3 ms·

So how does this bode for the lobbying by Ruper Murdoch and co to force search engines to pay for linking to news articles ?

by EGreg 4y ago

weq 4y ago
exactly. murdoch controls australia, nothing like a bit of outrage to get the tabloid pumping. he will no doubt now smear said high court judges
- monkeycantype 4y ago
  Not tightly enough to win the last election though :)
- stephen_g 4y ago
  Murdoch's grip is slipping. He failed to turn the last Federal election, and has failed with about five State elections despite publishing huge amounts of rabid nonsense about the party he was trying to get out and massive support for the party he was trying to get in. He used to have a very high success rate getting the party he wanted in, but in the last few years he seems less and less effective. Part of his issue is all his stuff has gone so far right with Sky News (especially 'After Dark' shows) and the tabloids (which also basically includes The Australian now), similar to how Fox News in the US went. But it seems that while he is pulling in a number of crazies, it's seemingly nowhere as big a proportion of the population as in the US. So more people seem to be switching off than getting pulled in (thankfully).
  - sumedh 4y ago
    > it's seemingly nowhere as big a proportion of the population as in the US. I think its because Australia has a Preferential Voting system.
    - stephen_g 4y ago
      Yeah, I am actually very thankful for preferential voting. The way it makes it possible for minor parties to exist and for independents to get in seems to me to be a very good thing.
bloppe 4y ago
Lol wtf does he think would happen if successful? That Google would pay the fee or just drop fox from all search results?
- nl 4y ago
  Both Google and Facebook are paying in Australia. (In Australia his main publications are news.com.au and associated other mastheads, and Sky News. Fox isn't a player).
- Gigachad 4y ago
  Part of the law was that you couldn't drop one publisher, you had to pay for all news links or drop all news from the platform. Facebook claimed they would and actually did drop news for a few weeks but eventually backtracked and agreed to pay.
- gonzo41 4y ago
  Australia has pretty terrible defamation laws, this was probably an attempt to make money. Sadly it usually works.
  - nl 4y ago
    This is unrelated to defamation laws in any way.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      > This is unrelated to defamation laws in any way. Did you even read the case-summary? "The respondent commenced proceedings, claiming damages for defamation from the appellant"
      - simiones 4y ago
        Sure, the article is about defamation, but the current sub-thread is about Rupert Murdoch wanting Google to pay for linking to his news stories - which has nothing at all to do with defamation.
incompatible 4y ago
I think it would be irrelevant, since a specific law was passed in Australia forcing them to pay. I think it applies even to bare hyperlinks? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56410335 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56410335
- exodust 4y ago
  Happening in UK too. https://inews.co.uk/news/technology/tech-giants-google-facebook-pay-news-under-new-government-plans-1432009 https://inews.co.uk/news/technology/tech-giants-google-faceb... Public broadcasters like the BBC love to gloat every few pixels about how trustworthy they are. Yet, they will have more secret commercial deals with tech giants to get automatic prominent positions in feeds, regardless of quality. They're already spending up on ads on those platforms, and now the money will move in both directions. What could go wrong?! In addition, the scheme involves harvesting data of users on the social platforms. It's a messy conflict of interest that encourages high volumes of low quality. Because that's all that's needed to get paid.

So how does this bode for the lobbying by Ruper Murdoch and co to force search engines to pay for linking to news articles ?

by EGreg 4y ago

So how does this bode for the lobbying by Ruper Murdoch and co to force search engines to pay for linking to news articles ?

weq 4y ago

exactly. murdoch controls australia, nothing like a bit of outrage to get the tabloid pumping. he will no doubt now smear said high court judges

monkeycantype 4y ago
Not tightly enough to win the last election though :)
stephen_g 4y ago
Murdoch's grip is slipping. He failed to turn the last Federal election, and has failed with about five State elections despite publishing huge amounts of rabid nonsense about the party he was trying to get out and massive support for the party he was trying to get in. He used to have a very high success rate getting the party he wanted in, but in the last few years he seems less and less effective. Part of his issue is all his stuff has gone so far right with Sky News (especially 'After Dark' shows) and the tabloids (which also basically includes The Australian now), similar to how Fox News in the US went. But it seems that while he is pulling in a number of crazies, it's seemingly nowhere as big a proportion of the population as in the US. So more people seem to be switching off than getting pulled in (thankfully).
- sumedh 4y ago
  > it's seemingly nowhere as big a proportion of the population as in the US. I think its because Australia has a Preferential Voting system.
  - stephen_g 4y ago
    Yeah, I am actually very thankful for preferential voting. The way it makes it possible for minor parties to exist and for independents to get in seems to me to be a very good thing.

bloppe 4y ago

Lol wtf does he think would happen if successful? That Google would pay the fee or just drop fox from all search results?

nl 4y ago
Both Google and Facebook are paying in Australia. (In Australia his main publications are news.com.au and associated other mastheads, and Sky News. Fox isn't a player).
Gigachad 4y ago
Part of the law was that you couldn't drop one publisher, you had to pay for all news links or drop all news from the platform. Facebook claimed they would and actually did drop news for a few weeks but eventually backtracked and agreed to pay.
gonzo41 4y ago
Australia has pretty terrible defamation laws, this was probably an attempt to make money. Sadly it usually works.
- nl 4y ago
  This is unrelated to defamation laws in any way.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    > This is unrelated to defamation laws in any way. Did you even read the case-summary? "The respondent commenced proceedings, claiming damages for defamation from the appellant"
    - simiones 4y ago
      Sure, the article is about defamation, but the current sub-thread is about Rupert Murdoch wanting Google to pay for linking to his news stories - which has nothing at all to do with defamation.

incompatible 4y ago

I think it would be irrelevant, since a specific law was passed in Australia forcing them to pay. I think it applies even to bare hyperlinks? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56410335 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-56410335

exodust 4y ago
Happening in UK too. https://inews.co.uk/news/technology/tech-giants-google-facebook-pay-news-under-new-government-plans-1432009 https://inews.co.uk/news/technology/tech-giants-google-faceb... Public broadcasters like the BBC love to gloat every few pixels about how trustworthy they are. Yet, they will have more secret commercial deals with tech giants to get automatic prominent positions in feeds, regardless of quality. They're already spending up on ads on those platforms, and now the money will move in both directions. What could go wrong?! In addition, the scheme involves harvesting data of users on the social platforms. It's a messy conflict of interest that encourages high volumes of low quality. Because that's all that's needed to get paid.