As Google Eyes Australia Exit, Microsoft Talks Bing With Prime Minister (reuters.com) 143
Software giant Microsoft is confident its search product Bing can fill the gap in Australia if Google pulls its search over required payments to media outlets, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said on Monday. From a report: Australia has introduced laws that would force internet giant Google and social media heavyweight Facebook Inc to negotiate payments to domestic media outlets whose content links drive traffic to their platforms. However, the Big Tech firms have called the laws unworkable and said last month they would withdraw key services from Australia if the regulations went ahead. Those services include Google's search engine, which has 94% of the country's search market, according to industry data. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has since spoken with Morrison about the new rules, the tech company told Reuters, and on Monday, Morrison said the software company was ready to grow the presence of its search tool Bing, the distant No. 2 player.
DuckDuckGo (Score:2)
Could be rebranded as PlatypusPlatypusGo?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
GoannaGoannaGo.
Re: DuckDuckGo (Score:1)
PangolinPangolinGo!
DuckDuckGo can fill the gap (Score:2)
DuckDuckGo can fill the gap - I've been using it instead of google for over a year. I've had to run the query through google a couple times a month a most, usually on very news topics only.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't use they Bing as a back end anyhow?
How then fuck is this "trolling"? (Score:2)
Seeiously, ... how?
Who gives mod points to complete morons!
Re: (Score:3)
two different personal acecdotes with different conclusions; the only thing in common is that both of you think this is enough to extrapolate into something more than that; both can be true and both can be false, it just depends on the context
add your stories to the mix, but pls leave the conclusions of usability to each context
Re: (Score:2)
DuckDuckGo has improved quite a bit in the last few years and is my browsers (SeaMonkey) default search engine. It also makes a good front end to Google for non-personalized searches just by adding a bang code, !g works, officially it is !google with a lot of choices, https://duckduckgo.com/bang?c=... [duckduckgo.com]
There are a lot of bangs, https://duckduckgo.com/bang [duckduckgo.com]
Re: DDG's results suck. (Score:2)
Why do you even reply then??
After all, your sight of comment is merely a pErSoNaL aNeCdOtE to you. And completely nOt ReAl to you, unless.you did a peer-reviewed six sigmal double-blind study to show its existence!
Jeez, EVERYONE of you morons, moderators included, is COMPLETELY RETARDED.
Re: DDG's results suck. (Score:2)
I'm using Startpage, you brain-dead partisan moron!
Seriously, all of America is *completely* batshit retarded by now. And people like you being allowed to speak, is why.
Is this a thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does the prime minister of Australia get to tell everyone there which search engine to use? I mean, I know they can ban Google, but that's doesn't seem the same thing to me.
Re:Is this a thing? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Is this a thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's google's choice if they want to take their ball and go home.
Google would move any Australian offices and employees out of Australia, but the search engine would still function just fine. No Australian would lose any Google functionality. In fact, Australia would lose any power it had to negotiate with Google if Google had no physical presence in Australia. Google could still very readily serve up the same news it serves up now, but without the Australian government having any leverage since it would all be served up off shore.
Australia could, and probably would (Score:1)
And yes, you could use a VPN to get around it, but most can't or won't figure that out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Australia could, and probably would (Score:4, Insightful)
instruct ISPs to block www.google.com, as possibly as handset providers to remove Google apps from phones. This might end poorly for the Australian government (Bing kinda sucks) but it might not, making it a game of Chicken between the two.
And yes, you could use a VPN to get around it, but most can't or won't figure that out.
This all sounds quite like China, and that's not an accident. Just as in China there is one source of truth - the CCP - in Australia News International is their local controlling interest. I expect you will be surprised how many Australians work out how to get around the news blockade, at least until their country falls into true dictatorship.
Re: (Score:2)
at least until their country falls into true dictatorship.
Well that escalated quickly. From a proposed regulation of a monopoly to dictatorship in one step? Are their any shades of grey in your world?
Re:Australia could, and probably would (Score:4, Informative)
You're assuming that this is the only rung on the ladder that's being scaled right now.
Also, speaking of regulating monopolies, this same government removed media ownership restrictions in its previous term and most of the major media outlets immediately coalesced into the three majors (News Corp, Seven and Nine). These are also the primary agitators in this new money-making scheme as they have (unsurprisingly) not recovered their profitability and are still on the slide to obscurity.
So, let's force everyone to pay for dying industries while those same players publicly decry, defame and demolish the public broadcaster.
Re: (Score:2)
most of the major media outlets immediately coalesced into the three majors (News Corp, Seven and Nine).
Ten? ABC? SBS?
So, let's force everyone to pay for dying industries
I'll admit I'm not across the detail of this story, but aren't they asking Google to pay, not taxpayers? Google are a monopoly which is one of the few scenarios where government intervention is valid.
while those same players publicly decry, defame and demolish the public broadcaster.
You claimed above that the media industry wasn't diverse enough, then argued that they have competition? Which is it? Does the public broadcaster want to be immune from criticism?
Re: (Score:3)
"Australia's newspaper ownership is among the most concentrated in the world" [theguardian.com] and has been for years [theconversation.com]. Google is not a monopoly in any of the normal important senses - you can choose alternatives (Bing; Duck Duck Go), even in advertising (Facebook). They do not stop anyone building things. The only thing they have is a monopoly on a reputation for good and relatively unbiased results.
N.B. I'm in no way saying that Google isn't evil. What Google does do is have too much information and probably use that t
Re: (Score:2)
ABC and SBS were specifically excluded from the deal, as were any news sites with <100,000 person circulation. This is a big-players only circle jerk. Even The Guardian has been spouting biased nonsense in favour of the legislation.
Ten is an outlier. News tried to buy it after their mining and media millionaire saviours backed out, but CBS got it in the end.
The loudest supporters of this think having a public broadcaster is unfair and hurts their revenue instead of following their lead and provid
Re: (Score:2)
The loudest supporters of this think having a public broadcaster is unfair and hurts their revenue instead of following their lead and providing content the public clearly and demonstrably want.
A 5 second Google tells me that Ten have the 2 highest ratings on Australian TV: https://www.comparetv.com.au/a... [comparetv.com.au]
The criticism of a publicly funded competitor has merit. This is not judgement on the ABC, just the pros/cons of public vs private funding in a competitive industry. How can you compete fairly when one of you competitors doesn't ever need to worry about funding?
We're voting with our wallets, but we're making the "wrong choices".
You're voting one way, others are voting others ways. This is democracy in action, not a dictatorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Then it would be up to the voters to choose to reelect or not the people who created these laws that made Googles decision to leave.
You can in fact to be too Liberal and Anti-Business with your policies, which can be just as bad for countries who decided to be too conservative and pro-business with the policies. There is a balance that really needs to happen, that I fear in today's Tweeting culture, that such nuance and details are being blocked from discussion.
Re: (Score:3)
Liberal and Anti-Business
I think liberals would probably disagree with this assessment, but in this case wouldn't the government's actions be pro-business? They're trying to back the private news agencies that want to extract money from Google. The general population probably doesn't care and just wants to keep using Google.
Re:Is this a thing? (Score:4)
The current government leans towards the too conservative side. Their pro-business happens to be pro-Australian-business, or pro-news-media, etc. Protecting one business from another can be seen as both pro- and anti-business.
Re: (Score:2)
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality ...
Don't see anything anti-business in there, perhaps you've been fed propaganda?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> I mean, I know they can ban Google, but that's doesn't seem the same thing to me.
They can't. gmail is largest western email service provider. Blocking google would deny user access to their email accounts.
"domestic media outlets whose content links drive traffic to their platforms". That's bullshit. If they are concerned about links driving users to some other site, they are free not to link to that site.
Australian government do not have legal reason to ban google. Media outlets tried to extort money f
Re:Is this a thing? (Score:4, Informative)
Australian government do not have legal reason to ban google.
To be clear, the Australian government has never said anything about banning Google. They have said that Google have to pay Murdoch, and it is Google who have said that they will withdraw search from Australia instead.
Re: (Score:2)
I really can't blame them. *I* don't want to give my money nor eyeballs to Murdoch.
However it's bastard company A vs bastard company B, and aussies are about to get squashed in the middle :(
Re: Is this a thing? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Is this a thing? (Score:2)
The ranking algorithm is their special sauce, and you are right to bring it up. Google was never going to agree to disclose the trade secret that represents their competitive advantage, and demanding that they do so is a de facto ban.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is, the law isn't just for Google. Bing, and DuckDuckGo, and BobsDiscountSearch, would presumably also have to pay to media payments. I haven't read the law, and I don't knwo the Australian legal system, but in many countries you are not allowed to create a law that targets a specific company. So the law likely just targets a specific type of service, maybe a service over a particular size or number of shared media stories, etc. So as soon as Bing search gets as popular as Google search (ha!) the
Re: (Score:2)
Well then, the media people would presumably soon start bitching that Bing is also using their stories without paying?
game of chicken (Score:3)
We'll see who hits the brakes first there. I think if Google pulls out the people will scream and payments for links will go away.
Re:game of chicken (Score:4, Insightful)
It's pretty much guaranteed that is what will happen.
The entire scheme is ridiculous. Anyone who is pro-this scheme has not thought through the wider ramifications of what it will mean for sites like Reddit, Slashdot. and any other content aggregator. They will all eventually have to be shut down as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. While I disagree 100% with the snippits as well, It is an entirely different universe.
Everyone loves to "fight Google" without considering all the colladeral damage this will cause. Guess what other sites rely on links and snippets? Slashdot, Reddit, Twitter, *ANY* RSS feed... all of these are going to be made unworkable / illegal under these short-sighted regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the Government for the people or for the big News services? How do the people benefit when Google is forced to display paid News links? More Government friendly propaganda?
Re: (Score:1)
I agree, except the fees will probably be negotiated downward instead of removed.
Re: (Score:2)
We'll see who hits the brakes first there. I think if Google pulls out the people will scream and payments for links will go away.
I think Google's threat is empty. Investors will scream if Google abandons a relatively wealthy market of 23million westerners over a spat on a news service. Most likely Google will take a Spain approach and just block the news service.
Re:game of chicken (Score:4, Interesting)
> Most likely Google will take a Spain approach and just block the news service.
Unfortunately, this proposed law won't allow them to do that.
Under instructions from their boss, Rupert Murdoch, this government has drafted the law so that google and facebook have to pay Murdoch's news companies for linking to them, and they're not allowed to just say "OK, we won't link to them then".
(not that they ever needed to because Mudoch's web sites could have easily used robots.txt to exclude google's search bots)
In short, it's a mandatory Murdoch tax on linking to Murdoch's web sites.
The law also requires google to disclose their search ranking algorithms to Murdoch's companies, and any time they want to change the algorithm, they have to give Murdoch several weeks notice in advance.
Normally, I'd be inclined to say "fuck google". But in this case, they're in the right. Payment for links is just wrong. Forced use of/subscription to a "service" (i.e. linking to news articles) is also wrong.
Also when it's a choice between saying "fuck google" and "fuck Murdoch" then Murdoch can go get fucked. Google are evil, but Murdoch's far worse - google are toddlers following in Murdoch's footsteps when it comes to evil.
Re: (Score:2)
The majority of newspaper sites have gone paywall in Australia so google aren't really getting anything except headlines from them.
If you want free news it's really only the ABC which is better but rather left in it's viewpoint. Same with the Guardian but I wonder how long that will stay without a paywall.
The news landscape in Australia is truly dire unfortunately. The big players have ruled the roost for so long but their market is disappearing very quickly.
It only takes one (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I think you're living in a reality distortion field if you think that is how this will play out.
Re: It only takes one (Score:2)
China already effectively proved this. There are just a lot of other casualties which end up being more debilitating. I personally miss YouTube more than Google and I have a local copy of Wikipedia. Shit the block on steam community is more annoying then not being able to use Google services. Brave plugins are also a challenge too. The fact so much depends on google is pretty shit but it's not like China's solution makes things any better.
Re: (Score:1)
> China already effectively proved this.
Another day, another 50 yuan...
Re: (Score:2)
> China already effectively proved this.
Another day, another 50 yuan...
So that's where all the inflation went.
It was bound to turn up eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is essentially the Achilles' heel and why different state sponsored VPNs exists, primarily to cater to those in CS. I have an ex-girlfriend who does ruby development and she has a VPN essentially primary for those purpose. For Sys Admins and Coders, it's a pretty fair statement to say a VPN is necessary.
I don't know if I see the complexity with looking up C# docs? You should likely be able to look these up on microsofts own docs right? The same goes for Unity or many other such docs. SO is not blocked
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
What will normally happen in these cases is a black market. What will happen would be people using VPN and other means to bypass the block, to get what they want.
In America 101 years ago, they had Prohibition, in which Alcoholic Drinks were illegal. They figured being Alcoholic Drinks are a Nice to Have products, that we don't need. That with it being illegal, that it would cure the problems that people were considering were from Drinking. This has created a Black Market Enterprise that we still have i
The end result will be (Score:3)
that the only nation south of Asia ever mentioned in google searches will be New Zealand. The other "continent" down there will vanish.
No more Shrimp on the Barbie, Fosters Lager ads in your browser, and Outback "Steak House" will rebrand as a "Kansas City" BBQ spot.
Re: (Score:2)
that the only nation south of Asia ever mentioned in google searches will be New Zealand. The other "continent" down there will vanish.
No more Shrimp on the Barbie, Fosters Lager ads in your browser, and Outback "Steak House" will rebrand as a "Kansas City" BBQ spot.
and Vienna Sausages will be rebranded as Washington Sausages ...
Re: The end result will be (Score:2)
Hint: Most people in Australia have never seen a Fosters im their life. And those who did, saw it at the airport or abroad. :D
If you order it in Australia, they will reply "So you like drinkojg piss?".
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: Most people in Australia have never seen a Fosters im their life. And those who did, saw it at the airport or abroad. :D
If you order it in Australia, they will reply "So you like drinkojg piss?".
I liked the VB and Tooheys was pretty good. Never ordered a Fosters while in Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: Most people in Australia have never seen a Fosters im their life. And those who did, saw it at the airport or abroad. If you order it in Australia, they will reply "So you like drinkojg piss?". :D
It's making a comeback as the new (old) "cheap beer". I was at a local pub last week sitting near a group of twenty-somethings, and pretty much all of them had cans of Foster's.
Re: (Score:2)
Good riddance, others will fill the gap (Score:1)
It might be a little inconvenient at first, but after a short period of adaptation, people will realize that the wolrd didn't stop turning.
Re: (Score:2)
So I assume Bing, DDG and the rest will be subject to the same and make the same payments?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Media in the post truth world (Score:5, Insightful)
Given Canada, the EU and other places are looking at similar legislation, this bears watching. What happens next?
Least likley: people discover there are alternates to Google and make the switch, and Google loses it's market dominance.
Most likley: public pressure from the great uninformed forces the politicians to back off. Google goes on unimpeded.
Best case: enough traffic moves to new search engines that Google is encouraged to back down a bit and offer a few small concessions. Policians, facing pressure from the aforementioned disgruntled taxpayers, eagerly embrace the Google offering, and call it a win. Traditional media gets just enough bread crumbs to survive.
But, traditional media needs much more than a bit of financial support from Google (and others like Facebook) to become viable again. The concept - a free and independant press that fact checks before publishing, and is seen as a reliable and trustworthy source - remains a critical necessity for the proper functioning of a democracy. The problem: how will traditional media survive, never mind flourish? What needs to change?
Like it or not, we live in a post-truth world, where every delusioned mindless ranting of a narcissic sociopath becomes "truth", because feeding the biases and fears of people is more appealing, and effective, than facts and reality.
Re:Media in the post truth world (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
We discussed this on /. recently (dupes are no surprise) and the Australian legislation is much more severe than what has been proposed other places. The France/EU/Canada legislation seems to only affect news aggregation and not general search. Australia seems to be basically taxing the entire index.
Still seems a bit silly to just leave, though. Why not just pull these "taxable" sites from the index, instead? They'll very quickly change their tune.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it silly to leave? It's not like alternatives people are proposing, like DuckDuckGo or Bing could leave as they aren't in Australia to start with.
On deeper level, do you people have any idea what this Internet thing you are using is? As Al Gore explained it so people more familiar with kitchen sinks could understand - it's a vast network of pipes spanning the globe. These pipe allow people on one side of the planet (say: Australia) to use services on th
I should have expected that moderatrolling... (Score:2)
As usual, this went waaayy over the heads of some. So much, it came out from below. ^^
All it takes for a Microsoft success (Score:5, Funny)
All it takes for a Microsoft success is for all competitors to withdraw from the Market.
My guess is Bing will still be a failure as soon as Australians realize they can VPN to a different country and still use google.
Re: (Score:3)
Bing is available in China while Google is not, because Microsoft cooperates with the Chinese government. Microsoft incorporates government censorship lists and supplies data to the government on demand.
So naturally when they see Australia is looking for a more compliant search engine they are ready to offer their services.
Having said that Bing is a failure in China with a microscopic market share. Azure cloud services are pretty popular though, which is handy because you can bounce Tor through them to get
Re: All it takes for a Microsoft success (Score:2)
Or use Startpage. Or DuckDuckGo. Like normal people.
Re: (Score:2)
It'll be a failure as soon as Microsoft realizes they're paying more to news sites than they're making in revenue. I doubt Google would even consider withdrawing unless that is the case. More over, now it might be news sites asking for a handout, who knows what they'll come up with next time? Search engines cannot function if everything they link to is charging them for the privilege.
Google Eyes? (Score:2)
Is that a new product or service?
Do they even know how the internet works? (Score:3)
So they want to be paid to have Google send users to their websites? They're getting more users for free, what the hell are they thinking?
What's next? Force Google to display their ads for free?
Re: (Score:2)
What's next? Force Google to display their ads for free?
! ... Rupert, I have an idea....
Google should just filter Australian sites (Score:3)
Google doesn't need to leave Australia entirely. All it has to do is make sure no Australian content sites ever show up in Google search results. Problem solved!
Google should charge for sending traffic their way (Score:2)
Google (in Australia and other countries that start playing these games) should charge for directing traffic towards any site that want to charge google.
Why is it fair for a news site to charge google for the ability to link to them, but unfair for google to charge for that service?
Deglobalized internet (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Now when traveling to a place like Australia you'll need to check up and make sure you can still use your services
OMG not only will you have eat different food when you travel, now you'll have to try a different search engine too! Somebody call the police...
Australia is likely to not make that distinction and simply block everyone.
Well if you said it, it must be true. Except Australia already instruct ISPs to block some websites (known crime/illegal porn sites etc) simply via DNS blackholes. So there's nothing actively blocking traffic, it's merely to prevent casual use such as kids from accidentally clicking on bad links.
See, once you think about it, the end of the world is not as near as y
paywalls (Score:2)
News Corp and 9 Media (with their 5 article limit) impose a subscription model to access their online newspapers.
If the argument is Google are scraping paywalled content without compensating journalism then fair enough.
On the other hand, Murdoch's newspapers show a pro Morrison government bias. Google withdrawing damages whom?
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Pretty sure this is not a coincidence.
Block media outlets who demand payment (Score:2)
Simple enough solution... block all links to "media outlets" who demand payments. Block them globally. Don't negotiate. Don't legitimize the ridiculous law.
Let's see how long they last before demanding the laws be changed.
Just Google and Facebook? (Score:2)
"Australia has introduced laws that would force internet giant Google and social media heavyweight Facebook Inc to negotiate payments to domestic media outlets whose content links drive traffic to their platforms. "
Just Google and Facebook or any website that displays links to news sites?
Just stop linking. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the proposed law prohibits that.
GOOD and this is why: (Score:2)
Search engine and service diversity benefits everyone but de-facto monopolists. Governments should have an adversarial relationship with big tech like they do other threats.
Business is inherently amoral and only government protect the public.
So they'll pay the tribute? (Score:2)
It will be the same price for less revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Out of touch? (Score:2)
I actually blocked Google+ but maybe just because it never matured into the cesspools that are the mass social media.
Re: (Score:2)
"where I can read paywalled articles from around the world in full. Pay to those I read. I'd give full 5 bucks a month for the privilege."
95% can be circumvented by deleting cookies or switching off Javascript or just clicking reader-mode and refresh.
Re: (Score:3)
News Corp and Fairfax (now 9) control most Australian newspapers, it is they who put up the firewalls. This duopoly are the ones lobbying Canberra for this legislation.
If I were Google I'd only enable-list content that doesn't shove a paywall on the user - e.g. ABC, SBS and The Guardian. But then these are 'lefty' media that Murdoch and conservatives within the government wish to sideline.