13 ms·

Australia’s PM suggests Bing adequate if Google blocks searches

108 points by lazycrazyowl 6y ago

shash7 6y ago
This is going to be a tough one. On one hand I absolutely hate how google is trying to strongarm this deal through their various properties. On the other hand, google pulling out of Australia will definitely impact a lot of businesses badly.
- nness 6y ago
  Its more of a case of Australia trying to strong-arm Google and Facebook to protect their News Corp interests (but I imagine that this is all a matter of perspective).
  - Bakary 6y ago
    Google and Facebook are so powerful that it makes sense to err on the side of anything that could decrease their reach.
- graeme 6y ago
  If the australian law applied to the web broadly, hacker news would have to pay for all the links. In reality, being linked to on the web is extremely valuable. Google has had to ban the practices of sites paying to be linked to. The Australian law completely gets the value chain backwards, forcing tech companies to pay for a specific subset of links, and not allowing them to decline to link either.
oilbagz 6y ago
As can be seen throughout its history, reflected in the nature of its seriously heinous press and Australians' love of outright propaganda over truth, Australians have never prioritized the development of a free and open society - so this should come as no surprise. The only hope is that there are a generation of Australians who still understand why a free press and a free market are essential to open society - and that they will rise to the challenge of building a really viable, open Australian society. However, given the predilection for shiny things and smashed avocado's, we might have to wait a generation or two, to see these heroes arise. Lets hope these future Australians' don't have to suffer the same fate as the Taiwanese or the Uigyurs in the quest for freedom ...
- BLKNSLVR 6y ago
  Australians' lives are too cushy for most of them to care a whit about political news nevermind any attempt at reading between the lines or applying reason and logic to why a politician or party may be leaning in a particular direction. Tax cuts = political victory Border protection = political victory Increased surveillance (wrapped up in "anti terrorism" labels) = political victory Australia's political situation is going to get a fair bit worse before it gets better. This Google / Facebook thing is the Government shilling for News Corp, but you just don't hear that angle anywhere near as much as you hear "Google threatens to..." It's all obvious, given the existing power structures, but it's disappointing that Australian politicians are acting so predictably grubbily. Google need to be taken to task for tax avoidance, but that's a big, complicated issue that might take long enough that the next Government gets the credit so, you know, let's half-arse something this term and see if that gets us some free love.
- robin21 6y ago
  > Australians have never prioritized the development of a free and open society I think they are in a better state compared to the US and most of the world. Do you have examples of countries that are better are being free and open than Australia? The key to being free and open is not putting up with corruption, not having too much of an ideological divide, and good investigative journalism that people care about.
  - BLKNSLVR 6y ago
    See section entitled "Witness K Trial"[0] [0]:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Collaery https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Collaery
    - oilbagz 6y ago
      See also East Timor, and Australia's secret CIA-run torture camps. EDIT: downvote all you want, but Australia's totalitarian bent is very clear in these incidents.
    - danmur 6y ago
myle 6y ago
Is Bing going to be forced to operate under the same constrains as Google?
- meibo 6y ago
  No, at the moment, the law explicitly only mentions "Google" and "Facebook". That should tell you a lot about the people that lobbied/wrote it.
  - adtac 6y ago
    wtf I've never seen a law mention corporations specifically
    - Tehdasi 6y ago
      In one of the states of Australia, there is a law that mentions someone by name: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/bill/cab2014300/ http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/bill/cab2014300/ Was done as a stopgap just to make sure that it was impossible for him to leave jail.
    - DaedPsyker 6y ago
      Private bills have existed for for quite a while. You have to understand that most places that inherited common law also inherited ‘parliament’s sovereignty’, the legal notion that no bill or law can constrain the power of parliament. Now that has been curtailed in quite a few places but the notion still fully exists (I believe it was used recently by the UK Supreme Court to force the government to give parliament a vote). Australia is such a place. Even the US system had it to a degree. Originally the bill of rights only applied to the federal government, later Supreme Court rulings extended it to state law.
  - rafaelturk 6y ago
    Can you share more details? Source? This kind of wording is alone unconstitutional in many countries.
lordnacho 6y ago
How does this new law work? If Google doesn't want to pay media for content, couldn't they just not have newspaper links in their search results? Why would they have to pull out of all the other things that people search for?
- nailer 6y ago
  Excellent question, particularly because the aricle merely states: > that would force tech giants like Google and Facebook to pay media companies for their content. What's they're omitting: the rule forces Google and Facebook to include big media sites. Always be wary of the media reporting on the media.
- Isinlor 6y ago
  Because the law would explicitly forbid them to provide services if they do not agree to forced negotiations. Pretty much "Our way or the highway" and seems like Google my by preferring the highway.
- flukus 6y ago
  They're forced to include newspaper links and to disclose their algorithm. The whole thing is a boondoggle for Rupert Murdoch, even our government funded media is excluded.
- m0llusk 6y ago
  It doesn't work. That is why we have this conflict.
JonoW 6y ago
Not sure if anyone's the same, but I find Google search the least sticky of their services, i.e. I could manage fine if forced to use Bing (probably not as good, but probably good enough), but I would really struggle if Gmail or Google photos access was axed in my region.
- Doctor_Fegg 6y ago
  I'm the opposite - search is the only Google service I use (apart from occasionally recce-ing bike rides on Street View). I've tried to wean myself off it, and have succeeded for casual browsing on mobile, but for programming queries I don't find Bing or DDG anywhere near as good.
  - lui8906 6y ago
    You could use DDG and then add "!g" at the beginning for your programming queries.
    - RL_Quine 6y ago
      Right, which is what everybody does, and then develops a reflex for !g on every query because DDG really doesn't work well for any sort of technical query.
      - stubish 6y ago
        I keep hearing this, but personally fine that in the rare case I try !g for better results I don't get anything better.
antman 6y ago
As an avid reader of dystopian SciFi even I think this is too much.
nness 6y ago
I can't imagine Microsoft is anymore interested in paying these fees than Google or Facebook is. I think it's an empty threat, and likely its the Government trying to prove their serious (although, I suspect it won't pass its next vote). What Microsoft gets out of it, not sure.
- danmur 6y ago
  I think he's just saying Google isn't the game in town. Having said that the whole situation is deplorable, it's not driven by valid concerns, just the Murdoch media in league with our weak government. I wish they'd picked a battle I could get behind.
- thatguy0900 6y ago
  Paying these fees to get Googles search traffic would probably be a steal, they need data to be competitive with Googles search
- bobcostas55 6y ago
  >I can't imagine Microsoft is anymore interested in paying these fees than Google or Facebook is. AFAICT the law is targeted at Google and Facebook only, Microsoft would not have to pay.
  - junipertea 6y ago
    This seems discriminatory as hell.
    - cwhiz 6y ago
      Monopolies deserve special discrimination
    - austhrow743 6y ago
      Of course it is. Whole law is just cronyism for Rupert Murdoch. He owns the Australian government. Got them to fuck up our internet upgrade because it threatened his cable tv business. Now he's getting them to steal from Facebook and Google to subsidise his many newspapers. If that doesn't work hell probably just get them to subsidise them directly.
progre 6y ago
I've been using https://www.runnaroo.com/ https://www.runnaroo.com/ on some of my devices for a while and I very seldom need to do the DDG equivalent of !g. The name alone seems like something that Australians might like.
wokwokwok 6y ago
> When I spoke to Satya the other day, there was a bit of that,” Morrison said while rubbing his hands together and referring to Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. I'll bet there is. Nothing like an incompetent governor willing to give you the keys to the castle if you bend knee and kiss a$$ for a few days first. There's probably a reasonable case for other players to get a piece of a pie that is pretty much entirely owned by google here, and they'd be stupid not to take it, especially as it positions them to challenge google in more lucrative markets in the future. To be fair, this sucks for Australians and Australian businesses, and they'll suffer for it; but, it is what it is. You speak with your votes; if you vote a$$ hats into power, don't complain when they do this kind of stuff. You reap what you sow.
- quink 6y ago
  > You speak with your votes; if you vote a$$ hats into power, don't complain when they do this kind of stuff. I think it’s gone beyond that, the electorate is a captive audience and we’re in a democratic death spiral. Like just today again with Palmer and $75,000 for The Nats or Costello in charge of Nine or the ABC backtracking on Invasion Day - all without me even mentioning Newscorp. There’s no hope of an informed electorate or a healthy media policy. The states need to step in as the only other authority left and tell the government that its already super shaky interpretation of section 51(v) has gone too far, it has usurped power from the real authority, and take it to the High Court if need be. Like happened in Germany in 1961 with their section 73(7).
  - ageofwant 6y ago
    Struth. The Libs are fundamentally dependent on the electorate being swayed by the constant anti-labor pro Lib background noise. And it may sway only 3% to the right, but that's enough. 10 minutes of Friendly Jordies, 60% of which is bullshit gags contains more journalism than a full Sunday paper.
    - quink 6y ago
      Deputy Leader for 13½ years of the party in power, then make him chairman of the second largest media organisation in the country for 5 years now. Yet somehow the problem isn't with said organisation or party but that Google lists things published by said media organisation without paying? You couldn't weave a dumber more on the nose basketcase if you tried.
ElectricMind 6y ago
Finally someone standing against tech giants. I don't think it is unfair to expect companies to follow law of the land irrespective of size. Big tech giants should not expect "US style" operation everywhere. America is not entire world, just one country.
- fogihujy 6y ago
  Absolutely! Australia is quite within their rights when asking tech giants to follow local regulations when they aim services at Australian citizens. That doesn't automatically make this particular law less dumb, though.
  - ElectricMind 6y ago
    If they think law is dumb or unfair or anything, they can negotiate with Australian government. But they should not expect favors just because of they have monopoly in the field. Again, Australian people will decide what good for them.
    - rurounijones 6y ago
      > If they think law is dumb or unfair or anything, they can negotiate with Australian government Or they can just cut off service to that marketplace and let the electorate take up the matter with their elected officials...
    - pm 6y ago
      I'm Australian and I'd rather not be the battleground for this particular brawl. Our Government is incompetent and corrupt beyond measure, and takes its orders from the likes of Newscorp. Google and Facebook are better dealt with in the US.
      - petre 6y ago
        I'll always remember Turnbull's laws of math come second to the laws of oz comment, heh. The last few of your prime ministers are much like Donald Trump. Science deniers that claim all sorts of nonsense. Crypto crusaders. Now this. How can a party have so many people like him and still win the elections? Aren't you fed up of having your country ran by these people?
waheoo 6y ago
Google has a bit of a problem here. The majority of Australians are pretty indifferent/apathetic here. Murdoch vs Google is Goliath vs Goliath, nobody cares who wins, everyone hopes they both get wrecked in the process. The best outcome here is if Google stops linking to news organisations in Australia. Zero fucks would be given and independent journalism would be able to grow in a healthy environment.
- RL_Quine 6y ago
  Do they though? I want to see the Australian government crying to Google to return when they realize what they've brought upon themselves.
  - waheoo 6y ago
    You live in a bubble. Most people find Bing and duck duck go adequate. I don't, but I'm a special snowflake. You also seem to think this government gives a fuck. It's constantly getting caught out and exposed as corrupt (for real, not hyperbole), but nobody cares,Murdoch prints it under the rug and people move on. You think Australians will care about Google a month after being forced into Bing?
    - alexhaber 6y ago
      Anecdotally a lot of people I know, especially older people, don't know how to properly use the internet without google. Google is the default search engine on chrome, the most popular browser, and most of these people don't know how to change the default.
jlkuester7 6y ago
The fact that it is newsworthy to say something like this seems to indicate that Google is at least a de-facto monopoly in the search sector. It seems hard to argue against that when folks cannot even agree if there are any viable alternatives at all.... This is a huge problem that is only getting worse. I don't really see any way to fix this outside of government trust-busting. (But I have little faith in the bumbling of modern politicians in Australia or anywhere else...) Personally, I use DuckDuckGo for searching and find the experience to be better than Google, but YMMV.
- graeme 6y ago
  How can google be a monopoly if it is that easy to switch away? The truth is competing search engines are at least 90% as good as google, and literally a click away. People don’t, and there is some browser default lock in, but it’s hardly like an electric grid, water or broadband monopoly. Or Standard Oil for that matter.
  - mayankkaizen 6y ago
    Other options are available and are good enough BUT people aren't using those other options. I mean an average guy doesn't even know about DDG and some educated guys do know about Bing but don't bother to use it. In real world, Google is synonymous with search. I don't have the data available right now but I believe more than 70% Aussies are using Google. That is almost a monopoly.
    - filoleg 6y ago
      >Other options are available and are good enough BUT people aren't using those other option People choosing to not use other options that are easily available doesn't seem like something that should qualify Google as a monopoly that needs to be broken up (am not a lawyer, just a disclaimer). Like, what is Google supposed to do here? Make their own search engine worse, so that users are incentivized to switch? Show people ads, recommending them to use competing search engines? Mind you, I am not alleging that Google is not a monopoly or that it shouldn't be broken up. There could be other things that could qualify them for that, like bundling of Google Search as the default search engine with Chrome, semi-mandatory nature of Play Store on android just to be able to use google apps, etc. However, just the sheer fact alone that most people prefer to use Google search (when there are plenty of easily available alternatives out there that the general public isn't willing to look into) shouldn't be valid grounds for an anti-monopoly lawsuit.
mc32 6y ago
While this has been playing out a while in Australia and elsewhere, I think anyone who presupposed non-partisanship and openness by large social networks and other conduits of information knows after the Twitter, FB, YT and others’ hamfisted approaches to setting narratives dispelled that notion and gave reason to every government to review the influence these players have on the respective constituencies.
doublejay1999 6y ago
"“Are you confident that alternate search engines are going to be able to fill a massive void left by Google and Australians won’t be left worse off?”" this is what a planted question looks like :-)
jozvolskyef 6y ago
Is there anything that makes the following sequence of events unlikely? 1. google.com.au redirects to google.com 2. google.com stops indexing australian content 3. australians barely notice, except perhaps for the latency 4. australian content creators collapse edit: 5. american content creators adapt and cater to their new audiences
- filoleg 6y ago
  My guess would be that Australian regulators could consider it as Google trying to play a loophole around their rules, so Google could be forced to exit the Australian market altogether. Though I, personally, doubt it will get to that. Either Google will come to a satisfactory solution that won't piss off the Australian regulators or pre-emptively exit the market
- rsstack 6y ago
  People want local news and content, because they have lives outside of the Internet and they want to consume (at least partially) content that relates to their lives. How would American content creators create Australian local content without operating in Australia, and fall under Australian regulative protections?
  - IntelMiner 6y ago
    I don't think many of them would be truly devestated by having to move outside of Australia to continue making content about Australia. The layer of abstraction might be good for them mentally Being within Australia for "left-wing" creators like "FriendlyJordies" or "Juice Media" seem to be just a way to attract the Eye of Sauron from the right-wing media pundits and websites like "Junkee" that are heavily sponsored by large banks and fossil fuel companies
  - bryan_w 6y ago
    I think it's Google's position that the vast majority of people who go to Google's website don't actually go there to see the news. Hence why they're willing to remove news from search results all together. The regulation trys to prevent that, which is why they will have to remove their servers from AU.
markpapadakis 6y ago
This is quite ridiculous. I’d say it’s obviously ridiculous but others may have a different point of view. The government there is eager to side with Murdoch and his friends for favorable coverage so that they can pocket money from this extortion stunt while disregarding the impact to its many many citizens. Suggesting Bing is good enough is stupid because if their citizens were to use it over google if google quits that market, what then ? Government goes after them and if it does what if Microsoft also gets out? And if government doesn’t then doesn’t that show to the world that it was personal with google? People shouldn’t be stupid. It’s a low bar to clear.
- xyzzy123 6y ago
  Bing has indicated it would be willing make government deals in exchange for eliminating the competition and being #1 in search.
  - v7p1Qbt1im 6y ago
    Who wouldn‘t. It‘s not like they have anything to loose when it comes to search.
Arnt 6y ago
Does this mean that Microsoft (or its Bing subsidiary?) will not have to pay the same tax, even if it becomes the dominatn search engine in Australia? Or is it not an issue, because the relevant subsidiary of Microsoft makes no profit, and therefore the amount due will be zero? I haven't a clue here, I'm just surprised.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  It means that the regulation itself isn't the issue but Google is just afraid that it destroys the idea that they cannot be regulated, and that other countries will follow suit. Obviously anyone would take the entire Australian search market for some rather mundane regulation. If someone came to you and said you can have an entire country worth of Google's market, you just have to fork over some money for news headlines you link to you'd say no? Microsoft in contrast to Google is a diversified firm that doesn't really rely on avoiding regulatory scrutiny that much, so they don't care.
- jay_kyburz 6y ago
  I'm guessing we haven't talked to Microsoft at all yet, and that they will pull out of Australia as well.
  - noicebrewery 6y ago
    In the article Scott Morrison mentions that he's spoken personally to Satya.
  - el_dev_hell 6y ago
    Our PM claims to have spoken with Microsoft and they signaled a keen interest in coming onboard (the dodgy hand gesture made by the PM). https://apnews.com/article/business-satya-nadella-australia-scott-morrison-0c73c32ea800ad70658bc77a96962242 https://apnews.com/article/business-satya-nadella-australia-...
    - BLKNSLVR 6y ago
      Microsoft are just excited at the possibility of a whole country being essentially forced to use Bing. Australia might even form 90% of their user base.
anotherevan 6y ago
Here's the full bill if you want to wade into it (PDF): [1] This [2] may provide some helpful commentary. From Google/Facebook's viewpoint, one of the more distasteful aspects which is rarely mentioned in most coverage is that they must give two weeks notice of algorithm changes to registered news businesses. There's a perception in some circles that this is a fairly unnuanced money grab by the government on behalf of Murdoch media[3]. A perception that was not helped by earlier drafts excluding the public Australian Broadcasting Corporation and SBS from the trough. Two organisations the current federal government is seen as being hostile towards. As I understand it: - The bill would not allow Google to simply drop Australian news sites from search results (hello Spain News!), hence really only leaving the option to block Oz altogether. - There is no acknowledgement at all of the value search engines provide to media organisations by the links provided. - The forced arbitration conditions are quite... forceful. (I'm not really across this aspect.) A common nickname for our our Prime Minister among his detractors is "Scotty from Marketing" [4] In summary, when you say, "My way or the highway," perhaps you shouldn't get pissy when they choose the highway. [1] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r6652_first-reps/toc_pdf/20177b01.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/bills/r6652_first-reps/0000%22 https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi... [2] https://www.gtlaw.com.au/insights/its-here-news-media-digital-platforms-mandatory-bargaining-code https://www.gtlaw.com.au/insights/its-here-news-media-digita... [3] https://youtu.be/2BPLBIgKjN8 https://youtu.be/2BPLBIgKjN8 [4] https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2020/01/where-the-legend-of-scotty-from-marketing-began/ https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2020/01/where-the-legend-of-sc...
- canadianfella 6y ago
  > I'm not really across this aspect What does this mean?
- BLKNSLVR 6y ago
  Scotty from Marketing: my way or the highway Google: the highway Scotty from Marketing: we don't respond to threats[0] [0]: https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-22/scott-morrison-google-facebook-tech-news/13082222?nw=0&pfmredir=sm https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-22/scott-morrison-goo...
- 6y ago
wombatmobile 6y ago
> “Look, these are big technology companies. And what’s important for Australia is that we set the rules that are important for our people,” Morrison said. When Morrison says "our people", he means Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-17/scott-morrison-murdoch-media-like-a-team-turnbull-says/12891218 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-17/scott-morrison-murdoc...
- ryan-allen 6y ago
  If Google Search becomes unavailable in Australia it's going to be a disaster for many, many people. I honestly can't believe this is happening. I do not want to be forced to switch to Bing :/
  - 0xy 6y ago
    It will be trivial to bypass in under 3 minutes, regardless of the method used to block.
qazxcvbnmlp 6y ago
As an American I low key hope they block Google. I don’t want to give up my use but wouldn’t mind some extra competition in the search engine space.
- el_dev_hell 6y ago
  As an Australian engineer, I low key hope the same. However, I'll be sticking with a VPN and google for technical related searches (Bing/DDG can't compete with Google, unfortunately).
- anotherevan 6y ago
  It is actually a matter of Google blocking Australia, not the other way around.
pjfin123 6y ago
Interesting explainer I saw by an Australian economics YouTuber (opposed to the new law): https://youtu.be/zj2r948rUkQ https://youtu.be/zj2r948rUkQ
explodingman 6y ago
The steady eclipse of traditional media by Big Tech services has led the USA to a situation where a significant minority actually believe that Trump is a sort of superhero saving the world from pedophiles (QAnon) and a larger minority who really think the Democrat party somehow stole the recent presidential election, and that storming the Capitol is a reasonable response. The view from Down Under is that we need to avoid such civic disasters and propping up the traditional media is an essential part of that. Like most people, I'm astonished at how social media mediated news seems to disable so many people's bullshit detectors, but there's no denying that it is so. Anyone who wants to persuade Australians that their government should not go ahead with the planned regulation of FB and Google needs to come up with an alternative suggestion that would keep Australia's democracy functional. I can't see anything in the anti-regulation commentary on HN that passes this test.
fadzlan 6y ago
What I don't understand from here is that even if MS were to take over, wouldn't they be restricted under the same law? ie. if its not favorable for MS, maybe they just want to ditch the country too?
dontblink 6y ago
Someone in the US govt should write a bill that forces Fox News to pay Google/Facebook/Twitter for the cost of spreading misinformation on their platforms. Should equalize things quite a bit.

108 points by lazycrazyowl 6y ago

This is going to be a tough one. On one hand I absolutely hate how google is trying to strongarm this deal through their various properties. On the other hand, google pulling out of Australia will definitely impact a lot of businesses badly.

nness 6y ago
Its more of a case of Australia trying to strong-arm Google and Facebook to protect their News Corp interests (but I imagine that this is all a matter of perspective).
- Bakary 6y ago
  Google and Facebook are so powerful that it makes sense to err on the side of anything that could decrease their reach.
graeme 6y ago
If the australian law applied to the web broadly, hacker news would have to pay for all the links. In reality, being linked to on the web is extremely valuable. Google has had to ban the practices of sites paying to be linked to. The Australian law completely gets the value chain backwards, forcing tech companies to pay for a specific subset of links, and not allowing them to decline to link either.

oilbagz 6y ago

As can be seen throughout its history, reflected in the nature of its seriously heinous press and Australians' love of outright propaganda over truth, Australians have never prioritized the development of a free and open society - so this should come as no surprise. The only hope is that there are a generation of Australians who still understand why a free press and a free market are essential to open society - and that they will rise to the challenge of building a really viable, open Australian society. However, given the predilection for shiny things and smashed avocado's, we might have to wait a generation or two, to see these heroes arise. Lets hope these future Australians' don't have to suffer the same fate as the Taiwanese or the Uigyurs in the quest for freedom ...

BLKNSLVR 6y ago
Australians' lives are too cushy for most of them to care a whit about political news nevermind any attempt at reading between the lines or applying reason and logic to why a politician or party may be leaning in a particular direction. Tax cuts = political victory Border protection = political victory Increased surveillance (wrapped up in "anti terrorism" labels) = political victory Australia's political situation is going to get a fair bit worse before it gets better. This Google / Facebook thing is the Government shilling for News Corp, but you just don't hear that angle anywhere near as much as you hear "Google threatens to..." It's all obvious, given the existing power structures, but it's disappointing that Australian politicians are acting so predictably grubbily. Google need to be taken to task for tax avoidance, but that's a big, complicated issue that might take long enough that the next Government gets the credit so, you know, let's half-arse something this term and see if that gets us some free love.
robin21 6y ago
> Australians have never prioritized the development of a free and open society I think they are in a better state compared to the US and most of the world. Do you have examples of countries that are better are being free and open than Australia? The key to being free and open is not putting up with corruption, not having too much of an ideological divide, and good investigative journalism that people care about.
- BLKNSLVR 6y ago
  See section entitled "Witness K Trial"[0] [0]:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Collaery https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Collaery
  - oilbagz 6y ago
    See also East Timor, and Australia's secret CIA-run torture camps. EDIT: downvote all you want, but Australia's totalitarian bent is very clear in these incidents.
  - danmur 6y ago

myle 6y ago

Is Bing going to be forced to operate under the same constrains as Google?

meibo 6y ago
No, at the moment, the law explicitly only mentions "Google" and "Facebook". That should tell you a lot about the people that lobbied/wrote it.
- adtac 6y ago
  wtf I've never seen a law mention corporations specifically
  - Tehdasi 6y ago
    In one of the states of Australia, there is a law that mentions someone by name: http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/bill/cab2014300/ http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/bill/cab2014300/ Was done as a stopgap just to make sure that it was impossible for him to leave jail.
  - DaedPsyker 6y ago
    Private bills have existed for for quite a while. You have to understand that most places that inherited common law also inherited ‘parliament’s sovereignty’, the legal notion that no bill or law can constrain the power of parliament. Now that has been curtailed in quite a few places but the notion still fully exists (I believe it was used recently by the UK Supreme Court to force the government to give parliament a vote). Australia is such a place. Even the US system had it to a degree. Originally the bill of rights only applied to the federal government, later Supreme Court rulings extended it to state law.
- rafaelturk 6y ago
  Can you share more details? Source? This kind of wording is alone unconstitutional in many countries.

lordnacho 6y ago

How does this new law work? If Google doesn't want to pay media for content, couldn't they just not have newspaper links in their search results? Why would they have to pull out of all the other things that people search for?

nailer 6y ago
Excellent question, particularly because the aricle merely states: > that would force tech giants like Google and Facebook to pay media companies for their content. What's they're omitting: the rule forces Google and Facebook to include big media sites. Always be wary of the media reporting on the media.
Isinlor 6y ago
Because the law would explicitly forbid them to provide services if they do not agree to forced negotiations. Pretty much "Our way or the highway" and seems like Google my by preferring the highway.
flukus 6y ago
They're forced to include newspaper links and to disclose their algorithm. The whole thing is a boondoggle for Rupert Murdoch, even our government funded media is excluded.
m0llusk 6y ago
It doesn't work. That is why we have this conflict.

JonoW 6y ago

Not sure if anyone's the same, but I find Google search the least sticky of their services, i.e. I could manage fine if forced to use Bing (probably not as good, but probably good enough), but I would really struggle if Gmail or Google photos access was axed in my region.

Doctor_Fegg 6y ago
I'm the opposite - search is the only Google service I use (apart from occasionally recce-ing bike rides on Street View). I've tried to wean myself off it, and have succeeded for casual browsing on mobile, but for programming queries I don't find Bing or DDG anywhere near as good.
- lui8906 6y ago
  You could use DDG and then add "!g" at the beginning for your programming queries.
  - RL_Quine 6y ago
    Right, which is what everybody does, and then develops a reflex for !g on every query because DDG really doesn't work well for any sort of technical query.
    - stubish 6y ago
      I keep hearing this, but personally fine that in the rare case I try !g for better results I don't get anything better.

antman 6y ago

As an avid reader of dystopian SciFi even I think this is too much.

nness 6y ago

I can't imagine Microsoft is anymore interested in paying these fees than Google or Facebook is. I think it's an empty threat, and likely its the Government trying to prove their serious (although, I suspect it won't pass its next vote). What Microsoft gets out of it, not sure.

danmur 6y ago
I think he's just saying Google isn't the game in town. Having said that the whole situation is deplorable, it's not driven by valid concerns, just the Murdoch media in league with our weak government. I wish they'd picked a battle I could get behind.
thatguy0900 6y ago
Paying these fees to get Googles search traffic would probably be a steal, they need data to be competitive with Googles search
bobcostas55 6y ago
>I can't imagine Microsoft is anymore interested in paying these fees than Google or Facebook is. AFAICT the law is targeted at Google and Facebook only, Microsoft would not have to pay.
- junipertea 6y ago
  This seems discriminatory as hell.
  - cwhiz 6y ago
    Monopolies deserve special discrimination
  - austhrow743 6y ago
    Of course it is. Whole law is just cronyism for Rupert Murdoch. He owns the Australian government. Got them to fuck up our internet upgrade because it threatened his cable tv business. Now he's getting them to steal from Facebook and Google to subsidise his many newspapers. If that doesn't work hell probably just get them to subsidise them directly.

progre 6y ago

I've been using https://www.runnaroo.com/ https://www.runnaroo.com/ on some of my devices for a while and I very seldom need to do the DDG equivalent of !g. The name alone seems like something that Australians might like.

wokwokwok 6y ago

> When I spoke to Satya the other day, there was a bit of that,” Morrison said while rubbing his hands together and referring to Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella. I'll bet there is. Nothing like an incompetent governor willing to give you the keys to the castle if you bend knee and kiss a$$ for a few days first. There's probably a reasonable case for other players to get a piece of a pie that is pretty much entirely owned by google here, and they'd be stupid not to take it, especially as it positions them to challenge google in more lucrative markets in the future. To be fair, this sucks for Australians and Australian businesses, and they'll suffer for it; but, it is what it is. You speak with your votes; if you vote a$$ hats into power, don't complain when they do this kind of stuff. You reap what you sow.

quink 6y ago
> You speak with your votes; if you vote a$$ hats into power, don't complain when they do this kind of stuff. I think it’s gone beyond that, the electorate is a captive audience and we’re in a democratic death spiral. Like just today again with Palmer and $75,000 for The Nats or Costello in charge of Nine or the ABC backtracking on Invasion Day - all without me even mentioning Newscorp. There’s no hope of an informed electorate or a healthy media policy. The states need to step in as the only other authority left and tell the government that its already super shaky interpretation of section 51(v) has gone too far, it has usurped power from the real authority, and take it to the High Court if need be. Like happened in Germany in 1961 with their section 73(7).
- ageofwant 6y ago
  Struth. The Libs are fundamentally dependent on the electorate being swayed by the constant anti-labor pro Lib background noise. And it may sway only 3% to the right, but that's enough. 10 minutes of Friendly Jordies, 60% of which is bullshit gags contains more journalism than a full Sunday paper.
  - quink 6y ago
    Deputy Leader for 13½ years of the party in power, then make him chairman of the second largest media organisation in the country for 5 years now. Yet somehow the problem isn't with said organisation or party but that Google lists things published by said media organisation without paying? You couldn't weave a dumber more on the nose basketcase if you tried.

ElectricMind 6y ago

Finally someone standing against tech giants. I don't think it is unfair to expect companies to follow law of the land irrespective of size. Big tech giants should not expect "US style" operation everywhere. America is not entire world, just one country.

fogihujy 6y ago
Absolutely! Australia is quite within their rights when asking tech giants to follow local regulations when they aim services at Australian citizens. That doesn't automatically make this particular law less dumb, though.
- ElectricMind 6y ago
  If they think law is dumb or unfair or anything, they can negotiate with Australian government. But they should not expect favors just because of they have monopoly in the field. Again, Australian people will decide what good for them.
  - rurounijones 6y ago
    > If they think law is dumb or unfair or anything, they can negotiate with Australian government Or they can just cut off service to that marketplace and let the electorate take up the matter with their elected officials...
  - pm 6y ago
    I'm Australian and I'd rather not be the battleground for this particular brawl. Our Government is incompetent and corrupt beyond measure, and takes its orders from the likes of Newscorp. Google and Facebook are better dealt with in the US.
    - petre 6y ago
      I'll always remember Turnbull's laws of math come second to the laws of oz comment, heh. The last few of your prime ministers are much like Donald Trump. Science deniers that claim all sorts of nonsense. Crypto crusaders. Now this. How can a party have so many people like him and still win the elections? Aren't you fed up of having your country ran by these people?

waheoo 6y ago

Google has a bit of a problem here. The majority of Australians are pretty indifferent/apathetic here. Murdoch vs Google is Goliath vs Goliath, nobody cares who wins, everyone hopes they both get wrecked in the process. The best outcome here is if Google stops linking to news organisations in Australia. Zero fucks would be given and independent journalism would be able to grow in a healthy environment.

RL_Quine 6y ago
Do they though? I want to see the Australian government crying to Google to return when they realize what they've brought upon themselves.
- waheoo 6y ago
  You live in a bubble. Most people find Bing and duck duck go adequate. I don't, but I'm a special snowflake. You also seem to think this government gives a fuck. It's constantly getting caught out and exposed as corrupt (for real, not hyperbole), but nobody cares,Murdoch prints it under the rug and people move on. You think Australians will care about Google a month after being forced into Bing?
  - alexhaber 6y ago
    Anecdotally a lot of people I know, especially older people, don't know how to properly use the internet without google. Google is the default search engine on chrome, the most popular browser, and most of these people don't know how to change the default.

jlkuester7 6y ago

The fact that it is newsworthy to say something like this seems to indicate that Google is at least a de-facto monopoly in the search sector. It seems hard to argue against that when folks cannot even agree if there are any viable alternatives at all.... This is a huge problem that is only getting worse. I don't really see any way to fix this outside of government trust-busting. (But I have little faith in the bumbling of modern politicians in Australia or anywhere else...) Personally, I use DuckDuckGo for searching and find the experience to be better than Google, but YMMV.

graeme 6y ago
How can google be a monopoly if it is that easy to switch away? The truth is competing search engines are at least 90% as good as google, and literally a click away. People don’t, and there is some browser default lock in, but it’s hardly like an electric grid, water or broadband monopoly. Or Standard Oil for that matter.
- mayankkaizen 6y ago
  Other options are available and are good enough BUT people aren't using those other options. I mean an average guy doesn't even know about DDG and some educated guys do know about Bing but don't bother to use it. In real world, Google is synonymous with search. I don't have the data available right now but I believe more than 70% Aussies are using Google. That is almost a monopoly.
  - filoleg 6y ago
    >Other options are available and are good enough BUT people aren't using those other option People choosing to not use other options that are easily available doesn't seem like something that should qualify Google as a monopoly that needs to be broken up (am not a lawyer, just a disclaimer). Like, what is Google supposed to do here? Make their own search engine worse, so that users are incentivized to switch? Show people ads, recommending them to use competing search engines? Mind you, I am not alleging that Google is not a monopoly or that it shouldn't be broken up. There could be other things that could qualify them for that, like bundling of Google Search as the default search engine with Chrome, semi-mandatory nature of Play Store on android just to be able to use google apps, etc. However, just the sheer fact alone that most people prefer to use Google search (when there are plenty of easily available alternatives out there that the general public isn't willing to look into) shouldn't be valid grounds for an anti-monopoly lawsuit.

mc32 6y ago

While this has been playing out a while in Australia and elsewhere, I think anyone who presupposed non-partisanship and openness by large social networks and other conduits of information knows after the Twitter, FB, YT and others’ hamfisted approaches to setting narratives dispelled that notion and gave reason to every government to review the influence these players have on the respective constituencies.

doublejay1999 6y ago

"“Are you confident that alternate search engines are going to be able to fill a massive void left by Google and Australians won’t be left worse off?”" this is what a planted question looks like :-)

jozvolskyef 6y ago

Is there anything that makes the following sequence of events unlikely? 1. google.com.au redirects to google.com 2. google.com stops indexing australian content 3. australians barely notice, except perhaps for the latency 4. australian content creators collapse edit: 5. american content creators adapt and cater to their new audiences

filoleg 6y ago
My guess would be that Australian regulators could consider it as Google trying to play a loophole around their rules, so Google could be forced to exit the Australian market altogether. Though I, personally, doubt it will get to that. Either Google will come to a satisfactory solution that won't piss off the Australian regulators or pre-emptively exit the market
rsstack 6y ago
People want local news and content, because they have lives outside of the Internet and they want to consume (at least partially) content that relates to their lives. How would American content creators create Australian local content without operating in Australia, and fall under Australian regulative protections?
- IntelMiner 6y ago
  I don't think many of them would be truly devestated by having to move outside of Australia to continue making content about Australia. The layer of abstraction might be good for them mentally Being within Australia for "left-wing" creators like "FriendlyJordies" or "Juice Media" seem to be just a way to attract the Eye of Sauron from the right-wing media pundits and websites like "Junkee" that are heavily sponsored by large banks and fossil fuel companies
- bryan_w 6y ago
  I think it's Google's position that the vast majority of people who go to Google's website don't actually go there to see the news. Hence why they're willing to remove news from search results all together. The regulation trys to prevent that, which is why they will have to remove their servers from AU.

markpapadakis 6y ago

This is quite ridiculous. I’d say it’s obviously ridiculous but others may have a different point of view. The government there is eager to side with Murdoch and his friends for favorable coverage so that they can pocket money from this extortion stunt while disregarding the impact to its many many citizens. Suggesting Bing is good enough is stupid because if their citizens were to use it over google if google quits that market, what then ? Government goes after them and if it does what if Microsoft also gets out? And if government doesn’t then doesn’t that show to the world that it was personal with google? People shouldn’t be stupid. It’s a low bar to clear.

xyzzy123 6y ago
Bing has indicated it would be willing make government deals in exchange for eliminating the competition and being #1 in search.
- v7p1Qbt1im 6y ago
  Who wouldn‘t. It‘s not like they have anything to loose when it comes to search.

Arnt 6y ago

Does this mean that Microsoft (or its Bing subsidiary?) will not have to pay the same tax, even if it becomes the dominatn search engine in Australia? Or is it not an issue, because the relevant subsidiary of Microsoft makes no profit, and therefore the amount due will be zero? I haven't a clue here, I'm just surprised.

Barrin92 6y ago
It means that the regulation itself isn't the issue but Google is just afraid that it destroys the idea that they cannot be regulated, and that other countries will follow suit. Obviously anyone would take the entire Australian search market for some rather mundane regulation. If someone came to you and said you can have an entire country worth of Google's market, you just have to fork over some money for news headlines you link to you'd say no? Microsoft in contrast to Google is a diversified firm that doesn't really rely on avoiding regulatory scrutiny that much, so they don't care.
jay_kyburz 6y ago
I'm guessing we haven't talked to Microsoft at all yet, and that they will pull out of Australia as well.
- noicebrewery 6y ago
  In the article Scott Morrison mentions that he's spoken personally to Satya.
- el_dev_hell 6y ago
  Our PM claims to have spoken with Microsoft and they signaled a keen interest in coming onboard (the dodgy hand gesture made by the PM). https://apnews.com/article/business-satya-nadella-australia-scott-morrison-0c73c32ea800ad70658bc77a96962242 https://apnews.com/article/business-satya-nadella-australia-...
  - BLKNSLVR 6y ago
    Microsoft are just excited at the possibility of a whole country being essentially forced to use Bing. Australia might even form 90% of their user base.

anotherevan 6y ago

Here's the full bill if you want to wade into it (PDF): [1] This [2] may provide some helpful commentary. From Google/Facebook's viewpoint, one of the more distasteful aspects which is rarely mentioned in most coverage is that they must give two weeks notice of algorithm changes to registered news businesses. There's a perception in some circles that this is a fairly unnuanced money grab by the government on behalf of Murdoch media[3]. A perception that was not helped by earlier drafts excluding the public Australian Broadcasting Corporation and SBS from the trough. Two organisations the current federal government is seen as being hostile towards. As I understand it: - The bill would not allow Google to simply drop Australian news sites from search results (hello Spain News!), hence really only leaving the option to block Oz altogether. - There is no acknowledgement at all of the value search engines provide to media organisations by the links provided. - The forced arbitration conditions are quite... forceful. (I'm not really across this aspect.) A common nickname for our our Prime Minister among his detractors is "Scotty from Marketing" [4] In summary, when you say, "My way or the highway," perhaps you shouldn't get pissy when they choose the highway. [1] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r6652_first-reps/toc_pdf/20177b01.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/bills/r6652_first-reps/0000%22 https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi... [2] https://www.gtlaw.com.au/insights/its-here-news-media-digital-platforms-mandatory-bargaining-code https://www.gtlaw.com.au/insights/its-here-news-media-digita... [3] https://youtu.be/2BPLBIgKjN8 https://youtu.be/2BPLBIgKjN8 [4] https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2020/01/where-the-legend-of-scotty-from-marketing-began/ https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2020/01/where-the-legend-of-sc...

canadianfella 6y ago
> I'm not really across this aspect What does this mean?
BLKNSLVR 6y ago
Scotty from Marketing: my way or the highway Google: the highway Scotty from Marketing: we don't respond to threats[0] [0]: https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-22/scott-morrison-google-facebook-tech-news/13082222?nw=0&pfmredir=sm https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-22/scott-morrison-goo...
6y ago

wombatmobile 6y ago

> “Look, these are big technology companies. And what’s important for Australia is that we set the rules that are important for our people,” Morrison said. When Morrison says "our people", he means Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-17/scott-morrison-murdoch-media-like-a-team-turnbull-says/12891218 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-17/scott-morrison-murdoc...

ryan-allen 6y ago
If Google Search becomes unavailable in Australia it's going to be a disaster for many, many people. I honestly can't believe this is happening. I do not want to be forced to switch to Bing :/
- 0xy 6y ago
  It will be trivial to bypass in under 3 minutes, regardless of the method used to block.

qazxcvbnmlp 6y ago

As an American I low key hope they block Google. I don’t want to give up my use but wouldn’t mind some extra competition in the search engine space.

el_dev_hell 6y ago
As an Australian engineer, I low key hope the same. However, I'll be sticking with a VPN and google for technical related searches (Bing/DDG can't compete with Google, unfortunately).
anotherevan 6y ago
It is actually a matter of Google blocking Australia, not the other way around.

pjfin123 6y ago

Interesting explainer I saw by an Australian economics YouTuber (opposed to the new law): https://youtu.be/zj2r948rUkQ https://youtu.be/zj2r948rUkQ

explodingman 6y ago

The steady eclipse of traditional media by Big Tech services has led the USA to a situation where a significant minority actually believe that Trump is a sort of superhero saving the world from pedophiles (QAnon) and a larger minority who really think the Democrat party somehow stole the recent presidential election, and that storming the Capitol is a reasonable response. The view from Down Under is that we need to avoid such civic disasters and propping up the traditional media is an essential part of that. Like most people, I'm astonished at how social media mediated news seems to disable so many people's bullshit detectors, but there's no denying that it is so. Anyone who wants to persuade Australians that their government should not go ahead with the planned regulation of FB and Google needs to come up with an alternative suggestion that would keep Australia's democracy functional. I can't see anything in the anti-regulation commentary on HN that passes this test.

fadzlan 6y ago

What I don't understand from here is that even if MS were to take over, wouldn't they be restricted under the same law? ie. if its not favorable for MS, maybe they just want to ditch the country too?

dontblink 6y ago

Someone in the US govt should write a bill that forces Fox News to pay Google/Facebook/Twitter for the cost of spreading misinformation on their platforms. Should equalize things quite a bit.