4 ms·

Let's put aside whether Google had justified concerns about this legalislation. What's more appriopriate? Having a company incite the people in a foreign count

Let's put aside whether Google had justified concerns about this legalislation. What's more appriopriate? Having a company incite the people in a foreign country to change laws or do it using diplomacy using experts in your state departement? We are only talking about allied countries to the US because google doesn't do this with, for example, china, russia, north korea, etc... I'm NOT advocating they should do this with those countries. Rather they should get out of the politics business or accept the regulations that come with it.

mcv 6y ago
Note that this legislation is the direct result of other companies getting involved in the politics business and pushing for this regulation. Google is seeing their business model made impossible and warns for the consequences, as they should, and certainly have the right to do. Sometimes legislation can make a business model impossible or undesirable. For example, making information available in China with a strong censorship regime. Or in this case, being required to link to news sites while being forced to pay for it. If this loses Google more money than it's worth, they may have to abandon Australia.
stephen_g 6y ago
Problem is, once you get to a certain size, it's almost impossible to just "stay out of the politics" - because other companies won't stay out of it. The whole reason this bill exists is because another American multinational company that pays no tax in Australia and owns 70% of the readership of Australian news media is very effective in its politics. And they didn't do it by telling the public to ask for it - they have close ties with politicians, they give favourable coverage, they take all the Government's leaks and publish anonymously, they will minimise stories the Government doesn't want published...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

mcv 6y ago

Note that this legislation is the direct result of other companies getting involved in the politics business and pushing for this regulation. Google is seeing their business model made impossible and warns for the consequences, as they should, and certainly have the right to do. Sometimes legislation can make a business model impossible or undesirable. For example, making information available in China with a strong censorship regime. Or in this case, being required to link to news sites while being forced to pay for it. If this loses Google more money than it's worth, they may have to abandon Australia.

stephen_g 6y ago

Problem is, once you get to a certain size, it's almost impossible to just "stay out of the politics" - because other companies won't stay out of it. The whole reason this bill exists is because another American multinational company that pays no tax in Australia and owns 70% of the readership of Australian news media is very effective in its politics. And they didn't do it by telling the public to ask for it - they have close ties with politicians, they give favourable coverage, they take all the Government's leaks and publish anonymously, they will minimise stories the Government doesn't want published...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]