6 ms·

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

by myle 6y ago

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.
  - RL_Quine 6y ago
    Australia doesn't meaningfully have a constitution, it's just a declaration of powers of the various governments. https://australianpolitics.com/constitution/text https://australianpolitics.com/constitution/text Before you downvote, take a read yourself. This isn't sarcasm.
    - RL_Quine 6y ago
      I'll concede that people are mentioned in it, my original comment wasn't completely correct. "In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted." Not really a statement of rights so much as a statement that the native people of Australia are not people.
      - chrismorgan 6y ago
        For completeness it must be noted that that was repealed by referendum in 1967: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_127_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_127_of_the_Constitutio.... (The related Section 25 remains, however.)
  - shakna 6y ago
    > This kind of wording is alone unconstitutional in many countries. Australia's legal system is Common Law, inherited from Britain. You won't find any kind of enshrinement of rights in our constitution. It doesn't work that way. > Can you share more details? Source? You can find the proposed bill here [0]. It doesn't name Facebook and Google specifically, but says that is up to the Minister to designate "digital platform services" that it applies to. Part of which is: > In making the determination, the Minister must consider whether there is a significant bargaining power imbalance between Australian news businesses and the group comprised of the corporation and all of its related bodies corporate. Which just so happens to be one of the key findings of a report in 2018 [1] by the ACCC, which may have kicked off Parliament's slow gravitation towards this terrible idea of a law: > The ACCC is further considering a recommendation for a specific code of practice for digital platforms’ data collection to better inform consumers and improve their bargaining power. In that report, only Facebook and Google are named, and in the presentation of this law as a good thing, ministers have only named Facebook and Google. [0] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;page=0;query=BillId:r6652%20Recstruct:billhome https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.... [1] https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-releases-preliminary-report-into-google-facebook-and-australian-news-and-advertising https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-releases-prelimin...
- criddell 6y ago
  > That should tell you a lot about the people that lobbied/wrote it. It doesn't really. Care to elaborate?
  - graeme 6y ago
    It means they aren’t thinking from first principles about how linking should work and instead have passed a bill of attainder targeting a specific organization.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      That is not what a bill of attainder is. A bill of attainder is "a legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial." Legislation that singles out an individual or group for other purposes is not a bill of attainder.
      - graeme 6y ago
        Oops, thanks. My mistake. The first part stands, it shows they aren’t thinking from first principles. But you’re right it has nothing to do with being a bill of attainder.
- shard972 6y ago
  simply not true, why is such falsehoods just thrown out?

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

by myle 6y ago

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

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.
- RL_Quine 6y ago
  Australia doesn't meaningfully have a constitution, it's just a declaration of powers of the various governments. https://australianpolitics.com/constitution/text https://australianpolitics.com/constitution/text Before you downvote, take a read yourself. This isn't sarcasm.
  - RL_Quine 6y ago
    I'll concede that people are mentioned in it, my original comment wasn't completely correct. "In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a State or other part of the Commonwealth, aboriginal natives shall not be counted." Not really a statement of rights so much as a statement that the native people of Australia are not people.
    - chrismorgan 6y ago
      For completeness it must be noted that that was repealed by referendum in 1967: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_127_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_127_of_the_Constitutio.... (The related Section 25 remains, however.)
- shakna 6y ago
  > This kind of wording is alone unconstitutional in many countries. Australia's legal system is Common Law, inherited from Britain. You won't find any kind of enshrinement of rights in our constitution. It doesn't work that way. > Can you share more details? Source? You can find the proposed bill here [0]. It doesn't name Facebook and Google specifically, but says that is up to the Minister to designate "digital platform services" that it applies to. Part of which is: > In making the determination, the Minister must consider whether there is a significant bargaining power imbalance between Australian news businesses and the group comprised of the corporation and all of its related bodies corporate. Which just so happens to be one of the key findings of a report in 2018 [1] by the ACCC, which may have kicked off Parliament's slow gravitation towards this terrible idea of a law: > The ACCC is further considering a recommendation for a specific code of practice for digital platforms’ data collection to better inform consumers and improve their bargaining power. In that report, only Facebook and Google are named, and in the presentation of this law as a good thing, ministers have only named Facebook and Google. [0] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;page=0;query=BillId:r6652%20Recstruct:billhome https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.... [1] https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-releases-preliminary-report-into-google-facebook-and-australian-news-and-advertising https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/accc-releases-prelimin...
criddell 6y ago
> That should tell you a lot about the people that lobbied/wrote it. It doesn't really. Care to elaborate?
- graeme 6y ago
  It means they aren’t thinking from first principles about how linking should work and instead have passed a bill of attainder targeting a specific organization.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    That is not what a bill of attainder is. A bill of attainder is "a legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial." Legislation that singles out an individual or group for other purposes is not a bill of attainder.
    - graeme 6y ago
      Oops, thanks. My mistake. The first part stands, it shows they aren’t thinking from first principles. But you’re right it has nothing to do with being a bill of attainder.
shard972 6y ago
simply not true, why is such falsehoods just thrown out?