5 ms·

Charging for links had to be the single most destructive piece of tech legislation ever conceived in a 'free' democratic country. Links that connect the web as

by calsy 6y ago

Charging for links had to be the single most destructive piece of tech legislation ever conceived in a 'free' democratic country. Links that connect the web as we know it would be monetised, destroying the free flow of information. Australian media companies (who are themselves part of a larger group of global media organisations) know that paid links are completely incompatible to the free internet. Thats why they lobbied the government to break the internet on their behalf. Enter the dystopian 'media bargaining code' that, 1) Force companies to display selected media links and then charge them for it. In short, Extortion. 2) Paid links = lower search ranking. To circumvent the foundations of net search, this new law would force Google (and others in the future) to alter their algorithms to preference media organisations and charge the search engine in the process. An aggressive takeover of a companies service through government legislation. The media, like everyone else, can create their own websites and charge as much as they please for their content. They are not happy with this level playing field and require laws to take control of another companies services. It is an attack on the free internet itself for no other reason than some entitled companies thinking they deserve money because they were beaten at their own game.

alistairSH 6y ago
Except FB and Google aren't simply sharing links. They're skimming headlines, photos, and content and re-posting it outside the publisher's site and control. Most consumers are happy to read the headline, see the main photo, and possibly read a few lines of text - they don't click through the full news article. The legislation is wrongheaded - link sharing isn't the problem. But, the problem still exists.
- lclc98 6y ago
  News are providing that information for scraping though, viewing source of any of those sites and look into the "og" or "twitter" meta tags, they are designed to be used that way.
- splaytreemap 6y ago
  They could very easily opt out of getting scraped by Google. They choose not to though because it is beneficial to them to have Google help people find their content. Also note, Australia has specifically said removing article snippets from search results is not enough for Google to avoid payment. This legislation is not about protecting websites from content theft. It's solely about the Australian government forcing Google and Facebook to pay the propagandists that helped them get elected.
- cheph 6y ago
  > Except FB and Google aren't simply sharing links. They're skimming headlines, photos, and content and re-posting it outside the publisher's site and control. If it was copyright infringement why was a new law needed? If it was not (hint: it was not) then why should they pay? And why should they have to pay news companies and not every other site? If you want to re-invent copyright so that search engines become non-feasible, please just don't, because I like search engines, the world is better off for having search engines, maybe just don't use them yourself if you have such a big issue with them. > But, the problem still exists. No it really does not.
  - bluesign 6y ago
    I agree with you, but "the world is better off for having search engines" is not a valid excuse. As you mentioned copyright, world is better off for having piracy too.
    - cheph 6y ago
      > but "the world is better off for having search engines" is not a valid excuse. A valid excuse for not infringing copyright? What is the action that needs to be excused here? And if the sites don't want to be indexed by the search engines, why do they go out of their way to be indexed by search engines? What exactly is the problem that needs solving?
      - bluesign 6y ago
        I meant and I said I agree with you, but "world will be better like this" is rarely valid defense.
        cheph 6y ago
        > "world will be better like this" is rarely valid defense. Fair enough, it is never a good defense, but in this case it is not meant as a defense as much as a reason against changing laws from what it currently is. There was no action to be defended until Australia changed their laws to something which makes search engines non feasible and to me that is a good reason why the law should not have been made.
Keverw 6y ago
Yep, I feel like both Australia and Europe are going backwards. Hope this isn't a new trend, and maybe they'll realize they are making a mistake and turn around. I haven't been following the news much but last I heard Europe wanted link taxes and copyright upload filters.
mceoin 6y ago
> Charging for links had to be the single most destructive piece of tech legislation ever conceived in a 'free' democratic country. It depends what you mean by free. Australians have an "implied right to political communication", but it's not the same as "free speech" in the U.S. It would have been an interesting case to determine whether sharing news links on private servers (FB & Googs) was a constitutional right.

by calsy 6y ago

alistairSH 6y ago

Except FB and Google aren't simply sharing links. They're skimming headlines, photos, and content and re-posting it outside the publisher's site and control. Most consumers are happy to read the headline, see the main photo, and possibly read a few lines of text - they don't click through the full news article. The legislation is wrongheaded - link sharing isn't the problem. But, the problem still exists.

lclc98 6y ago
News are providing that information for scraping though, viewing source of any of those sites and look into the "og" or "twitter" meta tags, they are designed to be used that way.
splaytreemap 6y ago
They could very easily opt out of getting scraped by Google. They choose not to though because it is beneficial to them to have Google help people find their content. Also note, Australia has specifically said removing article snippets from search results is not enough for Google to avoid payment. This legislation is not about protecting websites from content theft. It's solely about the Australian government forcing Google and Facebook to pay the propagandists that helped them get elected.
cheph 6y ago
> Except FB and Google aren't simply sharing links. They're skimming headlines, photos, and content and re-posting it outside the publisher's site and control. If it was copyright infringement why was a new law needed? If it was not (hint: it was not) then why should they pay? And why should they have to pay news companies and not every other site? If you want to re-invent copyright so that search engines become non-feasible, please just don't, because I like search engines, the world is better off for having search engines, maybe just don't use them yourself if you have such a big issue with them. > But, the problem still exists. No it really does not.
- bluesign 6y ago
  I agree with you, but "the world is better off for having search engines" is not a valid excuse. As you mentioned copyright, world is better off for having piracy too.
  - cheph 6y ago
    > but "the world is better off for having search engines" is not a valid excuse. A valid excuse for not infringing copyright? What is the action that needs to be excused here? And if the sites don't want to be indexed by the search engines, why do they go out of their way to be indexed by search engines? What exactly is the problem that needs solving?
    - bluesign 6y ago
      I meant and I said I agree with you, but "world will be better like this" is rarely valid defense.
      - cheph 6y ago
        > "world will be better like this" is rarely valid defense. Fair enough, it is never a good defense, but in this case it is not meant as a defense as much as a reason against changing laws from what it currently is. There was no action to be defended until Australia changed their laws to something which makes search engines non feasible and to me that is a good reason why the law should not have been made.

Keverw 6y ago

Yep, I feel like both Australia and Europe are going backwards. Hope this isn't a new trend, and maybe they'll realize they are making a mistake and turn around. I haven't been following the news much but last I heard Europe wanted link taxes and copyright upload filters.

mceoin 6y ago

> Charging for links had to be the single most destructive piece of tech legislation ever conceived in a 'free' democratic country. It depends what you mean by free. Australians have an "implied right to political communication", but it's not the same as "free speech" in the U.S. It would have been an interesting case to determine whether sharing news links on private servers (FB & Googs) was a constitutional right.