then handing over that amount of power to the next conglomerate is not even close to an ideal solution. I simply personified it by using the term Murdochs, as they would be one of the biggest benefactors of such a move.

    •  

      Google threatening to deny it's Australian customers access to Google search, is what I find highly offensive!
      My phone, my browsers are full of "Google advertising" even though I pay a monthly subscription to use YouTube without ads, my Google homes with music-IF Google dares to treat its loyal customers this way and carries out this threat, My subscription will end and Google products will go in the bin!
      Hello Alexa!
      Your post wreaks of the stench of corporate B.S! Who BTW get away with million$ of unpaid tax in Australia! Just Bugger off

    • +2 votes

      This is the same as Google leaving China. There is nothing new. Eventually they will find ways to go back in, it is only a matter of time and market demands. Why bothers.

    • +10 votes

      TLDR;

      OP says all Ozbargain users are retarded. Then explains something in a sensationalised exaggerated way to compensate for his/her own lack of intelligence. OP ends with being happy that they have advised you of your retardation using an attempt at humour which is not actually funny, and has convinced him/herself that you now believe whatever is written in the poorly worded article. A request is then made to vote in a poll with 2 extreme options on the opposite end of the spectrum and no middle ground, because OP is more than likely a young liberal lefty.

    • +6 votes

      Ok Google

    •  

      They've already passed something similar to what Australia wants in France anyway.

    •  

      Dayum Australia Day drinks have started early for some

  •  

    I don't blame Google if they do go through with it, the government just wants to give as much money as possible for Murdoch's failing media empire. I'm sure most people would just migrate to a new search engine or Google will just stop serving those news links to Australia.

  • +2 votes

    Google is ok with operating in China and complying with the communist party’s rules… yet they draw the line when it might cost them money. I think this is very telling.
    Their motto used to be “don’t be evil” but they removed that…

    Personally I don’t think they should have to pay news outlets, Don’t the news outlets have adverts anyway? So more traffic would get more money…?

    I think google should pay tax on any revenue they make from selling adds in australia, to Australian companies I guess.

    • +1 vote

      It's because China market is lucrative. That's all they are willing to comply CCP

  • +2 votes

    I dont really understand the issue here but my 5c is ..

    1. If the news companies want to be paid for Google returning them in search results then they should get stuffed
    2. If Google are sending traffic to their pay-walled info then google should stop
    3. If Google are sending traffic to their sites but putting their own ads all over it then google are evil and should pay

    which point are they arguing over?

    • +3 votes

      It's 1.

      •  

        ? Hang on, if our Australian government passes a new Act that Google shows result of OzBargain.com.au then Google needs to pay OzBargain too? I thought it was for the benefits of the websites to be in the search results and those websites should pay Google instead?

    •  

      That's 3c too many.

  •  

    if this new law goes through, what is to stop it being 'reviewed' to include places like Ozbargain? I mean if a bargain is listed here and links to - oh I dunno - Harvey Norman website, how long before Gerry comes asking for payment?

    • +20 votes

      If big retailers asked the government to enforce a law that

      • OzBargain should pay the retailers for deals & links posted on OzBargain
      • OzBargain cannot simply block those retailers, as the law dictates it's either all or nothing
      • OzBargain has to provide retailers 14 days advanced notification for any rule changes

      I think I'll also pack up and shut down the site…

  • +1 vote

    This legislation is just a test case for Murdoch to flex his political weight in other countries if it goes through, as he continues to lose relevance and money to new media. It needs to fail.

    But Google are also bluffing here. Removing Google search in Aus would make Android phones and Google Assistant/Home devices completely redundant here, and the ACCC would come after them over that as well.

  • +1 vote

    I've been using Bing for over a year now anyway since you earn rewards points that can be exchanged for Game Pass among other things.

    It seems to work fine enough for general searches, but I do find myself switching to Google occasionally for its superior maps and the business reviews.

  • +13 votes

    TL;DR : Scomo needs to back down. He won't.


    Everyone seems to be missing the big picture with the News Media Bargaining Code (NMBC). There’s a whole bunch of issues that will result from it going ahead, or from Google pulling out in Australia.

    • Firstly, there’s the issue of supporting Murdoch, and deepening his grip on the opinions of Australians. Science denial, bigotry, division. Murdoch’s core products. We don’t want them

    • Then there’s the issue of whether the news media companies deserve more compensation for their content. They derive substantial revenue from the traffic Google refers to their websites. But they want Google to pay them for that?

    • It’s also important to note that neither Google nor FB derive any substantial amount of their revenue from displaying Australian news media in their search results or on your feeds. The NMBC will make it cost Google more than they make from the news.

    • Then there’s the issue of the algorithm. Not only do the media companies want to be paid but they also want to know about the inner workings of Google’s algorithm, so they can ensure their content always shows first. They want to know changes to the algorithm before they happen.

    • This isn’t information Google shares with any business. As someone who works in search engine optimisation, I have a pretty good understanding of what the algorithm looks for. But that’s from years of trial and error, research, and constantly learning when it changes.

    • The reason the algorithm is so secretive, is so people can’t play the system. But these media companies are demanding access to play the system. Not only is this dangerous for users (by limiting what news they’ll see) ,it’s also dangerous for our democracy.

    • See, the ACCC gets to decide who is a news media organisation and gets the access to the trade secrets. The ACCC is an ‘independent’ organisation that rely on our federal budget for their funding. If the government wants to exert influence over the ACCC, they will.

    And this is all just if this goes ahead. If it doesn’t, and Google stops Australians from accessing their search products. We have a whole other set of issues. See, Google has a virtual monopoly on search in Australia. No, that’s not ideal.

    • Because of this monopoly, many small and medium businesses rely on Google paid and organic search as cost-effective ways to acquire new customers. They’ve invested decades of time and money into getting their website to rank, setting up ads that bring customers.

    • Google and Facebook are both really affordable ways for small businesses to advertise. Big news media companies are not. Not only will these businesses lose the investment they’ve made into search engine optimisation over the years, they’ll lose their advertising platforms.

    • These are the small home businesses, run by mums, dads, sisters, average Australians everywhere that have worked hard to build their businesses. Google leaving is going to disrupt, and probably destroy, a large number of them

    Google leaving is also going to impact a huge number of less technology literate Australians that don’t know what other search engines to use, or how to use them. See, Google made their products incredibly user friendly. They made it really easy to look up help for homework, study, scientific research, how to get somewhere, where to go, what a word means. Sure, someone will eventually fill the market gap. But what happens until then?

    The NMBC has far-reaching implications and isn’t just some way to make sure journalists are getting paid for their work. And don’t get me wrong, journalists deserve fair compensation for their content. But that’s not at all what this is about.This is about the government intervening in the free press. This is about unreasonable demands from media companies that didn’t adapt to new media platforms. It’s about Australians being able to access information and a variety of news media source.

    Don’t let the media companies that are going to benefit from this tell you they’re just making it fair. It’s not at all fair.

    @FloRoberts93

    • +2 votes

      @FloRoberts93

      "Vaper. Proud SJW. Radical Leftist. Feminist. Activist. Unafraid of Your Criticism. Anti-Conservative. Pro-Environment. Atheist. Capitalism has Failed."

      A "literally who" nutjob on twitter. Opinion discarded.

      • +10 votes

        Ad hominem, Latin for “to the man”, is when an argument is rebutted by attacking the person making it rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy notoriously used to distract the focus of a discussion: to move it from an indefensible point and to attack the opponent.

        • +1 vote

          Ok, what makes Flo's opinion so important that you have linked to it?

          To counter your point, Flo is a self appointed raging lefty who is against it only because it supports her hates Murdoch media. Google, even as corporate overlords, conform more to her views, so she sees them as the lesser of the evils, or even as good, I don't know which.

          Just so you know, I don't care about Google, nor Murdoch.

          • +6 votes

            @brendanm:

            what makes Flo's opinion so important that you have linked to it?

            She shares an interesting perspective on the matter and raises some salient points.

            Just so you know, I don't care about Google, nor Murdoch.

            Does that mean you have no opinion on the issue? It is a shame if it does. People should care more about what is being done in their name. Sleeping masses make for a regressive democracy.

            • -1 vote

              @cloclo:

              She shares an interesting perspective on the matter and raises some salient points.

              I don't think she does. When someone is biased that far to one side, they are only ever going to make points which suit their narrative.

              Does that mean you have no opinion on the issue?

              I have an opinion. I don't like Murdoch, and "journalism" in general is pretty much dead these days, being either like Flo's opinion above, or someone equally rabid on the other side.

              As far as I can see, if people click through to the news articles, the publisher will get money from ad revenue, or if paywalled, then the viewer may choose to pay. I personally just avoid paywalled articles, as not only are they generally a rip off, they will just attempt to tell me one side of their story. Google is technically doing them a favour.

              On the other hand, Google is almost a monopoly at this point, and no competition is not good.

              Neither are my favourite things, and I can not see anything good coming out of this no matter the outcome. Either the "news" outlets get propped up, even though they failed to remain competitive, or Google gets their own way. Both bad.

              • +2 votes

                @brendanm:

                Either the "news" outlets get propped up, even though they failed to remain competitive, or Google gets their own way. Both bad.

                2 wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner…

                We can keep on sheeple-ing along and go "meh" ( or would that be "baa!" ?) all the way to the slaughterhouse, or we can take our government to task and remind them who they work for.

                I didn't neg anyone.

                • +2 votes

                  @cloclo: What do we do though? That's the question. Unsustainable news corps shouldn't be propped up, but Google shouldn't be pandered to. They've backed themselves into a corner.

                  All good with the negs, if they bothered me I wouldn't be able to post.

          • +3 votes

            @brendanm: The tagline for that twitter personality makes me hate her. But tbh, there are some fair points for concern:

            Then there’s the issue of whether the news media companies deserve more compensation for their content. They derive substantial revenue from the traffic Google refers to their websites. But they want Google to pay them for that?
            Do media companies deserve to be paid for just turning up in a google search?

            The search result might only include the headline of the article. It's the electronic equivalent of glancing at the front page of a newspaper whilst at a newsagency. Why am I paying for something that I wouldn't be paying for in real life? If I'm after news, I already have abc.net.au, brisbane times, news.com.au, 7 news, 9 news, bbc, cnn, even sky news on my browser's autocomplete. I also have twitter, reddit and facebook as alternative sources. I've never searched for news because I know where to find it and it naturally filters in to me throough those sources.

            Then there’s the issue of the algorithm. Not only do the media companies want to be paid but they also want to know about the inner workings of Google’s algorithm, so they can ensure their content always shows first. They want to know changes to the algorithm before they happen.

            I don't think this is workable on any level. Why is Google required to bias a news organisation with news as to its algorithm? Each news outlet is able to do its own SEO and undertake its own marketing initiatives to come out on top. Why are they given a hand up when they don't actually need one?

            This isn’t information Google shares with any business. As someone who works in search engine optimisation, I have a pretty good understanding of what the algorithm looks for. But that’s from years of trial and error, research, and constantly learning when it changes.

            Agree.

            The reason the algorithm is so secretive, is so people can’t play the system. But these media companies are demanding access to play the system. Not only is this dangerous for users (by limiting what news they’ll see) ,it’s also dangerous for our democracy.

            Agree

            The rest of her points, I think is just silly ranting.

            I'm with you on there not being too many great alternatives, but surely leaving things alone is better than this proposed extreme government overreach.

    • +1 vote

      Can Google simply stop indexing Australian news media content? Murdoch will probably complain anyway but I'm just wondering if the Government has given Google this option.

      • +2 votes
        • +7 votes

          WTF no wonder Google wants to leave. This is not regulation, it's just corruption.

          •  

            @nfr: Corruption. That's a logical conclusion.
            A cash grab for Murdoch (thanks to political donations and probably favourable coverage) at the expense of Australians.

          •  

            @nfr: Sounds more like robbery to me. Damn do we need to pay loyalty to Australian politicians every time we answer some foreigner friends who are the Australia PM etc. and we tell them to look up those xxx.gov.au websites?

    •  

      "This is about the government intervening in the free press"
      Unlike Google and Fb intervening and altering search results and what shows up as to what narrative they wish to be behind and those they don't?

      "Don’t let the media companies that are going to benefit from this tell you they’re just making it fair."
      You can again say the same for G & Fb "Don't let G or Fb who are going to benefit from this tell you etc" , this also would be a win that other countries would use to push back on to G & Fb to change laws in their own countries, G & Fb would hate that, more people standing up to them.

      Depends on who you want to have more control? Neither is a great option and both have too much control as it is over everyday life around the world.

      •  

        Depends on who you want to have more control? Neither is a great option and both have too much control as it is over everyday life around the world.

        This is the problem really. It's a lose-lose situation.

    •  

      Thankyou for sharing with us the thoughts of this mentally unstable nutjob.

    •  

      A bunch of those points are valid, but when you quote a hatemonger a lot of people will just instantly turn off.