Google says Australian pay-for-news code means it can’t quit the country
- Reference: 1598251207
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/08/24/google_australian_campaign/
- Source link:
Google has run an impossible-to-miss campaign that has seen its Australian services peppered with links about bad things that will happen to Search and YouTube if the proposed new Code is adopted in its current form. That foray was labelled [1]misinformation by regulator the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission. But the company has not offered fine detail why it opposes the Code. Today’s [2]post changes that , offering thirteen questions and Google’s answers.
Your correspondent believes the tenth – “Why won’t you just shut down Google News like you did in Spain, or remove Australian news websites?” - is the most significant, as it sees Google criticise the Code on grounds that if Google agrees to pay some news organisations, the company must still show all news from all other news organisations registered under the Code.
Which is kind of the point of the Code, which seeks to make sure that Google and Facebook pay those who wish to bargain but that doing so doesn’t deprive other publishers of a presence in search results.
Google says that “we’d have to undertake a mass cull of content globally to stop them being visible to Australians - we’d have to remove all foreign newspapers, bloggers, YouTube citizen reporters, but also sports reporting, discussions of global health issues, tweets about current events, and literally endless other types of content from all sources around the world.”
Google also argues that that indexing fewer sources would erode the quality of its search service by just including fewer results. Another line of argument sees it argue that the Code’s requirement to give participating publishers advance notice of algorithm changes has the potential to see them game search results to the detriment of rival outlets.
The requirement for advance notice of algorithm changes also comes in for criticism on grounds that Google changed its search Code more than 3,600 times last year alone, sometimes to improve user security.
“That’s 28 days before we can roll out defences against new kinds of spam or fraud. 28 days of extra delay before we can launch new features that are already available to the rest of the world. And 28 days before we can fix things that break,” Google wrote.
The post also addresses community criticism that Google stoked fear among the YouTube creator community with suggestions the video service could be compromised. Google’s called out broad language in the Code – “every digital platform service” - as evidence that YouTube would be impacted.
Google also takes issue with the Code’s likely benefits flowing mostly to very large publishers, and the arbitration process.
But the company also admits “We're happy to pay more to license content, and want to support journalism as it transitions to a digital future, but a fair negotiation or arbitration should factor in the value both parties provide.”
Which again, is the point of the Code. Australia doesn’t want Google or Facebook to leave, it just wants them to pay news organisations on terms set by Australia rather than terms the web giants define themselves.
“It’s good that there’s now a robust public discussion about this important issue,” the post concludes. And that discussion includes the opportunity to offer further comment on the Code by Friday, August 28th.
Australian regulators and politicians have so far not budged from their positions on the Code and one interpretation of their staunch stance is a desire to curry favour with the nation’s two dominant publishers, Rupert Murdoch’s News Limited and the sprawling Nine Entertainment that manages to simultaneously run left-leaning broadsheet newspapers and right-leaning talkback radio outlets. ®
Get our [3]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/18/australian_regulator_slams_google_misinformation/
[2] https://australia.googleblog.com/2020/08/13-things-you-need-to-know-about-news.html
[3] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Murdoch
Murdoch is 89, so unless they have cloned him or found a body donor for a brain transplant, he shouldn't be a bother in the not too fsr distant future.
My impression of Google is that they simply want to hsve full control all of the time, the supercorps all seem to believe they are above government meddling of any kind.
Re: Murdoch
Wasn't Murdoch lining up his children to take over his empire?
Re: Murdoch
Turns out they were shit at it.
Re: Murdoch
Here's hoping!
Re: Murdoch
Murdoch was lining his kids up for leadership roles, but for various reasons it's not happened. However his kids don't seem to share his political views anyway, so it's not like there's going to be a continuation of whatever editorial line he's advanced. It should also be remember that his media empire is by no means monolithic - in that his outfits often push the political views that sell most copies. The Times and the Sun have completely different editorial lines, for example - as do Sky News and Fox News.
There's often an argument that the media agenda drives their readership. And to some extent, their must be some truth in that - as you can only be aware of the news stories that you actually see. But people also like to consume media that reflects their pre-exisiting prejudices back at them, rather than challenging them. Hence I think it's more likely that the readers influence the editorial line as much as the owners / editors do. And that an editor who consistently goes against what the readers want - will soon lose readers.
Re: Murdoch
My impression of Google is that they simply want to hsve [sic] full control all of the time
They do want complete control of course. But I suspect that they are more motivated by a strong desire not to pay every web site they index for the privilege of indexing it. That looks to be where the pay-for-news road ends. They would surely see that sort of thing as a threat to their core business -- which it is of course.
While I'm not all that big a fan of Google because I think they are getting crazier with every passing year, I don't think a world where search engines are no longer financially viable would be a good thing.
Re: no longer financially viable
I'm starting to think a world where Google is no longer financially viable, would be no bad thing
Re: Murdoch
"the supercorps all seem to believe they are above government meddling of any kind"
They certainly don't seem to think government meddling is beneath them.
Re: Murdoch
Anything that means changing the way their platform works has FUD slung at it, if that doesn't work, they throw lawyers at it. It is only when lawyers and fines exceed development costs and income reduction that they seem to comply.
'changed its search Code more than 3,600 times last year alone'
Ten times per day, once every 2.4 hours on average? All security flaws or need to promote some specific content? Looks to me a lot of manual 'optimization' is used....
Re: 'changed its search Code more than 3,600 times last year alone'
How many developers do you think they have working on search code? Each one making largely independent changes for all sorts of reasons.
I am surprised it isn't higher,
Re: 'changed its search Code more than 3,600 times last year alone'
When it comes to a change 2.4 hours a day, it means the results are human driven, not algorithm driven, something they are always at pains to say it isn't (because that would be publishing).
Re: 'changed its search Code more than 3,600 times last year alone'
Algorithms _are_ human defined and so human driven.
28 days ?
Isn't that a bit long for "advance notice of algorithm changes" ?
I perfectly agree with Australia's desire to see news outlets get their fair share - which Google has never worried about until now - and I totally support any effort that reigns in this out-of-control behemoth that does whatever it feels like and whines like a child when someone steps up to curb the rampant tracking and broken ad system, but this is the age of Internet and near-instantaneous worldwide communication.
28 days of notice is a perfectly administrative mindset defined by people who do nothing but talk all day long, then agree to meet tomorrow to talk some more. If we admit that an advance notification is useful and necessary, then we also have to admit that five working days is more than enough time to get the notification, read it, understand the impact and explain to the higher-ups.
Especially since Google is just notifying, there's no acceptance to be had. So basically Google could just make a web page listing the changes, send the notification and implement the changes. Why wait ?
Then the page could serve as an ongoing log of what changes Google made, and that would become historical reference at the same time.
Good enough.
Re: 28 days ?
"Isn't that a bit long for "advance notice of algorithm changes" ?"
It's about right to be notified, read it, understand it, realize it is bad, write down why it's bad, send it to legal, get a formal objection written up, submit it to a court, and for the court to hear the arguments and grant an injunction.
It's easier to stop a change than reverse one. These 'move fast and break things' companies know that very well.
Re: 28 days ?
As far as I know (from the reporting - I haven't read the legislation) there is no option to object.
The notification is supposed to be to allow the websites to change the way they do their SEO to handle Google's changes. Why should they have that right?
Typical Google
They seem to do this time and again. They deliberately misinterpret the proposed laws and spread FUD in the hope that nothing will change and the law will be quietly dropped.
If the law goes through, they try to deliberately ridicule the law by misapplying it, in the hope it will be quickly repealed...
Google and Facebook need to up their bribery, sorry, funding.
' Australia doesn’t want Google or Facebook to leave, it just wants them to pay news organisations on terms set by Australia '
Or, more accurately, those with political influence want to extract a rent
Re: Google and Facebook need to up their bribery, sorry, funding.
Exactly. I don't want my news reporting to be limited to traditional news sources (on some establishment-approved list). I want organisations I support to be able to get their news out through channels not controlled by Murdoch!
Yes, a press is valuable. But if it needs financial support, make it very clear it is really coming from government (with all the issues that creates): feel free to tax search engines to get the money, but let's make sure there is an open discussion about which entities the government is choosing to subsidise, and how much.
Re: Google and Facebook need to up their bribery, sorry, funding.
An establishment approved list is a bad thing.
A google generated list is not a bad thing.
... but hasn't Google become the establishment?
Who benefits from the code?
Not taking Google's side here, but who benefits from this push by the LNP?it specifically enriches Murdoch and Parker (back scratching for election success) and excludes the ABC and SBS at a time when the Govt is bleating about not being able to afford the services of our public broadcasters.
If it is going to be pay to play then distribution of funds should be spread across all content creators and reflect their value to the ecosystem, not be a politically motivated subsidy
Murdoch
I'm all for fair journalism, so if this aids that, all the better (I'll be honest, haven't been following it and this article makes Google's side seem like poor excuses) but, whilst we're at it, can we get some laws against Murdoch too? To make sure his empire actually reports the news, not just the opinions he favours..