6 ms·

This is a very disappointing response from the ACCC. It seems to be extremely misleading in its own right. > Google will not be required to charge Australians

by zmmmmm 6y ago

This is a very disappointing response from the ACCC. It seems to be extremely misleading in its own right. > Google will not be required to charge Australians for the use of its free services Google did not state this. The ACCC - the supposed detached "fair" regulator, in charge of creating this code, just made something up to suit their own ends. > Google will not be required to share any additional user data with Australian news businesses The code [1] literally says: "The responsible digital platform must ... give information about how the registered news business corporation can gain access to ... the data that the digital platform service collects (whether or not it shares the data with the registered news business)about the registered news business’ users through their engagement with covered news content made available by the digital platform service" (Page 10, Section 52M). The ACCC here is straight up lying. I would like any of the people vocally defending it here to say what they think about this. NB: I think it is quite telling that it's quite hard to dig out the actual draft code [1] - they don't seem to link to it in any of their press releases etc. They actually don't want people to be able to discuss this openly from what I can tell: [1] https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill%20-%20TREASURY%20LAWS%20AMENDENT%20%28NEWS%20MEDIA%20AND%20DIGITAL%20PLATFORMS%20MANDATORY%20BARGAINING%20CODE%29%20BILL%202020.pdf https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20Draft%20Bill...

RVuRnvbM2e 6y ago
> > Google will not be required to share any additional user data with Australian news businesses You misquoted the legislation. It says that the digital platform must provide to the news organisations: > a list and explanation of the data that the digital platform service collects (whether or not it shares the data with the registered news business) A _list and explanation of_ the data. Not the data itself. > The ACCC here is straight up lying. No, they really aren't.
- zmmmmm 6y ago
  I am not sure why you are saying this when every word I cited is literally copied and pasted from the draft legislation? You have cited section 52M(b) as if that is the only clause in that section, ignoring 52M(a) which I have exactly quoted from. Why are you ignoring that subsection?
  - chrismorgan 6y ago
    “How you can gain access to [SECRET THING]: you can’t.” “How you can gain access to [SECRET THING]: court order.” Given that (2)(a) says “whether or not it shares the data”, it would be bizarre for (2)(e) to mean: “oh by the way, remember that thing from clause (a) that you don’t share (and that we were totally fine with you not sharing)? You’ve got to share it now”.
    - zmmmmm 6y ago
      I think it's equally bizzare to say in (2)(e) that the platform must provide "information about how the registered news business corporation can gain access to the data" and not have a reasonable interpretation of that be that this means it is required to actually provide access to the data. At best it's horrifically badly worded - at worst, deliberately confusing, as if written by a lobbyist. I interpret (2)(a) to mean, "whether or not it [currently] shares the data". If the ACCC wanted this to be interpreted as they have written in their press release just now, perhaps they could try putting those words into the actual bill?
      - chrismorgan 6y ago
        I agree it could do with rewording for clarification.
  - RVuRnvbM2e 6y ago
    > I am not sure why you are saying this when every word I cited is literally copied and pasted from the draft legislation? With plenty of ellipses between them, sure! > You have cited section 52M(b) as if that is the only clause in that section, ignoring 52M(a) which I have exactly quoted from. Why are you ignoring that subsection? There is no section 52M(b) or (a). What are you talking about?
    - hesarenu 6y ago
      52M has 3 sections 1,2,3 which have even further sub-sections. 52M -> 1 -> (a) information covered by subsection (2) is given to the registered news businesscorporationfor the registered news business; and etc... 52M -> 2 -> (a) a list andexplanation of the data that the digital platform servicecollects(whether or not it shares the datawith the registered news business)about the registerednews business’users through their engagement with covered news content made available by the digital platform service etc...
chrismorgan 6y ago
Firstly on the point of sharing user data: My reading of the draft bill matches the ACCC’s statements: it’s not saying the platform has to share any more user data than they already do, just that the platform must provide documentation of what they are collecting, and how the registered news business corporation can access any parts of that that they do make available to them. Not that they must expose more. In Google’s original open letter, the “Your Search data may be at risk” section matches your interpretation here, and it seems to me to be factually inaccurate; I believe the ACCC’s rebuttal is correct. That’s the main factual point in Google’s letter and in ACCC’s response. ——— But then to the rest of the letter and response, which are much more about feelings and potential consequences. The whole purpose of the legislation is to improve alleged bargaining inequality, because the platforms have lots of information they’re not telling the news corporations. It’s not an end in itself, but is the means to further negotiations and potentially legislation. Other than the aforecited section, Google’s letter is saying “this proposed legislation threatens us”. An uncharitable view of this would be that they depend on their position of power, and if the inequality is balanced then their business model will come under direct attack—not by this legislation, but by what follows after it. ACCC is saying “you have implied that this proposed legislation will harm you, but it doesn’t directly do so”. Both sides are speaking very carefully and precisely, Google saying that things are threatened and at risk, and ACCC refuting the things that Google implied (again apart from the one point that Google did actually say which ACCC claims to be factually inaccurate). ——— I believe my judgement and remarks in this comment to be impartial. Moreover I am not rooting for either party over the other.
RVuRnvbM2e 6y ago
> > Google will not be required to charge Australians for the use of its free services > Google did not state this. Google did say that this legislation would: > put the free services you use at risk in Australia. That's implying that either the services would go, or they would no longer be free.
- detaro 6y ago
  That doesn't mean that the law explicitly requires that. Just that Google thinks running the service for free might not be viable.
  - RVuRnvbM2e 6y ago
    You mean.. because they wouldn't be able to rely on free third-party content anymore?
  - kdtsh 6y ago
    Or that Google thinks that it would be useful for users to think that running the service for free might not be viable.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    No, that's just Google's way of trying to mobilize the general public to work their case for them. A little bit of blackmail.
- zmmmmm 6y ago
  > That's implying that either the services would go, or they would no longer be free. No it's not ... it just implies they could be harmed (damaged, degraded). For example as Google's letter goes on to explain in detail, things like "...Google Search results and YouTube will be worse for you". Google actually wrote these harms into their letter. To pretend an alternative interpretation is viable when they explicitly elaborated their meaning right after they wrote that sentence is highly misleading.
- ggrrhh_ta 6y ago
  Yes, that's the cover blackmailing "accept our new terms, you are free to terminate..."
dlubarov 6y ago
I agree with your other points, but it it seems like the intent of that clause it to require Google to disclose the nature of user data being collected, not the user data itself. In particular, (a) distinguishes between user data that Google chooses to share and not to share. Technically it seems like one could read (e) as requiring access to both, but then the distinction in (a) wouldn't make sense, so I assume that's not the intent.
kdtsh 6y ago
>Google did not state this. The ACCC - the supposed detached "fair" regulator, in charge of creating this code, just made something up to suit their own ends. From Google's open letter: `A proposed law, the News Media Bargaining Code, would force us to provide you with a dramatically worse Google Search and YouTube, could lead to your data being handed over to big news businesses, and would put the free services you use at risk in Australia.'[1] Note the second part of this statement. This is a very clear statement from Google that, if this code comes into law, their currently free services may begin to incur a charge. The ACCC's statement says, in no unclear terms, that Google is free to do this but that it would not be required by the law - something which is either implied by Google, or presented as their having no other business choice. >"The responsible digital platform must ... give information about how the registered news business corporation can gain access to ... the data that the digital platform service collects (whether or not it shares the data with the registered news business)about the registered news business’ users through their engagement with covered news content made available by the digital platform service" (Page 10, Section 52M). I can't find where it says this in the document you linked. I can find pieces of it, but you've constructed a statement here which doesn't seem to exist in that form in that document - a fair bit of artistic liberty. If it is in that document, a screenshot would be helpful. Further, does any of this constitute sharing `additional user data with Australian news businesses'? Let's not mince words: Google is saying that this law affects their bottom line, and they're using their immense platform to say to the users of their free services that Google might charge them if this law is passed. This in itself is an indication of the incredibly uneven playing field present in this particular market - no other company could reach over half of the users of the WWW in Australia with a statement like this[2], in a way which could profoundly impact the process of consultation with interested groups and the passage of this legislation. Whatever you think of this legislation, this is about nothing more than money - the fact that content producers (journalists) aren't getting enough of it, while Google's advertising empire reaps incredible profits. [1] https://about.google/google-in-australia/an-open-letter/ https://about.google/google-in-australia/an-open-letter/ [2] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/all/australia https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/all/australi...
- intended 6y ago
  This is not implying a charge. It’s a positive adjective meant to fluff up/activate the positive association of using google when people read it. Saying “the top quality services” “world class services” would come across as tone deaf. Free here is not meant to be added as a veiled reference to negotiating items.
glenstein 6y ago
Wow, excellent pull from the code. I suppose you can say that the letter of the code is only informing news organizations of how they may go about accessing data, which isn't the same as actually providing the data, although even that seems like a bit of a disingenuous distinction to me. There's no point in helping facilitate sharing of that data by providing information about how to access it unless you are intending for it to be accessed, and so denying that that's being accessed is disingenuous. It's entirely banking on people getting lost on these distinctions and not putting the effort in to figuring out who is right. That approach is straight up contemptuous of the intended audience.

by zmmmmm 6y ago

RVuRnvbM2e 6y ago

> > Google will not be required to share any additional user data with Australian news businesses You misquoted the legislation. It says that the digital platform must provide to the news organisations: > a list and explanation of the data that the digital platform service collects (whether or not it shares the data with the registered news business) A _list and explanation of_ the data. Not the data itself. > The ACCC here is straight up lying. No, they really aren't.

zmmmmm 6y ago
I am not sure why you are saying this when every word I cited is literally copied and pasted from the draft legislation? You have cited section 52M(b) as if that is the only clause in that section, ignoring 52M(a) which I have exactly quoted from. Why are you ignoring that subsection?
- chrismorgan 6y ago
  “How you can gain access to [SECRET THING]: you can’t.” “How you can gain access to [SECRET THING]: court order.” Given that (2)(a) says “whether or not it shares the data”, it would be bizarre for (2)(e) to mean: “oh by the way, remember that thing from clause (a) that you don’t share (and that we were totally fine with you not sharing)? You’ve got to share it now”.
  - zmmmmm 6y ago
    I think it's equally bizzare to say in (2)(e) that the platform must provide "information about how the registered news business corporation can gain access to the data" and not have a reasonable interpretation of that be that this means it is required to actually provide access to the data. At best it's horrifically badly worded - at worst, deliberately confusing, as if written by a lobbyist. I interpret (2)(a) to mean, "whether or not it [currently] shares the data". If the ACCC wanted this to be interpreted as they have written in their press release just now, perhaps they could try putting those words into the actual bill?
    - chrismorgan 6y ago
      I agree it could do with rewording for clarification.
- RVuRnvbM2e 6y ago
  > I am not sure why you are saying this when every word I cited is literally copied and pasted from the draft legislation? With plenty of ellipses between them, sure! > You have cited section 52M(b) as if that is the only clause in that section, ignoring 52M(a) which I have exactly quoted from. Why are you ignoring that subsection? There is no section 52M(b) or (a). What are you talking about?
  - hesarenu 6y ago
    52M has 3 sections 1,2,3 which have even further sub-sections. 52M -> 1 -> (a) information covered by subsection (2) is given to the registered news businesscorporationfor the registered news business; and etc... 52M -> 2 -> (a) a list andexplanation of the data that the digital platform servicecollects(whether or not it shares the datawith the registered news business)about the registerednews business’users through their engagement with covered news content made available by the digital platform service etc...

chrismorgan 6y ago

Firstly on the point of sharing user data: My reading of the draft bill matches the ACCC’s statements: it’s not saying the platform has to share any more user data than they already do, just that the platform must provide documentation of what they are collecting, and how the registered news business corporation can access any parts of that that they do make available to them. Not that they must expose more. In Google’s original open letter, the “Your Search data may be at risk” section matches your interpretation here, and it seems to me to be factually inaccurate; I believe the ACCC’s rebuttal is correct. That’s the main factual point in Google’s letter and in ACCC’s response. ——— But then to the rest of the letter and response, which are much more about feelings and potential consequences. The whole purpose of the legislation is to improve alleged bargaining inequality, because the platforms have lots of information they’re not telling the news corporations. It’s not an end in itself, but is the means to further negotiations and potentially legislation. Other than the aforecited section, Google’s letter is saying “this proposed legislation threatens us”. An uncharitable view of this would be that they depend on their position of power, and if the inequality is balanced then their business model will come under direct attack—not by this legislation, but by what follows after it. ACCC is saying “you have implied that this proposed legislation will harm you, but it doesn’t directly do so”. Both sides are speaking very carefully and precisely, Google saying that things are threatened and at risk, and ACCC refuting the things that Google implied (again apart from the one point that Google did actually say which ACCC claims to be factually inaccurate). ——— I believe my judgement and remarks in this comment to be impartial. Moreover I am not rooting for either party over the other.

RVuRnvbM2e 6y ago

> > Google will not be required to charge Australians for the use of its free services > Google did not state this. Google did say that this legislation would: > put the free services you use at risk in Australia. That's implying that either the services would go, or they would no longer be free.

detaro 6y ago
That doesn't mean that the law explicitly requires that. Just that Google thinks running the service for free might not be viable.
- RVuRnvbM2e 6y ago
  You mean.. because they wouldn't be able to rely on free third-party content anymore?
- kdtsh 6y ago
  Or that Google thinks that it would be useful for users to think that running the service for free might not be viable.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  No, that's just Google's way of trying to mobilize the general public to work their case for them. A little bit of blackmail.
zmmmmm 6y ago
> That's implying that either the services would go, or they would no longer be free. No it's not ... it just implies they could be harmed (damaged, degraded). For example as Google's letter goes on to explain in detail, things like "...Google Search results and YouTube will be worse for you". Google actually wrote these harms into their letter. To pretend an alternative interpretation is viable when they explicitly elaborated their meaning right after they wrote that sentence is highly misleading.
ggrrhh_ta 6y ago
Yes, that's the cover blackmailing "accept our new terms, you are free to terminate..."

dlubarov 6y ago

I agree with your other points, but it it seems like the intent of that clause it to require Google to disclose the nature of user data being collected, not the user data itself. In particular, (a) distinguishes between user data that Google chooses to share and not to share. Technically it seems like one could read (e) as requiring access to both, but then the distinction in (a) wouldn't make sense, so I assume that's not the intent.

kdtsh 6y ago

>Google did not state this. The ACCC - the supposed detached "fair" regulator, in charge of creating this code, just made something up to suit their own ends. From Google's open letter: `A proposed law, the News Media Bargaining Code, would force us to provide you with a dramatically worse Google Search and YouTube, could lead to your data being handed over to big news businesses, and would put the free services you use at risk in Australia.'[1] Note the second part of this statement. This is a very clear statement from Google that, if this code comes into law, their currently free services may begin to incur a charge. The ACCC's statement says, in no unclear terms, that Google is free to do this but that it would not be required by the law - something which is either implied by Google, or presented as their having no other business choice. >"The responsible digital platform must ... give information about how the registered news business corporation can gain access to ... the data that the digital platform service collects (whether or not it shares the data with the registered news business)about the registered news business’ users through their engagement with covered news content made available by the digital platform service" (Page 10, Section 52M). I can't find where it says this in the document you linked. I can find pieces of it, but you've constructed a statement here which doesn't seem to exist in that form in that document - a fair bit of artistic liberty. If it is in that document, a screenshot would be helpful. Further, does any of this constitute sharing `additional user data with Australian news businesses'? Let's not mince words: Google is saying that this law affects their bottom line, and they're using their immense platform to say to the users of their free services that Google might charge them if this law is passed. This in itself is an indication of the incredibly uneven playing field present in this particular market - no other company could reach over half of the users of the WWW in Australia with a statement like this[2], in a way which could profoundly impact the process of consultation with interested groups and the passage of this legislation. Whatever you think of this legislation, this is about nothing more than money - the fact that content producers (journalists) aren't getting enough of it, while Google's advertising empire reaps incredible profits. [1] https://about.google/google-in-australia/an-open-letter/ https://about.google/google-in-australia/an-open-letter/ [2] https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/all/australia https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/all/australi...

intended 6y ago
This is not implying a charge. It’s a positive adjective meant to fluff up/activate the positive association of using google when people read it. Saying “the top quality services” “world class services” would come across as tone deaf. Free here is not meant to be added as a veiled reference to negotiating items.

glenstein 6y ago

Wow, excellent pull from the code. I suppose you can say that the letter of the code is only informing news organizations of how they may go about accessing data, which isn't the same as actually providing the data, although even that seems like a bit of a disingenuous distinction to me. There's no point in helping facilitate sharing of that data by providing information about how to access it unless you are intending for it to be accessed, and so denying that that's being accessed is disingenuous. It's entirely banking on people getting lost on these distinctions and not putting the effort in to figuring out who is right. That approach is straight up contemptuous of the intended audience.