5 ms·
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 try
by 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 agoI 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 agoPaying 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 agoThis seems discriminatory as hell.
- cwhiz 6y agoMonopolies deserve special discrimination
- austhrow743 6y agoOf 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.
- viraptor 6y agoGoogle and FB are the initial targets due to size, but the draft isn't saying they're limiting the list.
- justaguy88 6y agoI suspect that Microsoft _would_ be willing to pay those fees. A first world country that doesn't use Google Search would be a huge win for Microsoft
- kevincox 6y agoPaying the fees becomes way more attractive for Microsoft if Google refuses.