3 ms·

This law applies to them too. It could essentially create. blackhole of search (at least as it applies to the news sites).

by r00fus 6y ago

Barrin92 6y ago
I don't think Google opposes the law itself in good faith, because it basically just demands that Google negotiate with media entities for a price-sharing agreement when it comes to showing their content. The Australian search market is obviously still a billion dollar business, the law is not literally 'unworkable' and Google probably knows this. What else is Content ID on Youtube? Third party revenue sharing agreements for content already exist on Google's own platforms. What Google is afraid of is the precedent it sets for other countries to do the same and eat into their search revenue because it would dispel the myth that tech companies cannot be regulated, that's the real danger here.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
  > it basically just demands that Google negotiate with media entities for a price-sharing agreement This is not an accurate summary of the law's effects. Yes, that's part of what it says. But if they can't come to an agreement, Australia gets to set the price sharing amount. And declining to link to news content isn't allowed, so if it costs Google more than the news is worth, well then it's effectively just a tax that applies to only a single company. This is like if I, the mayor, said, you must negotiate with this man to rent some rooms of your house. If he doesn't like the price you give, I'll decide what it is. No, you can't choose not to rent rooms to him.
  - r00fus 6y ago
    The inability to decline linking would be truly draconian. Which part of the law states that? (edit:clarity)
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
      Maybe I was looking at an older version of the law. The version posted at the top only requires non-differentiation -- that Google cannot decline to index a business because it requires payment. So Google would have to stop indexing news in Australia altogether, but then could avoid payment. That being said, I have seen reporting before that suggests that delisting news, even all news, would not be sufficient to avoid paying under the law.

This law applies to them too. It could essentially create. blackhole of search (at least as it applies to the news sites).

by r00fus 6y ago

This law applies to them too. It could essentially create. blackhole of search (at least as it applies to the news sites).

Barrin92 6y ago

I don't think Google opposes the law itself in good faith, because it basically just demands that Google negotiate with media entities for a price-sharing agreement when it comes to showing their content. The Australian search market is obviously still a billion dollar business, the law is not literally 'unworkable' and Google probably knows this. What else is Content ID on Youtube? Third party revenue sharing agreements for content already exist on Google's own platforms. What Google is afraid of is the precedent it sets for other countries to do the same and eat into their search revenue because it would dispel the myth that tech companies cannot be regulated, that's the real danger here.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
> it basically just demands that Google negotiate with media entities for a price-sharing agreement This is not an accurate summary of the law's effects. Yes, that's part of what it says. But if they can't come to an agreement, Australia gets to set the price sharing amount. And declining to link to news content isn't allowed, so if it costs Google more than the news is worth, well then it's effectively just a tax that applies to only a single company. This is like if I, the mayor, said, you must negotiate with this man to rent some rooms of your house. If he doesn't like the price you give, I'll decide what it is. No, you can't choose not to rent rooms to him.
- r00fus 6y ago
  The inability to decline linking would be truly draconian. Which part of the law states that? (edit:clarity)
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
    Maybe I was looking at an older version of the law. The version posted at the top only requires non-differentiation -- that Google cannot decline to index a business because it requires payment. So Google would have to stop indexing news in Australia altogether, but then could avoid payment. That being said, I have seen reporting before that suggests that delisting news, even all news, would not be sufficient to avoid paying under the law.