8 ms·

The spat between Google and Australia, as reported on HN

29 points by ColinWright 6y ago

TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
Is there any reason to believe Google would intentionally disable the default search on all Android phones in Australia?
- throwaway4good 6y ago
  No. Don't be crazy ...
- corty 6y ago
  Australia is small in terms of inhabitants, far smaller than France, the rest of the EU, BRICS and other relevant markets. The business impact of shutting down search for Australia will be relatively small. So Australia just volunteered to be Google's example for what will happen if you try to milk Google...
  - Mountain_Skies 6y ago
    On the other hand, if Australia doesn't back down and Google goes through with their threat, when life doesn't end in Australia it will be a signal to other countries that Google likes to bully that there are search alternatives. Though not a big market, Google cutting off Australia likely will do much more harm to Google than it does to Australia.
    - kypro 6y ago
      Another thing to add here is that the reason Russia and China have their own popular search engines is because they've been largely cut off from Western alternatives. If Australia is cut off this would encourage Australia to develop their own Google alterntaive which would probably be healthy for innovation and the tech sector in Australia. I guess they could always use DuckDuckGo or Bing, but as a European it would be great to see more Western countries developing their own alternatives to silicon valley tech. The fact Google thinks they can bully Australia like this is evidence that silicon valley has become too powerful and needs competetion.
      - ColinHayhurst 6y ago
        There's an extensive directory of search engines here: https://twitter.com/SearchEngineMap/lists https://twitter.com/SearchEngineMap/lists with several sublists of including search engine crawlers (6) and syndication search services (31)
    - easytiger 6y ago
      Any alternative service will have the same quandary
      - docdeek 6y ago
        Exactly. I think this gets missed in the ‘switch to Bing or DDG’ argument. If Google did leave and 90% of searches started being completed on Bing, Microsoft could be subject to the same regulation (subject to the Minister’s discretion). Stepping up to take over from Google in such a circumstance simply means taking on Google’s problem.
        anon98356 6y ago
        It also means potentially explosive market share growth. From Google's perspective it isn't that they can't pay, it's that they don't want to. A competitor product such as DDG or Bing suddenly looking at pretty big market with no Google competition would say, yep, I'll pay you x% or x cents per result, the overall growth in my market share will make it worth it.
        docdeek 6y ago
        Except that if the competitor (Bing, DDG) fell under the same regulation, they can’t offer to pay anything and avoid the regulation. The media organizations make their claim (likely enormous, because they are not adapting to the new reality of online news) and it goes to arbitration and they get TOLD what to pay. I’m pretty sure Google has offered to pay something to media organizations and to do deals with media organizations for their content - but they aren’t interested in an arbitration process that is going to stick them with a mùuch bigger bill, and they don’t want to change the business model they have where they index links and offer search results for free (well, for ad views…).
        anon98356 6y ago
        My understanding of the regulation is that it requires a good faith negotiation. Not Google/FB/DDG/Bing just paying what the media organisations demand. Google's posturing inherently indicates they aren't negotiating in good faith and are attempting to use their market power to pay less than what most would consider equitable (I have no figures at all or even ballpark so who knows what that actually is). Arbitration is just that, arbitration. It doesn't mean media organisations say we demand x and that's what the settlement is. Both sides present their case to the arbitrator who decides on the price. If you're in DDG/Bing's position, you put your cards on the table and take the extra revenue from having a massive boost to market share. It is highly unlikely an arbitrator would actually set the price at an unsustainable value. If it means the search engine is actively making a loss overall then of course they'll walk away. But for DDG/Bing, making a loss on news links may be worth it for the extra revenue in non news search. In reality it probably wouldn't even be a loss, just a much lower profit margin. Obviously Google is going to try and pay as little as possible, any business would. The difference is market share and power dynamics. Google believe they are in the position that if they can't get the price they want they can walk away. To the no. 2/3 player in the market it presents to a massive opportunity if google does walk away. According to the latest guardian article [1] on this, Google declared $134M in profit in Australia last year on $4.8B. That's a big incentive for player no 2/3 to pay some of that profit to the media organisations. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/22/google-threatens-to-shut-down-search-in-australia-if-digital-news-code-goes-ahead https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/22/google-threate... [edit] fixed spelling/grammar
  - thejosh 6y ago
    Australia is a pretty wealthy nation (not saying France etc isn't) and I would argue that this wouldn't happen given how much money they make here, the offices they have, GCP etc.
- jiggawatts 6y ago
  That would be insanely self-destructive for Google. Other similar countries such as New Zealand and Canada would start looking at the US-based Google and start to wonder if they should continue to be allowed to have such power over sovereign nations. More independent-minded nations such as France and Germany would almost certainly take preemptive action to protect themselves. Not to mention that Google is trying to "sell-sell-sell" GCP and Google Workspace to not just Australian businesses, but Australian Government. Every pending deal would be instantly cancelled and every existing customer would migrate off Google in a hurry. Google might lose billions of dollars of revenue to protect what? News? Nobody pays for that!
- fastrell 6y ago
  the system in France works well, Google pays, the others also, a certain margin for snippets, and a subvention to the press in general. they did not like it, but then accepted and it is good so. Australia want's to scream, and it's mostly political communication agains the bad big ones, no seriously working person can do today without google, it's just to perfect en efficient. for smll things you can use bing or yahoo, duck duck is bing also, so, very dumb australian position
jakub_jo 6y ago
A filtered view: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=last24h&page=0&prefix=true&query=Google%20Australia&sort=byPopularity&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=last24h&page=0&prefix=true...
- ColinWright 6y ago
  The point is that this isn't recent, it's been brewing for the better part of a year.
ColinWright 6y ago
There's a lot, and much of it dates back a month or more. This most recent shot fired by Google about withdrawing from Australia is just the latest in an argument that's been brewing. Nine months ago, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22917941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22917941 : Facebook, Google to be forced to share ad revenue with Australian media (theguardian.com) Five months ago, https://news..com/item?id=24004754 https://news..com/item?id=24004754: Australia to make Google and Facebook pay for news content (apnews.com) Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24005109 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24005109 : All news or no news for Google, Facebook under new code in Australia (mumbrella.com.au) Google published an Open Letter, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24182494 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24182494 : Google: Open Letter to Australians (about.google) Then 44 days ago, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25349265 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25349265 : Google and Facebook set for showdown with Australian publishers (abc.net.au) Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25355136 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25355136 : Australia: Facebook, Google forced to pay for news content under new media laws (sbs.com.au) Then 33 days ago, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25472707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25472707 : Google tells Australian Government it is considering withdrawing “completely” (theage.com.au) Nine days ago, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25759014 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25759014 : Google blocks Australian news in 'experiment' (afr.com) Then 7 days ago, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25775985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25775985 : Australia calls out Google for “experiment” blocking some news sites (trust.org)
- chrismorgan 6y ago
  Also very relevant, ACCC’s response to Google’s open letter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24185374 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24185374 (They basically said, “Google is engaging in a FUD campaign here, making various claims about the effects of the legislation, some of which are probably not true and some of which are flat-out lies”, only they said it slightly more politely—but only slightly, definitely more bluntly than is commonly the case in such things. I read much of the draft legislation and found that it exactly matched ACCC’s position expressed in that response, though small parts of Google’s position on the purpose of the legislation and what it may lead to were also reasonable.)
LatteLazy 6y ago
I'd think long and hard before I willingly supported News Corp too...
ignoramous 6y ago
Frozen view: https://archive.is/0PIDt https://archive.is/0PIDt
davros 6y ago
“The principle of unrestricted linking between websites is fundamental to search and coupled with the unmanageable financial and operational risk if this version of the code were to become law, it would give us no real choice but to stop making Google Search available in Australia,” That's a big threat, but pretty risky if their bluff is called because I think that might reveal that other companies could fill the search need if google vacates the space. edit: quote source https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/22/google-threatens-to-shut-down-search-in-australia-if-digital-news-code-goes-ahead https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/22/google-threate...
- callesgg 6y ago
  Do you think it is a bluff?? A free search engine operating under that law would have to have to be filled with allot more ads to recuperate the costs of showing links. Seams easier to just stop indexing Australian websites.
  - squiggleblaz 6y ago
    It's not a question of indexing Australian websites - be clear about this. In Australia, they cannot provide a search facility that shows news - whether domestic or international - if they don't sign up to the code. So they cannot provide results from the NYT or Deutsche Welle in their search results that are accessible from Australia.
    - callesgg 6y ago
      Why would a news paper in the us be classified as a newspaper in au?
- RileyJames 6y ago
  We’re in the midst of a mass exodus from whatsapp to signal. If google pulled out the same would occur. This is a battle between monopolistic titans (google and news Corp). If google pulls out and news corp misses out on this new revenue source, I feel thats the best of both worlds. We need fresh competition in search and news.
ColinWright 6y ago
As I see it, part of the problem is that Google no longer simply provides links to the content, it also provides substantial excerpts. Based on my own infrequent use of Google (I use DDG by default) I'd guess that frequently people do the search, read the summary, and then never click through to the source. Perhaps if the summaries were significantly shorter people would click through to the source, and then the source would get more traffic, hence more ad-revenue (or whatever). So the problem, perhaps, isn't that Google is linking, it's that they are effectively copying, plagiarising[0], the original works. [0] Added in edit: squiggleblaz[1] correctly notes[2] that it's not plagiarism, since Google is not passing off the words as their own. It's more accurately a form of fraud, or perhaps copyright infringement. Copyright laws allow for short snippets to be quoted as "fair use" (or similar) and so far the quoting by Google has been regarded as legitimate. Perhaps that needs to change. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=squiggleblaz https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=squiggleblaz [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25870909 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25870909
- abraae 6y ago
  Seems like a lose lose situation for Google to me. If the Aussies call their bluff, then 90% of the population will switch to Bing/ddg and will be fine. More discerning Aussie searchers - like people googling for why their spring boot app won't work behind an nginx proxy - will just use a vpn to get to Google US - and they'll be fine too. Google's dam will be broken open and the emperor's clothes will be left a little raggedy. There's more at stake here for Google than Australia, and Aussies play hard and ruthless at the best of times (can confirm, am kiwi).
  - toshk 6y ago
    What if they take it further and also pull other google products like gmail, chrome, maps? That would cause some serious trouble.
    - ulucs 6y ago
      That would likely be an antitrust suit waiting to happen
Dryondristica 6y ago
There is an entire, well-established SEO industry worth billions trying to get Google to index your content and feature it. News publishers are literally incentivising Google to do the opposite. It makes no sense. I really hope Google continues to call their bluff - they would be completely dead if not for Google traffic, and they surely know it.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  How can that be a good thing? Why is google worth being paid for providing content they paid $0 to make? SEO is not a good industry, it's the equivalent of government lobbying , but this time with a different overlord. The problem with google is not that it's a search engine, but that it has bought and guards every significant entry point to the web
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  Paying journalists to write stories, only to have Google "index" that content in such a way that your readers don't feel the need to visit your site and see your ads, is not a workable business model. But (as you say), not letting Google index your stories at all reduces your traffic to the point where you can't make enough money to pay the journalist either. It's a very tough call for the newspaper industry. The only way out that I can see is getting readers to pay for news. Unfortunately we've educated an entire generation that news is free. Going back from that is going to be difficult.
  - squiggleblaz 6y ago
    I guess the American multinational corporations could have negotiated between themselves to simplify what is shown. Instead of showing the headline and a snippet, it could have shown simply "Herald Sun, political report, 25/07/2020" or "The Age, opinion, 13/01/2021".
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- squiggleblaz 6y ago
strangeattractr 6y ago
It's funny the way this is often framed outside of Australia as a government fighting back against monopolistic tech giants. This proposal is the result of lobbying by shrinking old media monopolies whose only option for increasing revenue is to take it from other sectors. The most likely outcome is that Google will not withdraw from Australia but merely blacklist Australian media domains from search results. Google won't pull out of Australia because it earns substantial income (for an Australian business) and pays very little tax here.
- squiggleblaz 6y ago
  > The most likely outcome is that Google will not withdraw from Australia but merely blacklist Australian media domains from search results. That is not an option presently on the table. They can either withdraw Google Search from all news (hard, but maybe possible), or they can withdraw all of Google Search (easy), or they can participate (at the cost of their IP). Note that "all news" does not mean "a few large news companies operating in Australia" or even "every news company operating in Australia", it means "all news", including CCTV, DW, NYT etc.
geogra4 6y ago
Dare Australia actually ban Google? Does bing have any sort of agreement like they're seeking with google?
carlsborg 6y ago
Can someone quote the actual rule that Australia is proposing? Does it affect all links? Would HN be affected?
- carlsborg 6y ago
  "Platforms covered ...the Treasurer makes a determination specifying that the code would apply to them. The Government has announced that the code would initially apply only to Facebook and Google. Other digital platforms may be added to the code if they hold a significant bargaining power imbalance with Australian news media businesses in the future." from here https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/draft-news-media-bargaining-code https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/draft-...
jfoster 6y ago
I haven't been following this too closely, so I'm hoping someone could bring me up to speed a little bit. Do Google actually need to pull all of search in order to avoid paying news sources? Why wouldn't it be enough to remove Google News in Australia & deindex news websites? Also, as I understand it, in order to comply with the regulation Google would need to negotiate a price with news sources. Couldn't they just reach agreement with just some news sources and deindex the others?
- docdeek 6y ago
  There’s a bit more to it than that. In previous iterations of this fight in other countries Google either has to pay the local media organisations to link to their sites, or they might choose not to link to them, close Google News Australia, and pay no one. The twist in Oz is that the government has stipulated that if Google doesn’t link to local media, then it cannot link to international media offering news, either. The choice given to Google is either you link news and pay Aussie firms, or you offer zero news at all. This prevents Google from simply delisting local media and offering up alternative US, UK, Canadian, NZer sites that would - sensing new eyeballs - likely step up and cover Aussie news. In addition, Google has to give the media companies 14 days advance warning of any change to their search algorithm that might impact the media organizations. In reality, that probably means giving this subset of corporations in Australia a heads-up on every algorithm change. Hence, Google’s choice is less about 'list Aussie news and pay' or 'list no Aussie news’, it’s ‘list Aussie news and pay and share your search algorithm changes in advance of any change’ or ‘don’t offer search in Australia’. Facebook (also concerned by the changes) has already said/threatened to stop sharing of news articles in Australia to align with the regulation. If Google also pulled back, I’m not sure the media companies would be so very happy.
  - jfoster 6y ago
    It still seems to me that there might be other options. What if Google News picked a small set of the more cooperative Australian publishers to work with? In order to handle the algorithm side of things, what if they deindex news in the primary Google search and notified of changes in just the Google News algorithms? Do the regulations not allow these solutions in some way, or is this being dramatised? I don't mean to favour the regulations in any way. I'm just a bit skeptical of "shut down search altogether" being something Google would seriously consider in response to this threat.

29 points by ColinWright 6y ago

Is there any reason to believe Google would intentionally disable the default search on all Android phones in Australia?

throwaway4good 6y ago
No. Don't be crazy ...
corty 6y ago
Australia is small in terms of inhabitants, far smaller than France, the rest of the EU, BRICS and other relevant markets. The business impact of shutting down search for Australia will be relatively small. So Australia just volunteered to be Google's example for what will happen if you try to milk Google...
- Mountain_Skies 6y ago
  On the other hand, if Australia doesn't back down and Google goes through with their threat, when life doesn't end in Australia it will be a signal to other countries that Google likes to bully that there are search alternatives. Though not a big market, Google cutting off Australia likely will do much more harm to Google than it does to Australia.
  - kypro 6y ago
    Another thing to add here is that the reason Russia and China have their own popular search engines is because they've been largely cut off from Western alternatives. If Australia is cut off this would encourage Australia to develop their own Google alterntaive which would probably be healthy for innovation and the tech sector in Australia. I guess they could always use DuckDuckGo or Bing, but as a European it would be great to see more Western countries developing their own alternatives to silicon valley tech. The fact Google thinks they can bully Australia like this is evidence that silicon valley has become too powerful and needs competetion.
    - ColinHayhurst 6y ago
      There's an extensive directory of search engines here: https://twitter.com/SearchEngineMap/lists https://twitter.com/SearchEngineMap/lists with several sublists of including search engine crawlers (6) and syndication search services (31)
  - easytiger 6y ago
    Any alternative service will have the same quandary
    - docdeek 6y ago
      Exactly. I think this gets missed in the ‘switch to Bing or DDG’ argument. If Google did leave and 90% of searches started being completed on Bing, Microsoft could be subject to the same regulation (subject to the Minister’s discretion). Stepping up to take over from Google in such a circumstance simply means taking on Google’s problem.
      - anon98356 6y ago
        It also means potentially explosive market share growth. From Google's perspective it isn't that they can't pay, it's that they don't want to. A competitor product such as DDG or Bing suddenly looking at pretty big market with no Google competition would say, yep, I'll pay you x% or x cents per result, the overall growth in my market share will make it worth it.
        docdeek 6y ago
        Except that if the competitor (Bing, DDG) fell under the same regulation, they can’t offer to pay anything and avoid the regulation. The media organizations make their claim (likely enormous, because they are not adapting to the new reality of online news) and it goes to arbitration and they get TOLD what to pay. I’m pretty sure Google has offered to pay something to media organizations and to do deals with media organizations for their content - but they aren’t interested in an arbitration process that is going to stick them with a mùuch bigger bill, and they don’t want to change the business model they have where they index links and offer search results for free (well, for ad views…).
        anon98356 6y ago
        My understanding of the regulation is that it requires a good faith negotiation. Not Google/FB/DDG/Bing just paying what the media organisations demand. Google's posturing inherently indicates they aren't negotiating in good faith and are attempting to use their market power to pay less than what most would consider equitable (I have no figures at all or even ballpark so who knows what that actually is). Arbitration is just that, arbitration. It doesn't mean media organisations say we demand x and that's what the settlement is. Both sides present their case to the arbitrator who decides on the price. If you're in DDG/Bing's position, you put your cards on the table and take the extra revenue from having a massive boost to market share. It is highly unlikely an arbitrator would actually set the price at an unsustainable value. If it means the search engine is actively making a loss overall then of course they'll walk away. But for DDG/Bing, making a loss on news links may be worth it for the extra revenue in non news search. In reality it probably wouldn't even be a loss, just a much lower profit margin. Obviously Google is going to try and pay as little as possible, any business would. The difference is market share and power dynamics. Google believe they are in the position that if they can't get the price they want they can walk away. To the no. 2/3 player in the market it presents to a massive opportunity if google does walk away. According to the latest guardian article [1] on this, Google declared $134M in profit in Australia last year on $4.8B. That's a big incentive for player no 2/3 to pay some of that profit to the media organisations. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/22/google-threatens-to-shut-down-search-in-australia-if-digital-news-code-goes-ahead https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/22/google-threate... [edit] fixed spelling/grammar
- thejosh 6y ago
  Australia is a pretty wealthy nation (not saying France etc isn't) and I would argue that this wouldn't happen given how much money they make here, the offices they have, GCP etc.
jiggawatts 6y ago
That would be insanely self-destructive for Google. Other similar countries such as New Zealand and Canada would start looking at the US-based Google and start to wonder if they should continue to be allowed to have such power over sovereign nations. More independent-minded nations such as France and Germany would almost certainly take preemptive action to protect themselves. Not to mention that Google is trying to "sell-sell-sell" GCP and Google Workspace to not just Australian businesses, but Australian Government. Every pending deal would be instantly cancelled and every existing customer would migrate off Google in a hurry. Google might lose billions of dollars of revenue to protect what? News? Nobody pays for that!
fastrell 6y ago
the system in France works well, Google pays, the others also, a certain margin for snippets, and a subvention to the press in general. they did not like it, but then accepted and it is good so. Australia want's to scream, and it's mostly political communication agains the bad big ones, no seriously working person can do today without google, it's just to perfect en efficient. for smll things you can use bing or yahoo, duck duck is bing also, so, very dumb australian position

jakub_jo 6y ago

A filtered view: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=last24h&page=0&prefix=true&query=Google%20Australia&sort=byPopularity&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=last24h&page=0&prefix=true...

ColinWright 6y ago
The point is that this isn't recent, it's been brewing for the better part of a year.

ColinWright 6y ago

There's a lot, and much of it dates back a month or more. This most recent shot fired by Google about withdrawing from Australia is just the latest in an argument that's been brewing. Nine months ago, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22917941 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22917941 : Facebook, Google to be forced to share ad revenue with Australian media (theguardian.com) Five months ago, https://news..com/item?id=24004754 https://news..com/item?id=24004754: Australia to make Google and Facebook pay for news content (apnews.com) Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24005109 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24005109 : All news or no news for Google, Facebook under new code in Australia (mumbrella.com.au) Google published an Open Letter, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24182494 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24182494 : Google: Open Letter to Australians (about.google) Then 44 days ago, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25349265 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25349265 : Google and Facebook set for showdown with Australian publishers (abc.net.au) Also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25355136 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25355136 : Australia: Facebook, Google forced to pay for news content under new media laws (sbs.com.au) Then 33 days ago, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25472707 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25472707 : Google tells Australian Government it is considering withdrawing “completely” (theage.com.au) Nine days ago, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25759014 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25759014 : Google blocks Australian news in 'experiment' (afr.com) Then 7 days ago, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25775985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25775985 : Australia calls out Google for “experiment” blocking some news sites (trust.org)

chrismorgan 6y ago
Also very relevant, ACCC’s response to Google’s open letter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24185374 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24185374 (They basically said, “Google is engaging in a FUD campaign here, making various claims about the effects of the legislation, some of which are probably not true and some of which are flat-out lies”, only they said it slightly more politely—but only slightly, definitely more bluntly than is commonly the case in such things. I read much of the draft legislation and found that it exactly matched ACCC’s position expressed in that response, though small parts of Google’s position on the purpose of the legislation and what it may lead to were also reasonable.)

LatteLazy 6y ago

I'd think long and hard before I willingly supported News Corp too...

ignoramous 6y ago

Frozen view: https://archive.is/0PIDt https://archive.is/0PIDt

davros 6y ago

“The principle of unrestricted linking between websites is fundamental to search and coupled with the unmanageable financial and operational risk if this version of the code were to become law, it would give us no real choice but to stop making Google Search available in Australia,” That's a big threat, but pretty risky if their bluff is called because I think that might reveal that other companies could fill the search need if google vacates the space. edit: quote source https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/22/google-threatens-to-shut-down-search-in-australia-if-digital-news-code-goes-ahead https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/22/google-threate...

callesgg 6y ago
Do you think it is a bluff?? A free search engine operating under that law would have to have to be filled with allot more ads to recuperate the costs of showing links. Seams easier to just stop indexing Australian websites.
- squiggleblaz 6y ago
  It's not a question of indexing Australian websites - be clear about this. In Australia, they cannot provide a search facility that shows news - whether domestic or international - if they don't sign up to the code. So they cannot provide results from the NYT or Deutsche Welle in their search results that are accessible from Australia.
  - callesgg 6y ago
    Why would a news paper in the us be classified as a newspaper in au?
RileyJames 6y ago
We’re in the midst of a mass exodus from whatsapp to signal. If google pulled out the same would occur. This is a battle between monopolistic titans (google and news Corp). If google pulls out and news corp misses out on this new revenue source, I feel thats the best of both worlds. We need fresh competition in search and news.

ColinWright 6y ago

As I see it, part of the problem is that Google no longer simply provides links to the content, it also provides substantial excerpts. Based on my own infrequent use of Google (I use DDG by default) I'd guess that frequently people do the search, read the summary, and then never click through to the source. Perhaps if the summaries were significantly shorter people would click through to the source, and then the source would get more traffic, hence more ad-revenue (or whatever). So the problem, perhaps, isn't that Google is linking, it's that they are effectively copying, plagiarising[0], the original works. [0] Added in edit: squiggleblaz[1] correctly notes[2] that it's not plagiarism, since Google is not passing off the words as their own. It's more accurately a form of fraud, or perhaps copyright infringement. Copyright laws allow for short snippets to be quoted as "fair use" (or similar) and so far the quoting by Google has been regarded as legitimate. Perhaps that needs to change. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=squiggleblaz https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=squiggleblaz [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25870909 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25870909

abraae 6y ago
Seems like a lose lose situation for Google to me. If the Aussies call their bluff, then 90% of the population will switch to Bing/ddg and will be fine. More discerning Aussie searchers - like people googling for why their spring boot app won't work behind an nginx proxy - will just use a vpn to get to Google US - and they'll be fine too. Google's dam will be broken open and the emperor's clothes will be left a little raggedy. There's more at stake here for Google than Australia, and Aussies play hard and ruthless at the best of times (can confirm, am kiwi).
- toshk 6y ago
  What if they take it further and also pull other google products like gmail, chrome, maps? That would cause some serious trouble.
  - ulucs 6y ago
    That would likely be an antitrust suit waiting to happen

Dryondristica 6y ago

There is an entire, well-established SEO industry worth billions trying to get Google to index your content and feature it. News publishers are literally incentivising Google to do the opposite. It makes no sense. I really hope Google continues to call their bluff - they would be completely dead if not for Google traffic, and they surely know it.

cblconfederate 6y ago
How can that be a good thing? Why is google worth being paid for providing content they paid $0 to make? SEO is not a good industry, it's the equivalent of government lobbying , but this time with a different overlord. The problem with google is not that it's a search engine, but that it has bought and guards every significant entry point to the web
marcus_holmes 6y ago
Paying journalists to write stories, only to have Google "index" that content in such a way that your readers don't feel the need to visit your site and see your ads, is not a workable business model. But (as you say), not letting Google index your stories at all reduces your traffic to the point where you can't make enough money to pay the journalist either. It's a very tough call for the newspaper industry. The only way out that I can see is getting readers to pay for news. Unfortunately we've educated an entire generation that news is free. Going back from that is going to be difficult.
- squiggleblaz 6y ago
  I guess the American multinational corporations could have negotiated between themselves to simplify what is shown. Instead of showing the headline and a snippet, it could have shown simply "Herald Sun, political report, 25/07/2020" or "The Age, opinion, 13/01/2021".
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
squiggleblaz 6y ago

strangeattractr 6y ago

It's funny the way this is often framed outside of Australia as a government fighting back against monopolistic tech giants. This proposal is the result of lobbying by shrinking old media monopolies whose only option for increasing revenue is to take it from other sectors. The most likely outcome is that Google will not withdraw from Australia but merely blacklist Australian media domains from search results. Google won't pull out of Australia because it earns substantial income (for an Australian business) and pays very little tax here.

squiggleblaz 6y ago
> The most likely outcome is that Google will not withdraw from Australia but merely blacklist Australian media domains from search results. That is not an option presently on the table. They can either withdraw Google Search from all news (hard, but maybe possible), or they can withdraw all of Google Search (easy), or they can participate (at the cost of their IP). Note that "all news" does not mean "a few large news companies operating in Australia" or even "every news company operating in Australia", it means "all news", including CCTV, DW, NYT etc.

geogra4 6y ago

Dare Australia actually ban Google? Does bing have any sort of agreement like they're seeking with google?

carlsborg 6y ago

Can someone quote the actual rule that Australia is proposing? Does it affect all links? Would HN be affected?

carlsborg 6y ago
"Platforms covered ...the Treasurer makes a determination specifying that the code would apply to them. The Government has announced that the code would initially apply only to Facebook and Google. Other digital platforms may be added to the code if they hold a significant bargaining power imbalance with Australian news media businesses in the future." from here https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/draft-news-media-bargaining-code https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/digital-platforms/draft-...

jfoster 6y ago

I haven't been following this too closely, so I'm hoping someone could bring me up to speed a little bit. Do Google actually need to pull all of search in order to avoid paying news sources? Why wouldn't it be enough to remove Google News in Australia & deindex news websites? Also, as I understand it, in order to comply with the regulation Google would need to negotiate a price with news sources. Couldn't they just reach agreement with just some news sources and deindex the others?

docdeek 6y ago
There’s a bit more to it than that. In previous iterations of this fight in other countries Google either has to pay the local media organisations to link to their sites, or they might choose not to link to them, close Google News Australia, and pay no one. The twist in Oz is that the government has stipulated that if Google doesn’t link to local media, then it cannot link to international media offering news, either. The choice given to Google is either you link news and pay Aussie firms, or you offer zero news at all. This prevents Google from simply delisting local media and offering up alternative US, UK, Canadian, NZer sites that would - sensing new eyeballs - likely step up and cover Aussie news. In addition, Google has to give the media companies 14 days advance warning of any change to their search algorithm that might impact the media organizations. In reality, that probably means giving this subset of corporations in Australia a heads-up on every algorithm change. Hence, Google’s choice is less about 'list Aussie news and pay' or 'list no Aussie news’, it’s ‘list Aussie news and pay and share your search algorithm changes in advance of any change’ or ‘don’t offer search in Australia’. Facebook (also concerned by the changes) has already said/threatened to stop sharing of news articles in Australia to align with the regulation. If Google also pulled back, I’m not sure the media companies would be so very happy.
- jfoster 6y ago
  It still seems to me that there might be other options. What if Google News picked a small set of the more cooperative Australian publishers to work with? In order to handle the algorithm side of things, what if they deindex news in the primary Google search and notified of changes in just the Google News algorithms? Do the regulations not allow these solutions in some way, or is this being dramatised? I don't mean to favour the regulations in any way. I'm just a bit skeptical of "shut down search altogether" being something Google would seriously consider in response to this threat.