21 ms·

Link to the draft law is below [0]. Quoted from that page: >The code also includes a set of ‘minimum standards’ for: >providing advance notice of changes to

Link to the draft law is below [0]. Quoted from that page: >The code also includes a set of ‘minimum standards’ for: >providing advance notice of changes to algorithmic ranking and presentation of news; appropriately recognising original news content; and >providing information about how and when Google and Facebook make available user data collected through users’ interactions with news content. This sounds great to me. Australia has a history of producing consumer friendly laws (although I am sure we have our share of bad laws on this), and I consider google to be working against my personal interests, so I think this law is probably good (for consumers and news media, but not google/facebook). 0. https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/draft-news-media-bargaining-code https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/draft-...

throwaway45349 6y ago
AFAIK you're missing a crucial point - they're trying to require G/FB to pay out billions to old (read: dying) media publications, which will crush small publications. On the Open Web, ABC News should get the exact same treatment at JoeBloggsYT2020.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  That's my main problem with it. Extend those minimum standards for everyone regardless of revenue and other selective filters. Can someone explain what this means? > providing information about how and when Google and Facebook make available user data collected through users’ interactions with news content. Is it saying google or facebook need to tell news publication about when/which users are accessing thier content?
  - spauka 6y ago
    This reads to me more as if though G/FB have to tell news organizations what data is being collected, rather than disclosing the actual data. A quote from the Q&A seems to clarify: > give news media businesses clear information about the nature and availability of user data collected through users’ interactions with news on their services;
  - sjy 6y ago
    It is explained in the ACCC concepts paper [1] under the heading “Sharing of user data.” The idea is that both news organisations and digital platforms make money from targeted advertising, but digital platforms have access to more data, and thus an advantage at the negotiating table. [1] https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/ACCC%20-%20Mandatory%20news%20media%20bargaining%20code%20-%20concepts%20paper%20-%2019%20May%202020.pdf https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/ACCC%20-%20Mandatory%20...
- deminature 6y ago
  Murdoch's News Corporation and the currently incumbent Liberal party are very cosy with one another, so it's not surprising the government is legislating to prop them up financially. It's beneficial to consumers to have a well funded fourth estate, however I doubt this is being done out of public interest.
  - iamshs 6y ago
    God forbid if Sky News corners a prominent real estate in my Youtube results, they are already atrocious and have insufferable comments.
    - deminature 6y ago
      Sky News is almost more virulently ignorant and hateful than Fox News. I'm shocked Australia - a generally 'nice' country - is capable of producing something like this.
      - waheoo 6y ago
        You do realise both Sky News and Fox are owned by Murdoch right? Its all the same shit. Our media here is a joke, even our govt funded "for the people" news org is massive biased toward the liberal party.
        BLKNSLVR 6y ago
        The ABC (our government funded "for the people" service) only changed their tune, a bit, since the libs threatened, and followed through with, budget cuts. Oh, and the unprecedented event of Prime Minister Turnbull ringing the head of the ABC to complain about an article that was eventually found to be primarily based on sound economics. (yes, Australia's leadership are that petty).
      - BLKNSLVR 6y ago
        Australia is 'nice' when the powerful are winning all their arguments. Terrorism, climate change, the challenge to single-narrative media, gay marriage, and a number of other examples of recent societal change are shifting the ground underneath the powerful, and they're not winning 'naturally' as often as they'd like, so they're resolving to win 'unnaturally', which very quickly degenerates from a position of 'nice'. Sky News is what it is because of chasing popularity. Unfortunately it has a suitably sized audience to maintain it's virulently ignorant and hateful narratives. It's representative of a distilled version of a Australia's hopes and dreams for the future. Oh so sadly.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- alecthomas 6y ago
  > On the Open Web, ABC News should get the exact same treatment at JoeBloggsYT2020. I legitimately don't understand this point of view. Original reporting of the kind that keeps politicians and corporations in line costs money; investigative journalists aren't cheap. What YouTuber gives you this kind of depth? Will the world be a better place without the Fourth Estate?
  - nl 6y ago
    Sure, this is a legitimate argument. But then why wouldn't the money go to fund the AP Press Pool in Canberra which shutdown recently because of lack of funding[1], or to the ABC or SBS or other public journalism? Instead it goes directly to the big publishers who cut journalists while increasing the salary of people like Andrew Bolt (who is so far removed from a journalist it is objectionable). [1] https://apnews.com/c9d2809aaa0e8fa47c629723444d7b51 https://apnews.com/c9d2809aaa0e8fa47c629723444d7b51
    - alecthomas 6y ago
      Your response is unrelated to what I was disagreeing with. My underlying argument is that a strong free press must be maintained and that the reductionist argument that legitimate news sources and JoeRandomYouTuber should be treated identically is naive at best. > Instead it goes directly to the big publishers who cut journalists while increasing the salary of people like Andrew Bolt (who is so far removed from a journalist it is objectionable). The relationship between the rise of populist/sensationalist media and that of the Internet/social media/Google is inextricably linked. Traditional news sources found their revenue declining and so chased whatever attracted consumers, including sensationalist cretins like Bolt. Google should accept responsibility for this. To be clear, I'm not arguing that the ACCC's proposal is the perfect solution to the underlying problem, but the status quo does need to change. At least they're doing something.
      - nl 6y ago
        > Your response is unrelated to what I was disagreeing with. Well the flow of money is the source of pretty key in enabling a strong, free press. > My underlying argument is that a strong free press must be maintained and that the reductionist argument that legitimate news sources and JoeRandomYouTuber should be treated identically is naive at best. Sure. So there should be some kind of non-discriminatory rules that allow new players to find a voice as well as maintaining credible news sources. > Traditional news sources found their revenue declining and so chased whatever attracted consumers, including sensationalist cretins like Bolt. Google should accept responsibility for this. Well I agree that the news ecosystem has changed, and I agree that a strong and free press has value. > At least they're doing something. See I don't see this as a good thing at all. I see this as making the problem worse by funding players who are some of the worse examples.
- IncRnd 6y ago
  Looking at news.google.com, 100% of the first few pages is from those old, dying media publications. The news displayed by Google is not from JoeBloggsYT2020. It's not even close.
mgraczyk 6y ago
As somebody who works on ranking and personalization products, I can confidently assure you that you would not prefer a less personalized experience. You don't have to take my word for it though, you can opt-out of personalization on Google here: https://myactivity.google.com/activitycontrols https://myactivity.google.com/activitycontrols Try it for a month and see if you prefer it.
- lokedhs 6y ago
  Not the original poster, but I've disabled all personalisation that it's possible to disable since forever, and my biggest problem with it is that it still doesn't seem to disable it entirely. So yes, I definitely prefer it. And looking at the other replies to your message suggests that I'm not alone here.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  I have everything turned off on that page. I am doing fine.
- shmerl 6y ago
  DuckDuckGo does exactly that. They call it "no bubbling".
- awalton 6y ago
  I can confidently assure you that I've had that feature off for ages and could not possibly be happier about it.
  - mgraczyk 6y ago
    It's definitely possible to have a good experience without personalization. Depending on how much you inherently value google not storing data about you, it may be the only way for you to be happy. But it's very unlikely the actual product experience would be worse with personalization enabled, measured by probability that a search includes something relevant near the top.
    - 6y ago
shmerl 6y ago
I don't think they care about the end user. The goal of this law is to let legacy media companies which are becoming obsolete and can't compete anymore to become parasites that are paid just because they want to get paid. It's anti free market law.
emmelaich 6y ago
How are they working against your personal interests?
zmmmmm 6y ago
> This sounds great to me Keep in mind, this is not motivated by your interests and has nothing in it that is there to help them. It's based on an a priori assumption that old media is good for consumers interests and all of the benefits it provides are directed to a newly invented category of "registered news businesses" which will have special rules. So no, you're not going to find out changes to algorithmic ranking in advance, nor will you get information about how and when Google collect information on you. It'll be provided to Rupert Murdoch, but not you nor anyone who doesn't qualify as a large media conglomerate.
- cyphar 6y ago
  Look, I'm not going to deny that this is obviously motivated by News Corp and Fairfax lobbyists. However, the ACCC is legitimately one of the really brilliant government agencies here in Australia -- our consumer protection laws are actually designed around protecting consumers interests and I would argue is firmly on the list of positives when taking stock of the pros and cons of living here.
  - sjy 6y ago
    It’s worth noting that, while the ACCC did recommend “requiring designated digital platforms to each provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority with codes to address the imbalance in the bargaining relationship between these platforms and news media businesses and recognise the need for value sharing and monetisation of content” [1], the “mandatory bargaining code” policy resulted from a more recent and specific direction from the government [2]. [1] https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/holistic-dynamic-reforms-needed-to-address-dominance-of-digital-platforms https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/holistic-dynamic-refor... [2] https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/josh-frydenberg-2018/media-releases/accc-mandatory-code-conduct-govern-commercial https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/josh-frydenberg-...
  - nl 6y ago
    The ACCC is great. (I'm Australian, and think it's a awesome example of a regulator with real teeth) But this makes no sense! Why should Google be forced to pay News Corp to display its headlines, when other smaller companies have to pay for ads for to get the same exposure?

throwaway45349 6y ago

AFAIK you're missing a crucial point - they're trying to require G/FB to pay out billions to old (read: dying) media publications, which will crush small publications. On the Open Web, ABC News should get the exact same treatment at JoeBloggsYT2020.

searchableguy 6y ago
That's my main problem with it. Extend those minimum standards for everyone regardless of revenue and other selective filters. Can someone explain what this means? > providing information about how and when Google and Facebook make available user data collected through users’ interactions with news content. Is it saying google or facebook need to tell news publication about when/which users are accessing thier content?
- spauka 6y ago
  This reads to me more as if though G/FB have to tell news organizations what data is being collected, rather than disclosing the actual data. A quote from the Q&A seems to clarify: > give news media businesses clear information about the nature and availability of user data collected through users’ interactions with news on their services;
- sjy 6y ago
  It is explained in the ACCC concepts paper [1] under the heading “Sharing of user data.” The idea is that both news organisations and digital platforms make money from targeted advertising, but digital platforms have access to more data, and thus an advantage at the negotiating table. [1] https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/ACCC%20-%20Mandatory%20news%20media%20bargaining%20code%20-%20concepts%20paper%20-%2019%20May%202020.pdf https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/ACCC%20-%20Mandatory%20...
deminature 6y ago
Murdoch's News Corporation and the currently incumbent Liberal party are very cosy with one another, so it's not surprising the government is legislating to prop them up financially. It's beneficial to consumers to have a well funded fourth estate, however I doubt this is being done out of public interest.
- iamshs 6y ago
  God forbid if Sky News corners a prominent real estate in my Youtube results, they are already atrocious and have insufferable comments.
  - deminature 6y ago
    Sky News is almost more virulently ignorant and hateful than Fox News. I'm shocked Australia - a generally 'nice' country - is capable of producing something like this.
    - waheoo 6y ago
      You do realise both Sky News and Fox are owned by Murdoch right? Its all the same shit. Our media here is a joke, even our govt funded "for the people" news org is massive biased toward the liberal party.
      - BLKNSLVR 6y ago
        The ABC (our government funded "for the people" service) only changed their tune, a bit, since the libs threatened, and followed through with, budget cuts. Oh, and the unprecedented event of Prime Minister Turnbull ringing the head of the ABC to complain about an article that was eventually found to be primarily based on sound economics. (yes, Australia's leadership are that petty).
    - BLKNSLVR 6y ago
      Australia is 'nice' when the powerful are winning all their arguments. Terrorism, climate change, the challenge to single-narrative media, gay marriage, and a number of other examples of recent societal change are shifting the ground underneath the powerful, and they're not winning 'naturally' as often as they'd like, so they're resolving to win 'unnaturally', which very quickly degenerates from a position of 'nice'. Sky News is what it is because of chasing popularity. Unfortunately it has a suitably sized audience to maintain it's virulently ignorant and hateful narratives. It's representative of a distilled version of a Australia's hopes and dreams for the future. Oh so sadly.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
alecthomas 6y ago
> On the Open Web, ABC News should get the exact same treatment at JoeBloggsYT2020. I legitimately don't understand this point of view. Original reporting of the kind that keeps politicians and corporations in line costs money; investigative journalists aren't cheap. What YouTuber gives you this kind of depth? Will the world be a better place without the Fourth Estate?
- nl 6y ago
  Sure, this is a legitimate argument. But then why wouldn't the money go to fund the AP Press Pool in Canberra which shutdown recently because of lack of funding[1], or to the ABC or SBS or other public journalism? Instead it goes directly to the big publishers who cut journalists while increasing the salary of people like Andrew Bolt (who is so far removed from a journalist it is objectionable). [1] https://apnews.com/c9d2809aaa0e8fa47c629723444d7b51 https://apnews.com/c9d2809aaa0e8fa47c629723444d7b51
  - alecthomas 6y ago
    Your response is unrelated to what I was disagreeing with. My underlying argument is that a strong free press must be maintained and that the reductionist argument that legitimate news sources and JoeRandomYouTuber should be treated identically is naive at best. > Instead it goes directly to the big publishers who cut journalists while increasing the salary of people like Andrew Bolt (who is so far removed from a journalist it is objectionable). The relationship between the rise of populist/sensationalist media and that of the Internet/social media/Google is inextricably linked. Traditional news sources found their revenue declining and so chased whatever attracted consumers, including sensationalist cretins like Bolt. Google should accept responsibility for this. To be clear, I'm not arguing that the ACCC's proposal is the perfect solution to the underlying problem, but the status quo does need to change. At least they're doing something.
    - nl 6y ago
      > Your response is unrelated to what I was disagreeing with. Well the flow of money is the source of pretty key in enabling a strong, free press. > My underlying argument is that a strong free press must be maintained and that the reductionist argument that legitimate news sources and JoeRandomYouTuber should be treated identically is naive at best. Sure. So there should be some kind of non-discriminatory rules that allow new players to find a voice as well as maintaining credible news sources. > Traditional news sources found their revenue declining and so chased whatever attracted consumers, including sensationalist cretins like Bolt. Google should accept responsibility for this. Well I agree that the news ecosystem has changed, and I agree that a strong and free press has value. > At least they're doing something. See I don't see this as a good thing at all. I see this as making the problem worse by funding players who are some of the worse examples.
IncRnd 6y ago
Looking at news.google.com, 100% of the first few pages is from those old, dying media publications. The news displayed by Google is not from JoeBloggsYT2020. It's not even close.

mgraczyk 6y ago

As somebody who works on ranking and personalization products, I can confidently assure you that you would not prefer a less personalized experience. You don't have to take my word for it though, you can opt-out of personalization on Google here: https://myactivity.google.com/activitycontrols https://myactivity.google.com/activitycontrols Try it for a month and see if you prefer it.

lokedhs 6y ago
Not the original poster, but I've disabled all personalisation that it's possible to disable since forever, and my biggest problem with it is that it still doesn't seem to disable it entirely. So yes, I definitely prefer it. And looking at the other replies to your message suggests that I'm not alone here.
searchableguy 6y ago
I have everything turned off on that page. I am doing fine.
shmerl 6y ago
DuckDuckGo does exactly that. They call it "no bubbling".
awalton 6y ago
I can confidently assure you that I've had that feature off for ages and could not possibly be happier about it.
- mgraczyk 6y ago
  It's definitely possible to have a good experience without personalization. Depending on how much you inherently value google not storing data about you, it may be the only way for you to be happy. But it's very unlikely the actual product experience would be worse with personalization enabled, measured by probability that a search includes something relevant near the top.
  - 6y ago

shmerl 6y ago

I don't think they care about the end user. The goal of this law is to let legacy media companies which are becoming obsolete and can't compete anymore to become parasites that are paid just because they want to get paid. It's anti free market law.

emmelaich 6y ago

How are they working against your personal interests?

zmmmmm 6y ago

> This sounds great to me Keep in mind, this is not motivated by your interests and has nothing in it that is there to help them. It's based on an a priori assumption that old media is good for consumers interests and all of the benefits it provides are directed to a newly invented category of "registered news businesses" which will have special rules. So no, you're not going to find out changes to algorithmic ranking in advance, nor will you get information about how and when Google collect information on you. It'll be provided to Rupert Murdoch, but not you nor anyone who doesn't qualify as a large media conglomerate.

cyphar 6y ago
Look, I'm not going to deny that this is obviously motivated by News Corp and Fairfax lobbyists. However, the ACCC is legitimately one of the really brilliant government agencies here in Australia -- our consumer protection laws are actually designed around protecting consumers interests and I would argue is firmly on the list of positives when taking stock of the pros and cons of living here.
- sjy 6y ago
  It’s worth noting that, while the ACCC did recommend “requiring designated digital platforms to each provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority with codes to address the imbalance in the bargaining relationship between these platforms and news media businesses and recognise the need for value sharing and monetisation of content” [1], the “mandatory bargaining code” policy resulted from a more recent and specific direction from the government [2]. [1] https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/holistic-dynamic-reforms-needed-to-address-dominance-of-digital-platforms https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/holistic-dynamic-refor... [2] https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/josh-frydenberg-2018/media-releases/accc-mandatory-code-conduct-govern-commercial https://ministers.treasury.gov.au/ministers/josh-frydenberg-...
- nl 6y ago
  The ACCC is great. (I'm Australian, and think it's a awesome example of a regulator with real teeth) But this makes no sense! Why should Google be forced to pay News Corp to display its headlines, when other smaller companies have to pay for ads for to get the same exposure?