> Google’s Going to Regret Its Australia Search Threat
> But issuing threats isn’t going win them any favors.
I like how the first and last lines are counter-threats, but there's absolutely no mention of how google is going to regret this. Are they going to force google to participate in a market that the company wants to pull out of? How?
> It responded to similar legislative efforts in France and Spain by eliminating news from its search results — a move that ultimately resulted in a new agreement with publishers to pay them for content. The details of this remain unclear, but such agreements generally result in relatively insubstantial payments.
so this is a technique that google used before with good results. a better title "google should be made to regret its threat"
Australia's law simply breaks how a search engine works. The search engine's job is just to return the user the links to answers to their question. The provider of that answer can do whatever they wish to monetize the user. A search engine does not make enough money to pay any website it links to.
Google is not making threats, it is making a plainly obvious statement that anyone who works around the search engine industry would recognize.
I'm definitely not a fan of Google, in fact I've gone through quite some pain to de-google my whole life. That said, the proposed Australian law is nothing short of laughable.
Not only are they requiring Google to pay the news orgs they link to, it also seems that Google couldn't decide to just not link to these orgs. If the orgs are not a fan of Google showing links to their website they can just forbid Google via robots.txt. This option has been available for decades.
When I first read about this I was convinced I had to be completely misunderstanding the proposed law, but no it turns out it is in fact that stupid.
I guess I shouldn't be surpised, Australia doesn't have a particularly good track record on regulating the internet after all
Of course Bloomberg, a news org, would publish an opinion piece titled "Google’s Going to Regret Its Australia Search Threat"
If they say they are going to cut off what would be affected by the law, that's not really a threat, that would just be "getting ahead of potential regulation." If they say they are going to cut off other unaffected services, that's a threat, but I don't think that's what they've done, though I can see why the media even outside of Australia loves that angle.
6 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 22.5 ms ] thread> But issuing threats isn’t going win them any favors.
I like how the first and last lines are counter-threats, but there's absolutely no mention of how google is going to regret this. Are they going to force google to participate in a market that the company wants to pull out of? How?
> It responded to similar legislative efforts in France and Spain by eliminating news from its search results — a move that ultimately resulted in a new agreement with publishers to pay them for content. The details of this remain unclear, but such agreements generally result in relatively insubstantial payments.
so this is a technique that google used before with good results. a better title "google should be made to regret its threat"
Google is not making threats, it is making a plainly obvious statement that anyone who works around the search engine industry would recognize.
Because the alternative is google stops including you and you might as well not exist.
The idea that bing or duckduckgo could provide you that service for free while paying the publisher is a joke.
Not only are they requiring Google to pay the news orgs they link to, it also seems that Google couldn't decide to just not link to these orgs. If the orgs are not a fan of Google showing links to their website they can just forbid Google via robots.txt. This option has been available for decades.
When I first read about this I was convinced I had to be completely misunderstanding the proposed law, but no it turns out it is in fact that stupid.
I guess I shouldn't be surpised, Australia doesn't have a particularly good track record on regulating the internet after all
Of course Bloomberg, a news org, would publish an opinion piece titled "Google’s Going to Regret Its Australia Search Threat"