4 ms·

> In another section the draft legislation requires Facebook / Google to notify the news organisation of changes to their page rank / feed algorithm, and also p

by harryf 6y ago

> In another section the draft legislation requires Facebook / Google to notify the news organisation of changes to their page rank / feed algorithm, and also provide advice on how to mitigate the effects of those changes. Interesting. On the one hand working in software the idea of having communicate changes to an algorithm like this to 3rd parties gives me nightmares, and opens the door to regulation of the algorithms design. On the other hand, given Facebook and Google's monopoly positions, why not? They're able to make of break businesses overnight by changing the stream of traffic, and there's basically no real competitors. Perhaps a weak analogy but if your local government was building a motorway that would bypass your town high street, effectively wiping out 90%+ of customers to your local shop, they would inform you months or years ahead so you have at least a chance to change your business strategy or close shop.

vermilingua 6y ago
> On the other hand... why not? You must be unfamiliar with NewsCorp. This is the cesspool that spawned Fox News, Sky News, and The Sun. That hacked the phones of journalists, celebrities, and royalty just to get a scoop. That routinely and as a core function of business interferes in democratic process. That effectively pioneered fake news, and has singlehandedly destroyed the credibility of the entire media industry. Why not? Hopefully because you give a single fuck about the rule of law.
- harryf 6y ago
  I'm well aware of NewsCorp, having grown up in the UK and seen them basically decide every election since perhaps Thatcher. Despite that, this particular point in the draft legislation in an interesting idea, at least to discuss. "Why Not?" was short for "Why not require Google and Facebook to inform affected businesses when they're making changes to their ranking algorithms?" ... that's a discussion that can be had independently from NewsCorp
  - JoshTriplett 6y ago
    Because the ranking algorithms are likely changed regularly, in opaque ways. Because many of the changes will be things like "reran the training algorithm on a new data set". Because it's a foot in the door to making them justify such changes. Because the purpose of a good search algorithm is to serve the people searching and not the people writing sites. Because it's an inherently adversarial process between search engines and bad "SEO". Because no good can possibly come from sites having more insight into how to affect their ranking, other than "make content people want". And those are just the reasons off the top of my head.
    - harryf 6y ago
      I agree with all the points you raise. But... These have are all fundamental assumptions anyone working on the web makes and we’re established as fundamental at the point Google beat out its competitors, in the early 2000’s At that time Google was a different company and didn’t have a monopoly, and the web was a different place. Now Google does have a monopoly and users browsing habits have narrowed to a few sites like Facebook and Reddit where they get “everything” content wise So perhaps it’s time to question those assumptions and ask if they’re really still true in today’s context, or whether other things matter more now?
- vxNsr 6y ago
  This whole comment is a red herring that turns into a straw man. No one was talking about News Corp, and most of what you said about them is false besides. And then you try to divert attention away from the real discussion by making it seem like the argument is about “the rule of law” which really comes out of left field, but is a great boogeyman to pull up if you wanna quiet dissent.
  - vermilingua 6y ago
    This whole thing is about NewsCorp, if you don’t see that, read more. If you think what I had to say is false, please refute it, if I’m wrong I want to know it. And evidently my ploy to quiet dissent didn’t work, as here you are. NewsCorp does genuinely violate the rule of law, a different set of standards apply to them and their conduct.
- dang 6y ago
  Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
indigochill 6y ago
> They're able to make of break businesses overnight by changing the stream of traffic Maybe small businesses wake up to the fact that building the core of their livelihood on the foundation of a whimsical megacorp is a Bad Idea. Google attracts businesses to work with them because they make visibility easy. But if they screw over those same businesses, then maybe the bait isn't worth taking in the first place? Maybe networking and building your customer base without Google, in some venue that you have better control over (or is at least more reliable/transparent) is preferable?
- vxNsr 6y ago
  This suggestion is interesting in that you seem earnest but you appear to be fundamentally misunderstanding how the internet works: Ppl use google to search for things, they use chrome to find things, they don’t like typing in addresses, they would much rather google give them the top result whatever that may be. You are suggesting that the news orgs change human behavior. Good luck with that.
- danielheath 6y ago
  Start from the idea that small business owners aren't actually idiots and don't spend their time promoting their business on social media because it's fun. Cost of customer acquisition isn't comparable without those platforms. Working harder and still not being price-competitive isn't preferable, even if it mitigates some future risk.
- chongli 6y ago
  If you don’t use Google to drive traffic and your competitor does, you lose. It doesn’t matter that your competitor gets screwed over by Google a few years down the road. You will already be gone. This is part of why capitalism is said to have boom/bust cycles. Stable equilibriums are less favourable than unstable ones. Taking advantage of every available opportunity is the only way to compete.
- underwater 6y ago
  What digital platform is open and neutral? Everything is either controlled by Google, Facebook or Apple, and optimised for engagement and their ability to earn revenue. Imagine if a company controlled not just the main street in your town, but also in every town in the world. The analogue would be to tell shopkeepers to build their own city and convince people to live their so they can run their shop.
harikb 6y ago
Lowering rank of a sleazy news organization that was previously gaming the ranking... is exactly what they should do if they are keeping the end user in mind. I buy that AMP is bad and they should share revenue. It is not entirely Google’s fault that their survival requires click-bait articles instead of having original content
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- TheMblabla 6y ago
  Does Google really steal revenue with AMP? Honest question, since I've read otherwise blog.amp.dev/2018/08/28/are-you-leaving-revenue-on-the-table-with-amp/

by harryf 6y ago

vermilingua 6y ago

> On the other hand... why not? You must be unfamiliar with NewsCorp. This is the cesspool that spawned Fox News, Sky News, and The Sun. That hacked the phones of journalists, celebrities, and royalty just to get a scoop. That routinely and as a core function of business interferes in democratic process. That effectively pioneered fake news, and has singlehandedly destroyed the credibility of the entire media industry. Why not? Hopefully because you give a single fuck about the rule of law.

harryf 6y ago
I'm well aware of NewsCorp, having grown up in the UK and seen them basically decide every election since perhaps Thatcher. Despite that, this particular point in the draft legislation in an interesting idea, at least to discuss. "Why Not?" was short for "Why not require Google and Facebook to inform affected businesses when they're making changes to their ranking algorithms?" ... that's a discussion that can be had independently from NewsCorp
- JoshTriplett 6y ago
  Because the ranking algorithms are likely changed regularly, in opaque ways. Because many of the changes will be things like "reran the training algorithm on a new data set". Because it's a foot in the door to making them justify such changes. Because the purpose of a good search algorithm is to serve the people searching and not the people writing sites. Because it's an inherently adversarial process between search engines and bad "SEO". Because no good can possibly come from sites having more insight into how to affect their ranking, other than "make content people want". And those are just the reasons off the top of my head.
  - harryf 6y ago
    I agree with all the points you raise. But... These have are all fundamental assumptions anyone working on the web makes and we’re established as fundamental at the point Google beat out its competitors, in the early 2000’s At that time Google was a different company and didn’t have a monopoly, and the web was a different place. Now Google does have a monopoly and users browsing habits have narrowed to a few sites like Facebook and Reddit where they get “everything” content wise So perhaps it’s time to question those assumptions and ask if they’re really still true in today’s context, or whether other things matter more now?
vxNsr 6y ago
This whole comment is a red herring that turns into a straw man. No one was talking about News Corp, and most of what you said about them is false besides. And then you try to divert attention away from the real discussion by making it seem like the argument is about “the rule of law” which really comes out of left field, but is a great boogeyman to pull up if you wanna quiet dissent.
- vermilingua 6y ago
  This whole thing is about NewsCorp, if you don’t see that, read more. If you think what I had to say is false, please refute it, if I’m wrong I want to know it. And evidently my ploy to quiet dissent didn’t work, as here you are. NewsCorp does genuinely violate the rule of law, a different set of standards apply to them and their conduct.
dang 6y ago
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

indigochill 6y ago

> They're able to make of break businesses overnight by changing the stream of traffic Maybe small businesses wake up to the fact that building the core of their livelihood on the foundation of a whimsical megacorp is a Bad Idea. Google attracts businesses to work with them because they make visibility easy. But if they screw over those same businesses, then maybe the bait isn't worth taking in the first place? Maybe networking and building your customer base without Google, in some venue that you have better control over (or is at least more reliable/transparent) is preferable?

vxNsr 6y ago
This suggestion is interesting in that you seem earnest but you appear to be fundamentally misunderstanding how the internet works: Ppl use google to search for things, they use chrome to find things, they don’t like typing in addresses, they would much rather google give them the top result whatever that may be. You are suggesting that the news orgs change human behavior. Good luck with that.
danielheath 6y ago
Start from the idea that small business owners aren't actually idiots and don't spend their time promoting their business on social media because it's fun. Cost of customer acquisition isn't comparable without those platforms. Working harder and still not being price-competitive isn't preferable, even if it mitigates some future risk.
chongli 6y ago
If you don’t use Google to drive traffic and your competitor does, you lose. It doesn’t matter that your competitor gets screwed over by Google a few years down the road. You will already be gone. This is part of why capitalism is said to have boom/bust cycles. Stable equilibriums are less favourable than unstable ones. Taking advantage of every available opportunity is the only way to compete.
underwater 6y ago
What digital platform is open and neutral? Everything is either controlled by Google, Facebook or Apple, and optimised for engagement and their ability to earn revenue. Imagine if a company controlled not just the main street in your town, but also in every town in the world. The analogue would be to tell shopkeepers to build their own city and convince people to live their so they can run their shop.

harikb 6y ago

Lowering rank of a sleazy news organization that was previously gaming the ranking... is exactly what they should do if they are keeping the end user in mind. I buy that AMP is bad and they should share revenue. It is not entirely Google’s fault that their survival requires click-bait articles instead of having original content

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
TheMblabla 6y ago
Does Google really steal revenue with AMP? Honest question, since I've read otherwise blog.amp.dev/2018/08/28/are-you-leaving-revenue-on-the-table-with-amp/