4 ms·

> The freedoms and principles of the old internet are being crushed from all sides inwards now. Indeed. And we shouldn’t let Google get away with it. :-) (Alt

by b3kart 6y ago

> The freedoms and principles of the old internet are being crushed from all sides inwards now. Indeed. And we shouldn’t let Google get away with it. :-) (Although this particular legislation doesn’t seem like a very good way to achieve this.)

K0nserv 6y ago
With what? Linking to companies that have explicitly opted in to being linked to? robots.txt exists, Google respects it
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- KiwiJohnno 6y ago
  Thank you for succinctly putting forward the argument I've been trying to make against this legislation. I'm not saying google is a saint, or even evil but this legislation is just plain wrong. Google have provided an optional free service to the media, and its now pretty much an essential service to them. Another poster said they get 70% of their traffic redirected from google. The Australian government is playing clear favorites here. They are penalizing a successful company, and rewarding a bunch of other companies that are struggling - Even though their problems are not related to google's success. And its even more blatant what the game is when you see that the legislation specifically prevents google from paying SBS or ABC - The two highly respected and popular government-funded media networks. The current conservatives government has been cutting their funding and generally trying to kill them for many years.
- hypertele-Xii 6y ago
  That's not how robots.txt works. Google explicitly says [1] that: > A robots.txt file [...] is not a mechanism for keeping a web page out of Google. > You should not use robots.txt as a means to hide your web pages from Google Search results. > If your web page is blocked with a robots.txt file, it can still appear in search results [1] https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/robots/intro https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/robots/in...
  - K0nserv 6y ago
    Fair, it seems like noindex is the better way. It doesn't really matter what the exact technical details are, the point is that Google respects your wish to not be indexed if you express it. The law as written is extremely draconic because it will force Google to link to these orgs(providing value) and then also pay them(providing value). It explicitly forbids Google from delisting them
  - rstuart4133 6y ago
    That very document explains why banning robots.txt may still get you indexed or quoted by google (it's because Google indexes other sites, and they may quote or mention you), and then goes onto to explain they provide mechanisms to help solve that problem. The general point make by the post you responding is perfectly correct: Google provides many ways for a web site to stop their content from being indexed. That includes all the newspaper sites. And they very explicitly don't use it. This is www.news.com.au's robots.txt: https://www.news.com.au/robots.txt https://www.news.com.au/robots.txt Notice how they ban some spider called "NewsNow". But the don't ban Google.
- kqvamxurcagg 6y ago
  Perhaps search engine should be opt-in rather than opt-out. Interesting thought.
  - account42 6y ago
    Why?
  - danShumway 6y ago
    What would that change? Australian media companies are not going to forget to opt into search indexing. They want to show up in searches, they're not on Google by accident.

by b3kart 6y ago

K0nserv 6y ago

With what? Linking to companies that have explicitly opted in to being linked to? robots.txt exists, Google respects it

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
KiwiJohnno 6y ago
Thank you for succinctly putting forward the argument I've been trying to make against this legislation. I'm not saying google is a saint, or even evil but this legislation is just plain wrong. Google have provided an optional free service to the media, and its now pretty much an essential service to them. Another poster said they get 70% of their traffic redirected from google. The Australian government is playing clear favorites here. They are penalizing a successful company, and rewarding a bunch of other companies that are struggling - Even though their problems are not related to google's success. And its even more blatant what the game is when you see that the legislation specifically prevents google from paying SBS or ABC - The two highly respected and popular government-funded media networks. The current conservatives government has been cutting their funding and generally trying to kill them for many years.
hypertele-Xii 6y ago
That's not how robots.txt works. Google explicitly says [1] that: > A robots.txt file [...] is not a mechanism for keeping a web page out of Google. > You should not use robots.txt as a means to hide your web pages from Google Search results. > If your web page is blocked with a robots.txt file, it can still appear in search results [1] https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/robots/intro https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/robots/in...
- K0nserv 6y ago
  Fair, it seems like noindex is the better way. It doesn't really matter what the exact technical details are, the point is that Google respects your wish to not be indexed if you express it. The law as written is extremely draconic because it will force Google to link to these orgs(providing value) and then also pay them(providing value). It explicitly forbids Google from delisting them
- rstuart4133 6y ago
  That very document explains why banning robots.txt may still get you indexed or quoted by google (it's because Google indexes other sites, and they may quote or mention you), and then goes onto to explain they provide mechanisms to help solve that problem. The general point make by the post you responding is perfectly correct: Google provides many ways for a web site to stop their content from being indexed. That includes all the newspaper sites. And they very explicitly don't use it. This is www.news.com.au's robots.txt: https://www.news.com.au/robots.txt https://www.news.com.au/robots.txt Notice how they ban some spider called "NewsNow". But the don't ban Google.
kqvamxurcagg 6y ago
Perhaps search engine should be opt-in rather than opt-out. Interesting thought.
- account42 6y ago
  Why?
- danShumway 6y ago
  What would that change? Australian media companies are not going to forget to opt into search indexing. They want to show up in searches, they're not on Google by accident.