Australian regulator slams Google ‘misinformation’ in pay-for-news-fight
(2020/08/18)
- Reference: 1597716126
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/08/18/australian_regulator_slams_google_misinformation/
- Source link:
Australia’s Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has slammed Google’s campaign against the nation’s imminent laws that would force it to pay local publishers for linking to their journalism.
Google yesterday [1]published an open letter that criticised the laws on grounds that they could see personal data flow to publishers and perhaps change its products for the worse.
But the ACCC quickly hit back with [2]response that opened by saying “The open letter published by Google today contains misinformation about the draft news media bargaining code which the ACCC would like to address.”
The regulator’s two corrections were:
“Google will not be required to charge Australians for the use of its free services such as Google Search and YouTube, unless it chooses to do so.”
“Google will not be required to share any additional user data with Australian news businesses unless it chooses to do so.”
The response went on to point out that the laws and code are currently drafts and that a consultation process is open to anyone, including Google, until August 28th.
[3]
The link to Google's open letter presented to Australian users. Click to enlarge
Google has previously responded to similar schemes by killing off its Google News product, all the while protesting that doing so hurts publishers because the ads and search giant sends so much traffic their way. Australia’s laws seek to prevent that tactic by forcing web platforms not to discriminate against local publishers, meaning that if Google linked only to offshore sources of news it would break the law.
Google’s arguments have achieved the rare feat of uniting commentators on the left and right of Australian politics. Rupert Murdoch’s The Australian has accused the company of interfering in local politics by attempting to spark grass-roots opposition to the code while left-aligned media commentator and campaigner Peter Lewis offered this observation.
Hey google. -By telling porkies about the code you are making the case for an independent media - which is the point of the code you seeking to undermine [4]https://t.co/5DEVI5z3DK — PeterLewisEMC (@PeterLewisEMC) [5]August 17, 2020
Grab some popcorn because what we have in prospect is a fight between new media – Google – and a government intent on taxing it to fund old media. It will be weeks or months before the shape of that fight emerges, as the ACCC will take time to reveal all submissions to its consultation and then there’ll be more drafts and more debate, plus whatever Google has in mind in its hint that it will rouse YouTube to fight by its side.
Google Australia, meanwhile, continues to make its objections known with a link to its arguments appearing on its home page and in search results. ®
Bootnote: The Register is not eligible to receive payment under Australia's plan and reports this story as it is potentially a global precedent for how publishers and web giants interact.
Get our [6]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/17/google_australia_opposes_pay_for_news_plan/
[2] https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/response-to-google-open-letter
[3] https://regmedia.co.uk/2020/08/18/google_australia_open_letter_links_screen_shot.jpg
[4] https://t.co/5DEVI5z3DK
[5] https://twitter.com/PeterLewisEMC/status/1295307047458574336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[6] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Google yesterday [1]published an open letter that criticised the laws on grounds that they could see personal data flow to publishers and perhaps change its products for the worse.
But the ACCC quickly hit back with [2]response that opened by saying “The open letter published by Google today contains misinformation about the draft news media bargaining code which the ACCC would like to address.”
The regulator’s two corrections were:
“Google will not be required to charge Australians for the use of its free services such as Google Search and YouTube, unless it chooses to do so.”
“Google will not be required to share any additional user data with Australian news businesses unless it chooses to do so.”
The response went on to point out that the laws and code are currently drafts and that a consultation process is open to anyone, including Google, until August 28th.
[3]
The link to Google's open letter presented to Australian users. Click to enlarge
Google has previously responded to similar schemes by killing off its Google News product, all the while protesting that doing so hurts publishers because the ads and search giant sends so much traffic their way. Australia’s laws seek to prevent that tactic by forcing web platforms not to discriminate against local publishers, meaning that if Google linked only to offshore sources of news it would break the law.
Google’s arguments have achieved the rare feat of uniting commentators on the left and right of Australian politics. Rupert Murdoch’s The Australian has accused the company of interfering in local politics by attempting to spark grass-roots opposition to the code while left-aligned media commentator and campaigner Peter Lewis offered this observation.
Hey google. -By telling porkies about the code you are making the case for an independent media - which is the point of the code you seeking to undermine [4]https://t.co/5DEVI5z3DK — PeterLewisEMC (@PeterLewisEMC) [5]August 17, 2020
Grab some popcorn because what we have in prospect is a fight between new media – Google – and a government intent on taxing it to fund old media. It will be weeks or months before the shape of that fight emerges, as the ACCC will take time to reveal all submissions to its consultation and then there’ll be more drafts and more debate, plus whatever Google has in mind in its hint that it will rouse YouTube to fight by its side.
Google Australia, meanwhile, continues to make its objections known with a link to its arguments appearing on its home page and in search results. ®
Bootnote: The Register is not eligible to receive payment under Australia's plan and reports this story as it is potentially a global precedent for how publishers and web giants interact.
Get our [6]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/17/google_australia_opposes_pay_for_news_plan/
[2] https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/response-to-google-open-letter
[3] https://regmedia.co.uk/2020/08/18/google_australia_open_letter_links_screen_shot.jpg
[4] https://t.co/5DEVI5z3DK
[5] https://twitter.com/PeterLewisEMC/status/1295307047458574336?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
[6] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Nope
DS999
Some news sites would be winners if Google was pushed out of Australia, others would be losers. But having Google pay them for something that web surfers get for free if they bypass Google doesn't seem likely to stand. I could see banning Google from indexing any more than the headline, requiring people to click on the link if they want to see the story.
I suppose their problem with that is that for some stories you learn all you need to learn from the headline and may not need to read the story (i.e. "Biden elected" would be all that many people would care to learn about the election, not concerned how big the margin was or what states went for each) But the people who would be content just seeing the headlines have never been newspaper subscribers anyway.
Nope
" doing so hurts publishers because the ads and search giant sends so much traffic their way. "
Nope. Google merely redistributes the existing traffic. People will still get their news somewhere - it will just not be through Google News or through sites that rank high in Google News, but some other way and possibly at other outlets.
And that's exactly the point here. News sites, as a whole, owe Google nothing, and do not depend on Google (again, as a whole, not a few particular site who got good at gaming Google's system or are ranked high for some other reasons). It's Google who's using news sites' content to make a profit off that and to extend its control over web publishers. And that's the reason why it should pay up.