5 ms·

> I don't think Google actually made either of these claims in their letter. Agreed. And because this ACCC response doesn't link to the letter, I think these r

> I don't think Google actually made either of these claims in their letter. Agreed. And because this ACCC response doesn't link to the letter, I think these rebuttals to non-existent claims are deceptively misleading

arethuza 6y ago
Isn't that a basic tactic in political communications: when asked a question provide the answer you want to give not the answer to the question you were asked?
- cutemonster 6y ago
  Similar to "strawman" in online forums, right
  - arethuza 6y ago
    More "message discipline" I suspect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_discipline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_discipline
    - mthoms 6y ago
      Interesting. I wonder who coined that phrase? It's a curiously positive sounding phrase for something that's actually quite nefarious.
      - CarbyAu 6y ago
        The discipline, applied to its own name. :-)
        cutemonster 6y ago
        arethusa, thanks, interesting. I guess this is something taught in paid classes to business leaders and politicians, so they want a positively sounding name. Also, except for when the person has evil / corrupted intentions, then, is this technique neutral or sometimes even good Can at least save time via fever of topic discussions
borland 6y ago
The google letter makes non-existent claims that aren't part of the proposed law. Like that youtube and google will somehow magically offer worse results. They can offer the exact same results they do now - they might just have to pay for it. "If we had to pay more for news content, we would probably just cut it out because we don't want to pay - thus leading to worse results" doesn't quite have the same ring, does it :-) As such the ACCC response is also full of bullshit. This is how politics go, and the sad part is that most people seem to simply read one side of the argument and go ranting off angrily based on the bullshit claims, rather than investigating the truth behind both sides
- Tuna-Fish 6y ago
  > they might just have to pay for it. "If we had to pay more for news content, we would probably just cut it out because we don't want to pay - thus leading to worse results" doesn't quite have the same ring, does it :-) The amount they'd have to pay for it seems to be dramatically more than what they make for it, so "if this law passes, we will stop serving these results" seems to be a reasonable reaction.
  - calcifer 6y ago
    > "if this law passes, we will stop serving these results" seems to be a reasonable reaction. If that's Google's reaction then they should say so outright, not this weasel wordy letter.
    - dodobirdlord 6y ago
      Being required to inform news media about changes to result ranking algorithms in advance and advise them on how to avoid being impacted also gives news media a unique ability to game search results and takes away Google’s ability to prevent them from gaming results. I would certainly expect this to also seriously degrade the quality of search results. Not only will results become a pile of worthless SEO spam by news companies, Google will also have to use a much more simple ranking algorithm free of both ML techniques that can’t be explained to news companies and advanced algorithm techniques that are valuable trade secrets that news companies would obviously leak with their many employees, poor security, and adversarial motives.
bioipbiop 6y ago
From google’s open letter > Under this law, Google has to tell news media businesses “how they can gain access” to data about your use of our products. There’s no way of knowing if any data handed over would be protected, or how it might be used by news media businesses. That seems to pretty clearly suggest Google will be forced to hand over personal data.
- sukilot 6y ago
  It's deceptive. They aren't saying they would hand over any data.
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    That seems to be pretty clearly what the law says they will have to do. Do you have a different interpretation?
  - bioipbiop 6y ago
    It’s deceptive to directly quote them?

arethuza 6y ago

Isn't that a basic tactic in political communications: when asked a question provide the answer you want to give not the answer to the question you were asked?

cutemonster 6y ago
Similar to "strawman" in online forums, right
- arethuza 6y ago
  More "message discipline" I suspect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_discipline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Message_discipline
  - mthoms 6y ago
    Interesting. I wonder who coined that phrase? It's a curiously positive sounding phrase for something that's actually quite nefarious.
    - CarbyAu 6y ago
      The discipline, applied to its own name. :-)
      - cutemonster 6y ago
        arethusa, thanks, interesting. I guess this is something taught in paid classes to business leaders and politicians, so they want a positively sounding name. Also, except for when the person has evil / corrupted intentions, then, is this technique neutral or sometimes even good Can at least save time via fever of topic discussions

borland 6y ago

The google letter makes non-existent claims that aren't part of the proposed law. Like that youtube and google will somehow magically offer worse results. They can offer the exact same results they do now - they might just have to pay for it. "If we had to pay more for news content, we would probably just cut it out because we don't want to pay - thus leading to worse results" doesn't quite have the same ring, does it :-) As such the ACCC response is also full of bullshit. This is how politics go, and the sad part is that most people seem to simply read one side of the argument and go ranting off angrily based on the bullshit claims, rather than investigating the truth behind both sides

Tuna-Fish 6y ago
> they might just have to pay for it. "If we had to pay more for news content, we would probably just cut it out because we don't want to pay - thus leading to worse results" doesn't quite have the same ring, does it :-) The amount they'd have to pay for it seems to be dramatically more than what they make for it, so "if this law passes, we will stop serving these results" seems to be a reasonable reaction.
- calcifer 6y ago
  > "if this law passes, we will stop serving these results" seems to be a reasonable reaction. If that's Google's reaction then they should say so outright, not this weasel wordy letter.
  - dodobirdlord 6y ago
    Being required to inform news media about changes to result ranking algorithms in advance and advise them on how to avoid being impacted also gives news media a unique ability to game search results and takes away Google’s ability to prevent them from gaming results. I would certainly expect this to also seriously degrade the quality of search results. Not only will results become a pile of worthless SEO spam by news companies, Google will also have to use a much more simple ranking algorithm free of both ML techniques that can’t be explained to news companies and advanced algorithm techniques that are valuable trade secrets that news companies would obviously leak with their many employees, poor security, and adversarial motives.

bioipbiop 6y ago

From google’s open letter > Under this law, Google has to tell news media businesses “how they can gain access” to data about your use of our products. There’s no way of knowing if any data handed over would be protected, or how it might be used by news media businesses. That seems to pretty clearly suggest Google will be forced to hand over personal data.

sukilot 6y ago
It's deceptive. They aren't saying they would hand over any data.
- dodobirdlord 6y ago
  That seems to be pretty clearly what the law says they will have to do. Do you have a different interpretation?
- bioipbiop 6y ago
  It’s deceptive to directly quote them?