Asia-Pacific Google (and Facebook) Threatens to Remove Its Service From Australia

[Husky_Khan]

Google threatens to block search in Australia if 'pay for news' law is passed

Search giant draws line in sand in latest escalation over proposed media code

www.techradar.com

But only if the democratically elected Australian government dares pass a new law that would compel the "company to pay Australian news media for the right to link to their content."

In response Google released a video and stated: “This provision in the code would set an untenable precedent for our business, and the digital economy," before stating that Google would have no choice but to remove its service from Australia.

 

[Abhorsen]

Google threatens to block search in Australia if 'pay for news' law is passed

Search giant draws line in sand in latest escalation over proposed media code

www.techradar.com

But only if the democratically elected Australian government dares pass a new law that would compel the "company to pay Australian news media for the right to link to their content."

In response Google released a video and stated: “This provision in the code would set an untenable precedent for our business, and the digital economy," before stating that Google would have no choice but to remove its service from Australia.

Good. The law is bullshit, and google has the absolute right to not offer services. Note that Google's news aggregation is the reason many news sites are getting clicks at all. It's one thing to ban this, as one thinks that it makes google too powerful. It's a completely different and bullshit thing to claim that Google should be paying a site to effectively advertise for that site. If google wanted to, it could make even more money by selling off the ability to be linked to by the aggregator to the highest bidder.

 

[JagerIV]

So, the question then is, is this an attempt to get Google to pull out by making an unreasonable demand, or was the expectation that google would agree to this, and are shocked Google protests so strongly?

Or, more likely, what is the balance of it? Did a "right winger" want google out, but needed to phrase this in a "support the local press" wrap to get enough left wing votes on? What angles are being played? I don't know local australian politics to know the ratio of based right wingers vs delusional left wingers to get this passed.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Honestly, Australia is a niche market, so it makes sense that if they are compelled to pay for aggregation, they would at minimum want to silo off Australia so that they can pass those fees on to Australian users while continuing to offer free services to the rest of the world.

 

[Cherico]

Google has acted like an absolute piece of shit for decades now.

The australian people are better off with out those assholes, and honestly giving another better search engine a market to work from helps us all.

 

[Captain X]

I actually do think that law is pretty nonsense, but at the same time, fuck Google.

 

[Husky_Khan]

It does seem like another engagement in a long line of disputes between traditional media and Google and it's environs.

I remember being rather supportive of Google (or rather it's content creators on YouTube) when the Wall Street Journal in their "expose" shamed advertisers into triggering the first adpocalypse on YouTube because some random ads were playing on shitty edgelord videos.

This of course IMHO is just traditional or legacy news media being jealous and fearful of Google's influence in the realm of communicating news to people and wanting to control it. This of course goes hand in hand with media usual sensationalism and underhanded partisanship (such as journalists contacting sponsors to explain how they csn support X or Y and writing articles about it but still being totally nonpartisan journals).

And it was Vox Media and that lispy Latino lad that ushered in not only a second Adpocalypse but was pushing for YouTube to purge meanie political and News content that he didn't like as well.

And unfortunately the government's in general play a role in this rivalry as well. In years prior I would be favoring Google and other internet platforms because they support 'independent' creators and seemed more aligned with Free Speech but lately these platforms have proven just as craven and ideologically biased as any other legacy news media platform.

So I guess I take these issues on a case by case basis. On the face of it charging Google for utilizing Australian news media sounds ridiculous and I don't know how it'll be implemented and if it just affects Google or other Big Tech platforms as well (or even small ones). But on the other hand Google pulling out of Australia can lead to positive developments as people might actually be compelled to find reasonable alternatives to Google's search engine which isn't fucking hard to do.

 

[Abhishekm]

I'm actually on googles side here as distasteful as that is. I mean what? Pay them to bring traffic to their site? What next Pronhud get a cut every time someone types Pron?

Also would this law apply specifically to Google or to all search engines? Because if its the later Australia might just become the first country to get blocked off the internet.

 

[Marduk]

Europe’s controversial ‘link tax’ in doubt after member states rebel

Articles 11 and 13 have been sent back to the drawing board

www.theverge.com

EU tried to pass a very similar measure and it got stuck in limbo so far.

And it does seem like yet another case of journocreatures being desperately greedy and using their influence on politicians to save the failing business side of their profession with a forced injection of someone else's money.
The fact is that if they insist on getting paid for news, they are free to lock their news behind a paid subscription login screen (and some publications do), but everyone knows that those who didn't do it yet have reasons for it, so they need a different solution - because not many readers will pay, let's make Google pay while keeping the readers and ad revenue they bring.

 

[Abhorsen]

Honestly, Australia is a niche market, so it makes sense that if they are compelled to pay for aggregation, they would at minimum want to silo off Australia so that they can pass those fees on to Australian users while continuing to offer free services to the rest of the world.

No, it wouldn't. the aggregation google gives is a bonus to the companies being aggregated. Why should it pay any money for it? It's like a guidebook company having to pay the people it recommends.

 

[Marduk]

No, it wouldn't. the aggregation google gives is a bonus to the companies being aggregated. Why should it pay any money for it? It's like a guidebook company having to pay the people it recommends.

TBH, they do have one argument - they supply content for Google and other aggregators to show. It raises an interesting question - at which point an ad becomes worthwhile content in and of itself?
For a more convincing scenario, some types of video entertainment are often considered glorified ads for physical merch, yet often they aren't free either, even if made at a loss.

But as i said, ultimately this is something that should and technically can be settled through negotiation, rather than government intervention - they are free to erect paywalls so that aggregators can't mooch off links to them, as some more respected, usually specialist publications already do, but as their own decisionmaking shows, it would hurt them more than it would pressure the aggregators to share their revenue... because their content apparently is not good enough to convince much audience to pay for it, so being free content for aggregators and an ad to drive people to the publisher's site is probably more worthwhile for them - the aggregator's audience seeing normal ads on the publication's site which the publisher will be paid for is the most use this content has, according to what we can see.

So they want to go around the whole annoying market, competition and negotiation stuff and have the heavy hand of government grant them a victory so decisive that they couldn't possibly achieve it in negotiation.
Google isn't handling it the best though - in their place, instead of threatening full to remove services from Australia right away, i would just publish an open letter to the point that any of Australia's news outlets that feel exploited and cheated out of their rightful revenue by Google are free to send one email request, and any links to their site will be forever blacklisted from Google's search and aggregation services, so that such exploitation won't continue. And then keep a monthly tally of how many publications took the offer.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

No, it wouldn't. the aggregation google gives is a bonus to the companies being aggregated. Why should it pay any money for it? It's like a guidebook company having to pay the people it recommends.

I said *if* Google is forced to pay for content agggregation by the Australian government, it's reasonable for Google to pass that cost on to Australian customers. Not that the Australian government's proposed course of action is reasonable.

 

[Abhorsen]

I said *if* Google is forced to pay for content agggregation by the Australian government, it's reasonable for Google to pass that cost on to Australian customers. Not that the Australian government's proposed course of action is reasonable.

Ah, sorry. I misunderstood you then. But I think it's reasonable strategy for Google to use this as a threat to discourage other countries from doing it.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Australia says 'inevitable' that Google, others will have to pay media companies for news

Australia’s Treasurer Josh Frydenberg made the remark in response to the internet giant’s threat to disable its search engine in the country if it’s forced to pay local publishers for news.

theprint.in

The Australian Treasurer stated that Google paying media companies for news is "inevitable." Also pointed out in the article is that both Google and Facebook are targeted by this new law and Facebook as well has protested the proposed legislation as well. Furthermore, according to one local regulator, 94% of all internet searches go through the Alphabet Inc unit.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

It's not a very constructive response, I know, but I kinda feel like snapping, "No foreign government gets to dictate to an American company like this. Google, you're authorized to go full East India Trading Company."

 

[ParadiseLost]

Yeah, this is really stupid. Its a form of protectionism.

Its the equivalent of me starting a business; afterwards, somewell else comes along and creates a road leading to my business, and signs and maps to help guide people there. I then demand that person pay me money for the privilege of being my advertiser.

Its outrageously stupid, and honestly, I think this might be a good example of non-obvious rent seeking behavior.

I can understand why Google is so upset. This basically defeats their whole business model. Their business model is advertising for others, then auctioning top spots in the advertisement. Like the Yellow Pages, essentially.

If they have to start paying people for their advertisements.... that's an inversion of their entire business model.

Its an absolute farce that Australian news media provides Google any value at all.

 

[Cherico]

Once again Google has been a complete ass to everyone here, australias actions will create more competitors that will hopefully be less assholish to us this is a good thing.

 

[ParadiseLost]

Once again Google has been a complete ass to everyone here, australias actions will create more competitors that will hopefully be less assholish to us this is a good thing.

You think poorer, less profitable companies with far less market share will be able to better bear the costs Australia is trying to place on search engine companies?

ROFL.

If this is actually such as serious issue that Google feels like it needs to leave the country (and Google isn't just crying over some minor issue) then no one else is remotely prepared to take Google's place if it decides to leave Australia.

What this will actually (probably) do is raise the cost of advertising on search engines in Australia, making Australian companies even less competitive vs international.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

You think poorer, less profitable companies with far less market share will be able to better bear the costs Australia is trying to place on search engine companies?

I'm sure they will exempt Australian companies from the same fees and claim that it's "only fair". This is pure greed from two-bit Australian news companies backed up by an equally rapacious government.

 

[ParadiseLost]

I'm sure they will exempt Australian companies from the same fees and claim that it's "only fair". This is pure greed from two-bit Australian news companies backed up by an equally rapacious government.

There aren't any remotely equivalent search engines headquartered in Australia. Not that I've heard of.