Is Google Australia Right or Wrong?  - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: leham
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: August 18, 2020, 10:43:42 pm
content: So for those who don't know, the Australian government is wanting to push a new law to protect traditional media, basically they want big companies like google and apple to pay for news articles.This is my understanding and breakdown of their blog post.QuoteOk lets break it down..QuoteWe're ur friends, we always help remember ?!QuoteOK so last year youtube made a new rule to remove "fake news" ONLY "verified" news outlets could be allowed to create content on current events (news, disasters, some polotics ect). Youtube hides or removes videos they deem as "fake news", even if they are just discussionQuoteNot really, mainly due to their fake news policy, the news outlets already have little competition, this isn't going to completely flood everyone's feed, youtube is not a single file system, everyone is exposed to different contentQuoteThis is the same data google sells to advertisers, they are probbaly upset because they would have to give it away for free. The word protection is a key word, this whole blog is basically gas-lighting or attempting toQuoteThere is no explanation given by youtube here, does Allen Jones vlog?Here is the ACCC response, it's kinda funny as it shows how google where/is/are trying to manipulate their users.QuoteJust food for thought, google knew the law inside and out already, they write like they are but a humble little company trying to get by...

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2020, 12:15:04 am
content: The arguments are rather irrelevant. Lawyers from both sides will make any arguments they can get away with to make their case.The real point here is who really benefits from google indexing the articles for free. Google may see enough value in that and the new tax will just make margins smaller. In this case old news outlets will benefit from this.Or Google may see not enough benefit even to cover the tax. In that case they may decide to provide the service at a loss, just to keep the customer in the ecosystem.Or they may decide "screw you" and stop indexing the news. This will be the death of traditional media. And from what I can see, this is the most likely scenario. This already happened in Spain (?) - Google just stopped indexing them. All the traditional media came crawling back asking to start indexing them again, since traffic dropped significantly.

author: fourfathom
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2020, 01:31:28 am
content: Quote from: ataradov on August 19, 2020, 12:15:04 amSo it seems that Google was providing a valuable service for the traditional media. Perhaps the media should be paying Google?

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2020, 01:36:38 am
content: Google would not want to charge them, since I doubt they even have enough money for Google to worry about.But definitely "traditional media" thinks very highly of themselves. Where in reality their value is pretty low and some are downright parasitic. And real people don't care. Most of the time they just reprint the same reports. So in reality when I search for some event, I don't care where the story comes from. As long as Google indexes AP and other actual sources, I'm good. In fact, in most cases I don't want to see copy-paste of the same story from 100 "news" organizations.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2020, 01:47:53 am
content: Both the media and Google are financed by ad revenue, and Google seems to be getting the lion's share right now. This is one of the key things which has lead the newspapers and other media to become purveyors of fake news, desperate to get any clicks they can. If we want the traditional media to be able to re-establish actual journalism we need something to change in their revenue sources. The fact that Google has stopped indexing in some places means very little. This is obviously what they would do in the short term as a negotiating ploy. Google needs news sources to get clicks. I don't know if the proposed move would be effective or would just backfire, but clearly the news business is just circling the drain right now.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 19, 2020, 01:55:32 am
content: I understand the Google News thing and having to pay for that.What I don't understand is how this relates to Youtube?Youtube simply feature news content isuploaded to the Youtube channels of the media companies themselves. Why on earth should Youtube have to pay extra to them?

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2020, 01:56:53 am
content: While we do need good journalism, we just don't need as much of it as we try to support. Like there is not a huge market for horseshoe makers anymore, and there is no tax on car companies that can fix that. Same with news. Most news outlets report the same exact thing. And, of course it splits audience.There must be some separation between reporting of facts and true investigative journalism. The later should be somehow supported. The former will die, as there is no real need to report the same exact thing 10 times.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2020, 02:01:02 am
content: Quote from: ataradov on August 19, 2020, 01:56:53 amRight now we have neither fact reporting or investigative journalism, and I see that as a serious problem.

author: Bud
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2020, 02:28:42 am
content: Since when Traditional media means web ? Traditional media is hard print, i would love to have my Traditional media back, delivered to my house mailbox.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2020, 02:32:36 am
content: Quote from: Bud on August 19, 2020, 02:28:42 amThe traditional print media that is still around is mostly consumed via the web these days, but its still the same old media companies. They just abandoned any connection to honest reporting, and can no longer afford to investigate anything.

author: John B
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: August 19, 2020, 04:45:38 am
content: Pretty hard to feel sorry for a multinational censorious corporation, but also hard to feel sorry for the traditional legacy Australian media. I've had a hunch that the covid pandemic has actually boosted the viewership of legacy media outlets even if there are people being laid off. The overall coverage has left me disgusted though, when it's not scary music hysteria, it's being a mouthpiece for government mandates.Hard to know who to root for in order to knock a few barnacles off the bottom of the boat, as it were

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2020, 03:28:44 am
content: When Google starts paying their fair share of tax in Australia, I will start listening to them.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2020, 05:09:18 am
content: Quote from: VK3DRB on August 21, 2020, 03:28:44 amThough, in fairness, the "traditional news media" pay as little as they can get away with, as well.They do, however, employ people in Australia, --- how many do Google employ?If I could go in & take McDonald's burgers, go back to my place & either sell them, or hand them out, Macca's would get a bit stroppy.Maybe the Oz media's product includes a lot of "nothingburgers", but it is their product, why should they have to give it away, free to a company which does very little in return?My rule is pretty much "getting your news off the Internet is like getting your nutrients from roadkill".I find that the actual News segments on TV are reasonable ----- there isn't a lot of time for journalists to conspire with flinty eyed agents of the Kremlin, Wall Street, the Iluminati, the Lizard people, or whatever, given the time constraints they work under.When I worked for CH7, I noticed they got things right with a couple of hours to do it in, more often the local (then Murdoch) Sunday paper which had all week!

author: ataradov
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2020, 05:17:47 am
content: They are not giving it away. Google's argument is that they provide a valuable service by bringing in search traffic. And it seems like that argument holds.And individual outlets are already free to block the google bot. It does not hide, it identifies itself. But they don't want to, since everyone else will just get more traffic. So clearly they realize Google's importance.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2020, 05:32:53 am
content: Quote from: coppice on August 19, 2020, 02:32:36 amThat’s only true to some extent. Newspapers, which traditionally formed the foundation of news collecting and investigative journalism, have undergone tremendous consolidation over the past 50 years or so, but highly accelerated since the web took off. Local newspapers mostly used to be independent, now they’re almost all owned by a handful of companies who’ve gutted them.

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2020, 05:33:43 am
content: Quote from: ataradov on August 21, 2020, 05:17:47 am+1Its an opportunistic move or bluff, if Google bites the bait, yay ... profit, if not, then nothing to loose either, and quietly pull off the bait. And then later just shrug off telling self .. "at least we tried, nothing to loose.."

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2020, 11:37:12 am
content: Quote from: tooki on August 21, 2020, 05:32:53 amLondon had pretty much a local newspaper per borough when I was a kid, paid for, and filled with editorial. Then those newspapers gave way to free newspapers which were 98% advertising, and maybe a page of editorial about local events. Now they have gone. I think this trend is common to most places. A lot of media has consolidated, but the tendency with local newspapers has been for them to disappear.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2020, 11:42:04 am
content: Quote from: vk6zgo on August 21, 2020, 05:09:18 amGood point. One thing I have noticed is many years ago Ch7, Ch9, Ch0 and Ch2 all had news services with a lot of independent news, much of it created by the journalists who were employed by those stations and the rest from different international news sources and syndicates. Remember Sunday Magazine after the news?These days, if I watch SBS and then the ABC news is a lot of the same stuff regurgitated. Local ABC has more Victorian stuff, but so much is the same, even the sequence of the reports are the same. Mind you Mary, Tamara and Janice are great news readers and pleasing to the eye to be honest.It is of concern the same stuff is appearing all over the place and there are few sources of news. I am sure a lot of the journos these days just surf the internet. Single source of news is Orwellian. We all know 1984 is well and truly embedded in the so-called "People's" Republic of China, but I fear to some extent it is here in the West as well.

author: VK3DRB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2020, 11:51:50 am
content: There are a few newsworthy items that never see the light of day. When some of Isaac Newton's documents with calculations were made public amidst huge fanfare, I decided to examine some of them in detail when I discovered a subtle mistake he made in an equation. Definite error. I search the Internet to see if anyone had found it - nothing. I alerted the media, but it was clear they could not give a hoot.Maybe it was not newsworthy but I wanted to point out even great geniuses make mistakes. (He also got burned in the Dutch Tulip ponzi scheme.)

author: eti
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 21, 2020, 11:56:44 pm
content: Google is ALWAYS wrong about everything, by default, no research needed on my part to know that. They're an exceptionally cavalier, arrogant company with no focus on improving their "products", and seem to throw caution to the wind with great regularity, and with no respect for data privacy.Oh, and they deemed Android a worthy design choice for a phone platform, replete with all the ghastly, idiotic choices they have made with regard to its distribution and dilution (and it's utterly retarded version of Java, which everyone crows "bbbbut it's Open Source!" [no it is NOT! Only some parts, who cares!]) Funny, Android has had annual "promises" and cutesy "projects" which perpetually "promise" improvement, which they crow about to no end, and yet it's still an absolute joke.So my answer is YES, they're wrong merely by virtue of their existence, and also their lack of moral ethics.

author: Muku
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2020, 06:07:34 pm
content: Everyone just bashes google because they are giant company. But i would support google and YouTube over traditional media giants any day. Traditional media companies don't bring any value to the table and have zero credibility these days. Where as google as big as it may be and sell our data to advertiser but I can live with that. At least they provide valuable service that I actually use in exchange for my data. I feel like that is a symbiotic relationship I can live with. I am from a small country and education system here is not really good. You don't really learn much in class. And for a shy slow learner like me it was a disaster. I failed 4 subjects in my first semester in engineering school, my teachers didn't know what they were teaching and I didn't know what I was learning. In 2013 I requested my parents to install a internet connection. It was an ADSL connection speed was 512kbps. It was expensive but it was worth it. I learned everything about electronics almost exclusively from the internet and mostly it was YouTube. I got introduced to EEVlog, mikeselectricstuff, Applied Science, MITopencourseware etc. I passed my 1st semester physics thanks to Dr. Walter Lewin. I took math class on Khan Academy. I can't even thank YouTube enough for how much they have changed my life.I would happily provide google with printouts of my browser history if that is what it would take to get YouTube and Google search for free from tomorrow. I get much more value in exchange for data that is valueless to me. You are never going to find the type of content you find on YouTube for free even if you wanted to pay for it, that is a fact.I don't know about others and I don't know about the future but at the present I am OK with google.I mean think about it, none of us would be here if it was not for YouTube.

author: Muku
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2020, 06:18:19 pm
content: Quote from: eti on August 21, 2020, 11:56:44 pmAndroid is not perfect but it is a product that millions of people use everyday and has made smartphone accessible to people who wouldn't dream of buying an apple. I would go as far as to say android is revolutionary. I guess people in the west have fairly high standards for smartphone os than people here but I have 2 android phones that I absolutely love. Great UI, fast, works like a charm, don't have to pay a dime to write my own apps, love it.

author: Kean
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 27, 2020, 06:22:49 pm
content: Quote from: Muku on August 27, 2020, 06:07:34 pmWell to be precise, it is primarily because of the creators that contribute videos. Youtube provide a service to assist with distributing those videos. If Youtube wasn't around to do it, others would be.Similarly, Google search results rely on creators like news media organisations to create content so that Google can index it and help you find it. I'll let you decide how much Google is contributing vs the news media organisations.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 27, 2020, 06:45:23 pm
content: Quote from: Kean on August 27, 2020, 06:22:49 pmWhere are the others? After buying youtube, it took google many years to figure out how to make any profit from it. Youtube needs to host a huge amount of data with humongous traffic being an understatement. By no way it is trivial and needs huge investment.QuoteHow about those countries which made laws lobbied by news consortiums that google news needs to pay news organizations for news snippets. Result was either google news shut down altogether like in Spain. Which resulted in decreased traffic to news websites. Or news organizations now opting in for free after getting the "win" in other places. So who needs who?

author: Muku
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2020, 06:48:02 pm
content: Quote from: Kean on August 27, 2020, 06:22:49 pmWe have all see other video platforms and we all know why they are not as popular as YouTube. They suck. YouTube is not perfect I admit but they are way better than others and they should certainly get the credit for that. Creators and YouTube are like chicken and egg, if we argue about which is more important than we will be here all day. Good creators create content on YouTube because YouTube provides better platform, which in turn keeps YouTube a better platform. We all know what kind of content News media organizations create.Its laughable. Google contributes a lot more that the news medias. Google doesn't just give me news. Google is a lot more that news. Weather you like it or not, google is a way of life. They achieved this status because they are actually useful. People use google for almost everything. Even if giant media organisation vanished tomorrow, there wouldn't be much of a crisis. There is enough small genuine content creators on the internet that it wouldn't really matter. You would still be able to get your local news. But if google vanished tomorrow, everyone certainly would be panicking.

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 27, 2020, 07:33:47 pm
content: Quote from: eti on August 21, 2020, 11:56:44 pmOne of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. By your ultra narrow thinking you completely miss the fact that your (regular people) interests in many areas coincide with interests of google. So simplybecause it's google(Trump or whoever), you are happy to slam your head into a brick wall.

author: eti
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2020, 09:55:09 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on August 27, 2020, 07:33:47 pmOh well, never mind

author: wraper
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: August 27, 2020, 10:01:24 pm
content: Quote from: eti on August 27, 2020, 09:55:09 pmI guess it feels good to be proud of your of own ignorance.

author: eti
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2020, 10:08:40 pm
content: Quote from: wraper on August 27, 2020, 10:01:24 pmYour view of me is from the perspective of a stranger, and even then, if you weren't, this is one opinion alone, and even then just an *opinion* - less than meaningless. You choose to believe as you wish. Have a nice day (sincerely)

author: Muku
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2020, 10:36:44 pm
content: Quote from: eti on August 27, 2020, 09:55:09 pmThe picture that you posted is talking about confusing facts with opinion. You are the one confusing fact with opinion not us. What you said about Android is an opinion and quite uninformed one, that is why you are getting bashed as you should have expected. If you have the right to express an opinion others have right to bash it as well. Don't take it personally. Have a nice day.

author: eti
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 27, 2020, 11:28:55 pm
content: Got to love how binary and self-assured everyone is online (including me, I confess)

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 28, 2020, 10:56:54 am
content: Quote from: eti on August 27, 2020, 09:55:09 pmThey're both wrong--it's a lower case "g"!

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 28, 2020, 01:11:48 pm
content: Quote from: eti on August 27, 2020, 09:55:09 pmWith Jimi Hendrix playing gently in the background.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: August 28, 2020, 04:52:20 pm
content: Quote from: eti on August 27, 2020, 11:28:55 pmThis is actually an "interesting" byproduct of online discussions. I am not completely sure where that comes from, although it seems kind of obvious that the relative anonimity, and even when you give your real name, the "shield" you get by being behind a screen, both favor that behavior.Yet another factor, I think, is the "mob" effect - that you can of course also get IRL, but given the number of people online compared to the number of people you typically interact with IRL, it's just amplified a lot. You can often see two groups of people form over almost any kind of discussion, with radically opposite opinions, and the more people in each group, and the more people get opiniated.As to the original question I don't know really. I don't have the figures needed for that. Like in any situation of this kind, we would have to know exactly what Google brings to the traditional media, not just what it takes from them, and see where the balance lies.