5 ms·

As another Australian, I'm unclear why you think politicians preferred the opposite outcome. The TL;DR of the case is that a lawyer involved in some criminal g

by nl 4y ago

As another Australian, I'm unclear why you think politicians preferred the opposite outcome. The TL;DR of the case is that a lawyer involved in some criminal gang cases sued Google because the reports by newspapers about him were available in Google search results. I don't think many Australian politicians would take the side of the lawyer in this case.

ako 4y ago
The fact that a lawyer thought he had a chance in court with this case makes you wonder...
- caf 4y ago
  He in fact succeeded in the claim at both the Supreme Court of Victoria and the Court of Appeal. This ruling is from the final appellate court.
BLKNSLVR 4y ago
This was my interpretation of attaching the concept of 'publisher' to Google in relation to the recent-ish "news" aggregation debacle whereby Google and Facebook were eventually made to pay news companies for linking to their articles in an oh-so-obviously punitive pursuit by the Australian Government of the day protecting their, umm, "political campaign contributors".* Someone else commented that this is a very 'thin' interpretation, and so there may be no implications to the above. Were there to be any implications, however, they would most certainly go against the above 'protection payments' being enforceable.* *Personal opinion, do not misinterpret as fact, please do your own research to misinterpret in your own, personal way.
- nl 4y ago
  > This was my interpretation of attaching the concept of 'publisher' to Google in relation to the recent-ish "news" aggregation debacle whereby Google and Facebook were eventually made to pay news companies for linking to their articles in an oh-so-obviously punitive pursuit by the Australian Government of the day protecting their, umm, "political campaign contributors". Sure, but that's a very different issue to this one. The wacky "make big tech pay" thing is dumb populism but appears pretty unrelated.
  - BLKNSLVR 4y ago
    I think you're right, but the terminology 'publisher' joins the two together in my mind.
    - marcus_holmes 4y ago
      Actually I think you're right. There is no technical understanding of any of this in the minds of the people making these decisions. The distinction between republishing via AMP and linking takes longer than 5 seconds to explain, so will be ignored by everyone involved. Google & Facebook were being attacked (at the behest of Murdoch) on multiple fronts. This was one of them, the news mess was another. I think (again, personal opinion, ignore at will) that this is the last remnants of that broohaha being put to rest.
- upsidesinclude 4y ago
  You are misunderstanding the problem. The were converting the links, using AMP for instance, and driving traffic away from the publisher

by nl 4y ago

ako 4y ago

The fact that a lawyer thought he had a chance in court with this case makes you wonder...

caf 4y ago
He in fact succeeded in the claim at both the Supreme Court of Victoria and the Court of Appeal. This ruling is from the final appellate court.

BLKNSLVR 4y ago

This was my interpretation of attaching the concept of 'publisher' to Google in relation to the recent-ish "news" aggregation debacle whereby Google and Facebook were eventually made to pay news companies for linking to their articles in an oh-so-obviously punitive pursuit by the Australian Government of the day protecting their, umm, "political campaign contributors".* Someone else commented that this is a very 'thin' interpretation, and so there may be no implications to the above. Were there to be any implications, however, they would most certainly go against the above 'protection payments' being enforceable.* *Personal opinion, do not misinterpret as fact, please do your own research to misinterpret in your own, personal way.

nl 4y ago
> This was my interpretation of attaching the concept of 'publisher' to Google in relation to the recent-ish "news" aggregation debacle whereby Google and Facebook were eventually made to pay news companies for linking to their articles in an oh-so-obviously punitive pursuit by the Australian Government of the day protecting their, umm, "political campaign contributors". Sure, but that's a very different issue to this one. The wacky "make big tech pay" thing is dumb populism but appears pretty unrelated.
- BLKNSLVR 4y ago
  I think you're right, but the terminology 'publisher' joins the two together in my mind.
  - marcus_holmes 4y ago
    Actually I think you're right. There is no technical understanding of any of this in the minds of the people making these decisions. The distinction between republishing via AMP and linking takes longer than 5 seconds to explain, so will be ignored by everyone involved. Google & Facebook were being attacked (at the behest of Murdoch) on multiple fronts. This was one of them, the news mess was another. I think (again, personal opinion, ignore at will) that this is the last remnants of that broohaha being put to rest.
upsidesinclude 4y ago
You are misunderstanding the problem. The were converting the links, using AMP for instance, and driving traffic away from the publisher