Google vs Nation States

[geordief]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55760673

 

"Google has threatened to remove its search engine from Australia over the nation's attempt to make the tech giant share royalties with news publishers"

 

Google appears to be flexing its muscle against Australian plans to make laws that will affect its position .

 

Is this tenable?

 

Google is accountable to whom?

Its shareholders? Any legal requirements?

 

More generally ,what is the responsibility of multinationals to the countries that they operate in?

 

Do they avoid local laws by resettling ( or making the threat to do so) their assets to more compliant jurisdictions?

 

Are Multinationals now  too big to fail?

Should they be shackled (or made accountable) so that the power they have cannot be abused?

 

[Curious layman]

Bing, Firefox, DuckDuckGo, plus several dozen more. If google want to remove its search engine from Australia then let them. There's always someone else to fill the void.

[zapatos]

Other than scales this seems no different than a municipality raising taxes on a small store to help pay for local services.

It is their prerogative to do so, and it is my prerogative to move my store if I find the burden too onerous.

And yes, Google is accountable to its shareholders,  just as governments are accountable to their constituents.

[Sensei]

Politicians, and generally people around the world, have completely lost their minds...

 

The idea that the search engine has to pay content creators is totally bizarre...

Money goes exactly the reverse direction! Content makers pay Google to include their website and promote whatever they sell to the people!

 

If person goes to shop to get something from the shop, person pays shop? or shop pays client to get it?

Farmer pays clients to buy his/her products? or clients pay farmer to produce food?

 

Australian politicians are: 1) idiots? 2) have no idea how IT works? 3) both.. ? 4) bribed/corrupted by local IT companies which make local search-engines.. ? so entire regulation is just to shutdown foreign IT companies and promote local search-engines instead.. ?

(if 4th is the answer, local search-engine IT companies won't pay the content creators as well!)

Australian politicians apparently think that shop should pay clients to get their stuff from shelves..

Instead of "talking with lawyers", they should talk to computer programmers first..

I believe so that any senior IT engineer in Australia is having facepalm on his/her face hearing it.. as least should have..

 

The search-engine has forever an ongoing auction of websites. There are hundred millions or billions websites and their pages around the world, and each of creator wants to appear as close as possible to the top of list of search results, because end clients read just the first page (rarely more) of result.. They (creators of content) pay Google (or any other commercial search-engine) to be on the top of list! There is limited space and everybody wants it. Creators pay Google, not Google Pays creators!

Water does not flow uphill even on the opposite side of the Earth.. Australian politicians apparently think it does..

 

6 hours ago, geordief said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-55760673

Bizarre.

 

Edited January 22, 2021 by Sensei

[Prometheus]

Banning any websites will encourage more people to use VPNs. If a sizeable proportion of a population are using these then any government loses any ability to control their internet.

[StringJunky]

Google isn't just a search engine, it collects and monetizes information, just as the other big names do. They are all in exactly the same game. Whether they are a "search engine" or "social media site", it is just a front to that goal. If they are complicit in harming the financial health of media/information  creation sites, they need to pay for it. If they starve those original content entities of income they will have to create the news... even more monopoly. In that direction lies commercial tryanny.

Edited January 22, 2021 by StringJunky

[Prometheus]

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If they are complicit in harming the financial health of media/information  creation sites, they need to pay for it.

But are they complicit or is it just changing the ways people interact with media, thus making traditional routes less viable?

It reminds me of high street chains complaining about internet retailers: the former have to pay taxes on property, the latter not so much, giving internet based operations a competitive edge. But, in this example, nothing nefarious is being done by the internet based retailers. Maybe the solution is to innovate rather than legislate?

[swansont]

 

9 hours ago, geordief said:

Google is accountable to whom?

Its shareholders? Any legal requirements?

This is an example of Google being accountable to the law, if they are leaving a jurisdiction where they are not willing to comply with a local ordinance.

 

9 hours ago, geordief said:

More generally ,what is the responsibility of multinationals to the countries that they operate in?

To comply with their laws.

9 hours ago, geordief said:

 

Do they avoid local laws by resettling ( or making the threat to do so) their assets to more compliant jurisdictions?

They aren’t resettling. They are making their product unavailable. Not really different than with a physical product that doesn’t comply with e.g. a safety standard - If a widget uses lead in its electronics, there are places the company can’t sell the widget. 

 

9 hours ago, geordief said:

Are Multinationals now  too big to fail?

Should they be shackled (or made accountable) so that the power they have cannot be abused?

Countries have laws to regulate this. One problem is the fines they impose are often too small to change the behavior 

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

But are they complicit or is it just changing the ways people interact with media, thus making traditional routes less viable?

It reminds me of high street chains complaining about internet retailers: the former have to pay taxes on property, the latter not so much, giving internet based operations a competitive edge. But, in this example, nothing nefarious is being done by the internet based retailers. Maybe the solution is to innovate rather than legislate?

Unless the FAANG groups create the news infoirmation, it will be much reduced. As you say, there would need to be a new system. With the transfer from B&M sales to online sales, the goods are still available... would it be in this scenario i.e. would the same level/variety of news be available? My feeling is they will bias the news to subjects that are the most viral and lucrative... as they do now.

Edited January 22, 2021 by StringJunky

[Sensei]

If creators don't want their articles to be listed by search engine, it is easy: 1) don't buy ads to advertise your website, and 2) edit robots.txt file to reject search engine crawler:

https://developers.google.com/search/docs/advanced/robots/create-robots-txt

The first example on the page is how to disallow Google crawler to scan your website. Copy'n'paste to your website, 5 seconds of work and ~24h delay (till crawler notice change) and you're gone.

More and more journalists release articles behind paywall. Does Google or any other search engine owner pays to skip it? Nope.

 

[Prometheus]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

My feeling is they will bias the news to subjects that are the most viral and lucrative... as they do now.

That's a problem but is this legislation going to change that - from what i understand the Aussies are talking about diverting ad revenues to mainstream media? I think the fundamental problem with online echo-chambers is that we have algorithms optimise only for traffic interacting with the reptilian parts of our brains which are the part of us most easily triggered to smash that like button, as the kids say.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Prometheus said:

That's a problem but is this legislation going to change that - from what i understand the Aussies are talking about diverting ad revenues to mainstream media? I think the fundamental problem with online echo-chambers is that we have algorithms optimise only for traffic interacting with the reptilian parts of our brains which are the part of us most easily triggered to smash that like button, as the kids say.

All free sites generally rely on ad revenue, and the likes of Google prevents that exposure by removing the need for searchers to go to a particular site.

Edited January 22, 2021 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

11 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

All free sites generally rely on ad revenue, and the likes of Google prevents that exposure by removing the need for searchers to go to a particular site.

Can you explain that please? Doesn't Google take you to that particular site? Are the ads on that site not seen?

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Can you explain that please? Doesn't Google take you to that particular site? Are the ads on that site not seen?

If the actual information you seek is in a snippet on the search page, will that reduce the potential traffic to that site a person  intended to visit? If a dictionary definition is searched for and it's there on the search page, is the dictionary website put out of pocket?

Edited January 22, 2021 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

If the actual information you seek is in a snippet on the search page, will that reduce the potential traffic to that site?

Are you saying it is less traffic because the user doesn't start at the home page and work their way down? As opposed to Google taking you to the specific page you need?

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Are you saying it is less traffic because the user doesn't start at the home page and work their way down? As opposed to Google taking you to the specific page you need?

It doesn't just pinpoint the page but may show the desired contents on the search. If I put "pounds to dollars" in Google an inputable convertor app will show directly on the page first, then lists other conversion websites. These are just examples of the pernicious takeover of information and services by these companies. I can't even tell what a sponsored ad is anymore on their search pages... this shit runs deep.

Edited January 22, 2021 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It doesn't just pinpoint the page but may show the desired contents on the search. If I put "pounds to dollars" in Google an inputable convertor app will show directly on the page first, then lists other conversion websites. These are just examples of the pernicious takeover of information and services by these companies. I can't even tell what a sponsored ad is anymore on their search pages... this shit runs deep.

Got it. Yes, I can clearly see that as a problem for the owner of the content. Thanks.

[Curious layman]

13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It doesn't just pinpoint the page but may show the desired contents on the search. If I put "pounds to dollars" in Google an inputable convertor app will show directly on the page first, then lists other conversion websites. These are just examples of the pernicious takeover of information and services by these companies. I can't even tell what a sponsored ad is anymore on their search pages... this shit runs deep.

Emphasis mine.

f^^king hell StringJunky, I use the conversion and calculator all the time, the dictionary too. This is the first time I've noticed those other sites.

Had no idea they existed, why would I, I mean It's free on the internet, what's the point?

Its just a little thing, but thanks for pointing that out.

[MigL]

I see no problem with what Australia is doing.
Any country has the right to favor local information providers over foreign ones.
No different than import taxes or tariffs. Or "Buy American".

Google then choosing ( or threatening ) to withdraw their service is shooting themselves in the foot.
I suppose it all depends on HOW the Aussie Government implements this revenue sharing ( with News Organizations ),

Edited January 22, 2021 by MigL

[MigL]

I never thought I'd be suggesting the internet should be regulated.
And not that I have any respect for people who use hedge funds to make large amounts of money.
But when a bunch of teens on Reddit can use the power of the internet to inflate the stock of a failing company to deprive those hedge fund managers of their money, is that just retribution for a practice that should be better regulated, or, an abuse of the internet's power akin to Russian meddling in American elections, or disseminating lies to gullible followers on social media.
Either way, this will wreak havoc with pension funds, and possibly hurt a lot of people.
What do you guys think ?
( or are you trying to unload your inflated Game Stop stock as we speak ? )

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

What do you guys think ?

I think this is precisely how the market has behaved for over a decade, and it’s sad that we only let ourselves begin to care about the underlying risks of this approach when in one instance the seemingly powerless plebes gather together to use the system in the same way the obviously powerful 1% financial masters have been using it in nearly all other instances for as long as memory can recall. 

[Sensei]

On 1/30/2021 at 4:41 AM, MigL said:

What do you guys think ?

I think market always behaved this way, but behind closed  doors e.g. couple powerful investors making secret agreement and causing up rise or fall down of the company stock's together without everybody knowing about it. Now crowd of ordinary people can do it completely openly on the Internet.

Before XX century there were bankruptcy of banks caused by spreading of rumours about sudden insolvency. Some were completely true, some others were lies. Attempts to regulate this will lead to permanent censorship of literally everything. e.g. people won't be even able to complain about malfunction of the product which company sales, even if their complains will be absolutely true (and which will lead to eventual fall of stock price of the company). "Talk about company (and their products) always in positive light or don't talk at all".. That is what you want?

Who will judge they said lies about the product?

Who will judge that rumours about company insolvency is true or lie? Court? No. Because the all details of how good or bad is situation inside the company is under control of the company and they can show court whatever lies they want..

What rating had companies and banks in 2008, a day before financial crisis? The highest possible!

People proclaiming collapse of the system were mocked, censored, marginalised, sued. If somebody would publicly complain on CDS before 2008, banks which made millions and billions selling them, would sue person, because he or she attacked branch of which they are sitting and making profit on it.. If they would have a tool which you want them to introduce by making regulations, they would use it straight away to shut up mouth of wistleblowers.. 

 

Edited January 31, 2021 by Sensei

[StringJunky]

On 1/30/2021 at 3:56 AM, iNow said:

I think this is precisely how the market has behaved for over a decade, and it’s sad that we only let ourselves begin to care about the underlying risks of this approach when in one instance the seemingly powerless plebes gather together to use the system in the same way the obviously powerful 1% financial masters have been using it in nearly all other instances for as long as memory can recall. 

I find the notion of shortselling rather distasteful because influential shortsellers can, at a whim, decide if a struggling company is going to fail or not, simply by shorting its stock. Images of vultures comes to mind. The hive mind can overwhelm institutionalised questionable practices like this. They need to get used to it. This is a new form of regulation they  are probably going to have to adapt to. I remember Elon Musk going off his head because some were trying to short Tesla a couple years ago. It can be used as a tactical maneuver, which just stinks.

Edited January 31, 2021 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

I find the notion that money can self replicate/regulate, to be an abomination. 

[Sensei]

On 1/30/2021 at 4:41 AM, MigL said:

But when a bunch of teens on Reddit can use the power of the internet to inflate the stock of a failing company to deprive those hedge fund managers of their money,

They should not short sell in the first place! It is not constructive financial tool (in the case of stock market, in commodity exchanges it is completely different story). Doesn't build, but ruins businesses. If somebody thinks company is a bad business or eventually it will collapse should not buy their stocks. But if you short sale their stocks, that is evil! You are causing collapse of the company in shorter time. Hedge fund managers got what they deserved for and they were punished..

Edited January 31, 2021 by Sensei