4 ms·

I am not clear on what you're talking about when you discuss "paying Google's costs." It doesn't "cost" Google anything to link to a news article. And it doesn'

I am not clear on what you're talking about when you discuss "paying Google's costs." It doesn't "cost" Google anything to link to a news article. And it doesn't "cost" a news media company anything to be linked to. "Everyone" is not paying Google's costs in any of the scenarios we're discussing.

clouddrover 6y ago
Google profits from the content. Google must pay for it. We're not talking about just linking to articles. We are talking about people's news reading being entirely mediated through Google. It's disappointing that you've failed to understand the issues. Read more: https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/australian-news-media-to-negotiate-payment-with-major-digital-platforms https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/australian-news-media-...
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  If Google removes all news links from their services (assuming that would allow them to avoid this tax), and remains profitable in Aus, please remember to update your beliefs on this subject. I will do the same if Google's removal of news links causes a material decline in profitability or allows for the creation of a profitable upstart that deals with the Aus news media on these terms.
  - clouddrover 6y ago
    You're still not getting it. It's not about if Google is profitable or not. That's beside the point. There's not much I can do for you anymore. It's up to you now.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      In the comment I was replying to, your first sentence was "Google profits from the content." How then is it not about whether Google is profitable or not? I am contradicting your assertion that Google profits materially from this content. If Google removes the content and remains profitable, that strikes directly at your claim that Google profits from the content. It's not beside the point. It is exactly responsive to what you wrote. Maybe that is not the point you were trying to make, but IMO that is an issue with what wrote, not my understanding of it. The language you used was about profits, plain as day.
      - clouddrover 6y ago
        > In the comment I was replying to, your first sentence was "Google profits from the content." Which is not the same as "Google is profitable." Good grief. This is about making sure journalism survives. Google bleeding it dry doesn't help it survive.
    - bryan_w 6y ago
      Thank goodness you've given up because your points were so incoherent that it was borderline spam.
      - clouddrover 6y ago
        It seems incoherent to you because you haven't understood the issue. You haven't understood the issue because you're only listening to what Google tells you. Google wants you to have that narrow perspective because it makes you exploitable and that's good for Google's business.
        bryan_w 6y ago
        Google is making sense here. The evils they are fighting against helps doubleclick. See Google plus (G+) it can drop and abandon things. Big. What do you think?
        clouddrover 6y ago
        I think you haven't understood what the ACCC is doing and why it is doing it. It's not a mystery. They are very clear about it: https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/australian-news-media-to-negotiate-payment-with-major-digital-platforms https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/australian-news-media-...
        bryan_w 6y ago
        Btw, the above was an attempt at a GPT3 trap. I could tell by the sentence structure that the person I was replying to didn't seem normal
        clouddrover 6y ago
        Attempt failed.

clouddrover 6y ago

Google profits from the content. Google must pay for it. We're not talking about just linking to articles. We are talking about people's news reading being entirely mediated through Google. It's disappointing that you've failed to understand the issues. Read more: https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/australian-news-media-to-negotiate-payment-with-major-digital-platforms https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/australian-news-media-...

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
If Google removes all news links from their services (assuming that would allow them to avoid this tax), and remains profitable in Aus, please remember to update your beliefs on this subject. I will do the same if Google's removal of news links causes a material decline in profitability or allows for the creation of a profitable upstart that deals with the Aus news media on these terms.
- clouddrover 6y ago
  You're still not getting it. It's not about if Google is profitable or not. That's beside the point. There's not much I can do for you anymore. It's up to you now.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    In the comment I was replying to, your first sentence was "Google profits from the content." How then is it not about whether Google is profitable or not? I am contradicting your assertion that Google profits materially from this content. If Google removes the content and remains profitable, that strikes directly at your claim that Google profits from the content. It's not beside the point. It is exactly responsive to what you wrote. Maybe that is not the point you were trying to make, but IMO that is an issue with what wrote, not my understanding of it. The language you used was about profits, plain as day.
    - clouddrover 6y ago
      > In the comment I was replying to, your first sentence was "Google profits from the content." Which is not the same as "Google is profitable." Good grief. This is about making sure journalism survives. Google bleeding it dry doesn't help it survive.
  - bryan_w 6y ago
    Thank goodness you've given up because your points were so incoherent that it was borderline spam.
    - clouddrover 6y ago
      It seems incoherent to you because you haven't understood the issue. You haven't understood the issue because you're only listening to what Google tells you. Google wants you to have that narrow perspective because it makes you exploitable and that's good for Google's business.
      - bryan_w 6y ago
        Google is making sense here. The evils they are fighting against helps doubleclick. See Google plus (G+) it can drop and abandon things. Big. What do you think?
        clouddrover 6y ago
        I think you haven't understood what the ACCC is doing and why it is doing it. It's not a mystery. They are very clear about it: https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/australian-news-media-to-negotiate-payment-with-major-digital-platforms https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/australian-news-media-...
        bryan_w 6y ago
        Btw, the above was an attempt at a GPT3 trap. I could tell by the sentence structure that the person I was replying to didn't seem normal
        clouddrover 6y ago
        Attempt failed.