5 ms·

There would be no political suicide there. It's so easy to make Google/Facebook look evil in this case if they don't comply. Just say they are not paying taxes

There would be no political suicide there. It's so easy to make Google/Facebook look evil in this case if they don't comply. Just say they are not paying taxes and getting our money abroad etc. But there is 0% chance of Google/Facebook not complying. > I think Google and Facebook have more power in this relationship Not even close.

Mirioron 6y ago
In the long term the issue with this is that it pushes Google and Facebook into your politics. If you use political measures to screw with them, then they'll start getting involved in the politics more and more to protect themselves. And these two companies could have a lot of influence in ways that are hard to notice.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- speedgoose 6y ago
  It sounds threatening and I hope you don't work for them but anyway, Google and Facebook are already pushing hard into politics.
  - Mirioron 6y ago
    I do not work for them. This is something I noticed over the years: as Google ran into more and more obstacles in the US that are political the more they seem to have started to meddle. Maybe it's because this is easier, but maybe it's to protect themselves. These companies don't push themselves into politics everywhere (yet), but I'm sure that the more governments squeeze them the more they'll get involved.
    - Nasrudith 6y ago
      I cynically thought that was corruption by design, politicians - trying to get them into a 'contribute to both sides so they shut up' with shakedowns. They were trying to cast Google as sexist well before anything else happened to harm their image.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      It's based on learning from what happened to Microsoft. I used to work at Google. It wasn't often discussed, but when lobbying came up (including in formal contexts) the general attitude was "you can try to ignore Washington but Washington won't ignore you". The perception was very much that Microsoft had gone through the anti-trust trial not so much because of what they'd done but because for years under the Clinton administration they didn't grease the right wheels, in fact they barely had any presence in Washington, which left them politically exposed. The combination of no powerful friends, extremely vague laws and extremely empowered and political regulators was seen as a very toxic one. And that's especially remarkable because Google was (at that time) a company whose executives really didn't like Microsoft, they feared them and treated them as the biggest threat to their business. A lot had come out of the Linux/open source world, academia, UNIX vendors etc and they were really the last people who would give Gates a break, but nonetheless their conclusion was that lobbying was basically a requirement of doing business in the USA. I'm going back here - eventually that changed and they came to fear Facebook more. But for instance the Google Toolbar was basically an anti-Microsoft play, as was Chrome.
  - vezycash 6y ago
    It's a fact of life. Bill Gates kept politicians at arms length. If Microsoft had given Washington a little attention, the antitrust lawsuit would never ever have happened. Google has squelched antitrust investigations in US every single time through lobbying. Even Apple would been in hot regulatory soup if they didn't buddy up to politicians.
- slv77 6y ago
  The pay-per-click model has already forced news organizations towards producing click-bait content. I’m not sure why regulators would want to deepen that influence by making newspapers more dependent on Google and Facebook.
- propogandist 6y ago
  >In the long term the issue with this is that it pushes Google and Facebook into your politics. Google is already the largest industry lobbyist stateside https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/09/google-is-techs-top-spender-on-lobbying-but-facebook-amazon-also-up.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/09/google-is-techs-top-spender-...
wutbrodo 6y ago
Don't the French and Spanish examples indicate otherwise? Spain's link tax in 2014 led to the shutting-down of Google News Spain, and France's attempt to charge for Google News snippets led to the removal of those snippets for French sites (followed by a dip in traffic for pubs that hurt them far more than it hurt Google). What makes you think that FB/G don't have the power here?
- moralestapia 6y ago
  >What makes you think that FB/G don't have the power here? They also risk losing that entire market as well. Let's be honest, nobody loves F or G. If a decent competitor stands up people will gladly switch, even more if they market it as "by Australians for Australians". SV companies are big and great and all that, but to think they are above state jurisdictions is delusional.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    A lot of people have invested a lot of effort in creating the narrative of a techlash, that people are fed up with big tech's abuses and would be glad to see the big companies go. But it's simply not true. Polls of the general public consistently show that Facebook and Google are well-loved. For example: https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/27/16550640/verge-tech-survey-amazon-facebook-google-twitter-popularity https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/27/16550640/verge-tech-surv...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - dehrmann 6y ago
      More recent articles: https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/amidst-techlash-many-americans-still-view-technology-industry-positive-light https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/amidst-techlash-m... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/opinion/tech-backlash.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/opinion/tech-backlash.htm... I read a similar one in the last 6 months tying it to politics. One was that Trump is ironically more tech-friendly than Sanders or Warren (~Nov 2019), despite tech workers generally not supporting Trump. The other oddity was that polls don't really show that there's a techlash, so why are Democratic frontrunners making it a talking point?
ojame 6y ago
>Just say they are not paying taxes and getting our money abroad etc. This is said pretty regularly in the media in Australia, and honestly no one cares. Even big mining companies like BHP pay little corporate tax on shore, and after years of it being 'exposed', honestly the general public don't seem to care.
- Smoosh 6y ago
  I think it's more accurate to say the public cares somewhat, and consequently politicians do too (they sometimes roll out accusations of "un-Australian" tax minimization to suit their agenda). But politicians don't dare to move against the big companies because they know they'll lose. Both in campaign/party donations and in being targeted at the next election if their policies are going to impact those companies (see what happened with the mining companies and the Carbon tax). This same thing could happen with these "internet" companies who would only need to devote a little of their local advertising to a campaign against the change and against the party proposing it to have any public support cancelled out and politicians quickly reversing their position.

Mirioron 6y ago

In the long term the issue with this is that it pushes Google and Facebook into your politics. If you use political measures to screw with them, then they'll start getting involved in the politics more and more to protect themselves. And these two companies could have a lot of influence in ways that are hard to notice.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
speedgoose 6y ago
It sounds threatening and I hope you don't work for them but anyway, Google and Facebook are already pushing hard into politics.
- Mirioron 6y ago
  I do not work for them. This is something I noticed over the years: as Google ran into more and more obstacles in the US that are political the more they seem to have started to meddle. Maybe it's because this is easier, but maybe it's to protect themselves. These companies don't push themselves into politics everywhere (yet), but I'm sure that the more governments squeeze them the more they'll get involved.
  - Nasrudith 6y ago
    I cynically thought that was corruption by design, politicians - trying to get them into a 'contribute to both sides so they shut up' with shakedowns. They were trying to cast Google as sexist well before anything else happened to harm their image.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    It's based on learning from what happened to Microsoft. I used to work at Google. It wasn't often discussed, but when lobbying came up (including in formal contexts) the general attitude was "you can try to ignore Washington but Washington won't ignore you". The perception was very much that Microsoft had gone through the anti-trust trial not so much because of what they'd done but because for years under the Clinton administration they didn't grease the right wheels, in fact they barely had any presence in Washington, which left them politically exposed. The combination of no powerful friends, extremely vague laws and extremely empowered and political regulators was seen as a very toxic one. And that's especially remarkable because Google was (at that time) a company whose executives really didn't like Microsoft, they feared them and treated them as the biggest threat to their business. A lot had come out of the Linux/open source world, academia, UNIX vendors etc and they were really the last people who would give Gates a break, but nonetheless their conclusion was that lobbying was basically a requirement of doing business in the USA. I'm going back here - eventually that changed and they came to fear Facebook more. But for instance the Google Toolbar was basically an anti-Microsoft play, as was Chrome.
- vezycash 6y ago
  It's a fact of life. Bill Gates kept politicians at arms length. If Microsoft had given Washington a little attention, the antitrust lawsuit would never ever have happened. Google has squelched antitrust investigations in US every single time through lobbying. Even Apple would been in hot regulatory soup if they didn't buddy up to politicians.
slv77 6y ago
The pay-per-click model has already forced news organizations towards producing click-bait content. I’m not sure why regulators would want to deepen that influence by making newspapers more dependent on Google and Facebook.
propogandist 6y ago
>In the long term the issue with this is that it pushes Google and Facebook into your politics. Google is already the largest industry lobbyist stateside https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/09/google-is-techs-top-spender-on-lobbying-but-facebook-amazon-also-up.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/09/google-is-techs-top-spender-...

wutbrodo 6y ago

Don't the French and Spanish examples indicate otherwise? Spain's link tax in 2014 led to the shutting-down of Google News Spain, and France's attempt to charge for Google News snippets led to the removal of those snippets for French sites (followed by a dip in traffic for pubs that hurt them far more than it hurt Google). What makes you think that FB/G don't have the power here?

moralestapia 6y ago
>What makes you think that FB/G don't have the power here? They also risk losing that entire market as well. Let's be honest, nobody loves F or G. If a decent competitor stands up people will gladly switch, even more if they market it as "by Australians for Australians". SV companies are big and great and all that, but to think they are above state jurisdictions is delusional.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  A lot of people have invested a lot of effort in creating the narrative of a techlash, that people are fed up with big tech's abuses and would be glad to see the big companies go. But it's simply not true. Polls of the general public consistently show that Facebook and Google are well-loved. For example: https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/27/16550640/verge-tech-survey-amazon-facebook-google-twitter-popularity https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/27/16550640/verge-tech-surv...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - dehrmann 6y ago
    More recent articles: https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/amidst-techlash-many-americans-still-view-technology-industry-positive-light https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/amidst-techlash-m... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/opinion/tech-backlash.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/opinion/tech-backlash.htm... I read a similar one in the last 6 months tying it to politics. One was that Trump is ironically more tech-friendly than Sanders or Warren (~Nov 2019), despite tech workers generally not supporting Trump. The other oddity was that polls don't really show that there's a techlash, so why are Democratic frontrunners making it a talking point?

ojame 6y ago

>Just say they are not paying taxes and getting our money abroad etc. This is said pretty regularly in the media in Australia, and honestly no one cares. Even big mining companies like BHP pay little corporate tax on shore, and after years of it being 'exposed', honestly the general public don't seem to care.

Smoosh 6y ago
I think it's more accurate to say the public cares somewhat, and consequently politicians do too (they sometimes roll out accusations of "un-Australian" tax minimization to suit their agenda). But politicians don't dare to move against the big companies because they know they'll lose. Both in campaign/party donations and in being targeted at the next election if their policies are going to impact those companies (see what happened with the mining companies and the Carbon tax). This same thing could happen with these "internet" companies who would only need to devote a little of their local advertising to a campaign against the change and against the party proposing it to have any public support cancelled out and politicians quickly reversing their position.