Google threatens Australia

[VK3DRB]

Is Google too big for its boots? They are so big, they can effectively threaten Australia's economy if we don't give them what they want. Their motto was "Do No Evil", but Google pays way below its fair share of taxes in the countries it operates in and abets a certain totalitarian regime by censoring searches. Now it wants to threaten sovereign countries unless their demands are met. Few people realise that Google can terminate GMAIL accounts any time they want for any reason at all. I use Google search a heck of a lot in my professional work, as well as privately. Maybe I should switch.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-22/google-stop-search-engine-australia-news-media-code/13079912

I guess if Google does embargo Australia, us Aussies can always use another search engine; else use a VPN. However this sort of power Google might have is a little alarming.

“We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.”
― George Orwell, 1984

[MK14]

I know there are probably laws against it anyway, in Australia.

But imagine if a company, owned all of Australias, Electricty generation, Gas, Petrol, Water and telephone plus mobile phone, services. The government wanted to increase business taxation. So, this company threatens to switch off, all the services I listed.

That would be unacceptable blackmail etc.

In modern times, services like internet search engines, are arguably, nearly as important as some of the services I mentioned. They also effectively have the ability to make certain websites disappear (from search results), for any reason that Google wants.
It is rumored Google recently shut off the official president of the United States of America (although it seems, they were probably right to do it), along with Twitter, Facebook and maybe others.

I.e. In the same way, one shouldn't be able to buy up all a countries water services, then threaten to shut them down, if a government does something they don't like.

A major (90%) Internet search engine, is sort of the same thing (but less vital to life).

This situation really needs to be sorted out. Possibly by splitting up Google, into a number of smaller, much less powerful companies.

EDIT:
Will they threaten to disable Youtube for all of Australia, as the next step ?

Maybe they have got too much power.

Also, Microsoft probably have too much power. What if they decided to disable Windows10 in Australia, via a secret Update ?
Could they knock out a huge number of peoples computers and servers, making Australia have to partly shut down ?

[BravoV]

Don't forget, particularly at this Google fight vs countries, the US gov seems like to back Google too particularly in this matter, and not so much at say for example at France.

-> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/22/google-says-it-will-remove-search-function-in-australia-if-media-code-becomes-law.html

"The United States government this week asked Australia to scrap the proposed laws, which have broad political support, and suggested Australia should pursue a voluntary code instead."

... vs here at France -> Google agrees to pay French publishers for news


I guess its easy, especially with the new Biden administration, just buy more F-35 jet fighters as prev. concession deal  , your big boss can easily make this Google problem fades away. 

[MK14]

Another solution, is for Governments to get together, and promote/help other companies, be competitors to the big hi-tech players. Not an exhaustive list, but against companies like Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, Intel, Youtube (Google again), Microsoft, Instagram, and probably many others.

Any one of them, could cause quite significant problems on a whim.

[GlennSprigg]

Don't forget, particularly at this Google fight vs countries, the US gov seems like to back Google too particularly in this matter, and not so much at say for example at France.

-> https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/22/google-says-it-will-remove-search-function-in-australia-if-media-code-becomes-law.html

"The United States government this week asked Australia to scrap the proposed laws, which have broad political support, and suggested Australia should pursue a voluntary code instead."

... vs here at France -> Google agrees to pay French publishers for news


I guess its easy, especially with the new Biden administration, just buy more F-35 jet fighters as prev. concession deal  , your big boss can easily make this Google problem fades away. 

Yes 'Google' is powerful, but BULLIES at their level don't change a THING with those who stand up to them.
There are many alternatives to 'google' in the interim. Was going to list them, but can't be bothered!!   

[BravoV]

The Aus gov. specifically make Youtube (owned by Google) an exception from this new law, as major Aus news outlets and also other businesses depend heavily on Youtube.

Imo, Google has upper hand, don't you think ? 

[Berni]

Google is doing the right thing here.

Fuck off random shitty news site wanting money from someone just because they posted a link to there website somewhere. The news sites typically already download a MB or so of script junk, half of it just for tracking, ask you to turn off your ad blocker so that they can make money off you, ask you to click i agree to a bunch of crap so that they can legally sell your data, ask your browser to add there site to push notifications so that they can nag you even after you leave the site...etc. If anything they should be paying them for sending traffic to there shitty website (this is what website ads do).

I hate this sort of "do it or we turn off this service you heavily depend on" bullying, but in this case this Google is perfectly justified for it.

This goes in the same bucket as countries banning end to end encryption. None of your damn business how i encrypt my data.

[cavac]

Other countries tried similar things. Google is in no way obligated to provide specific services.

For example, in Germany there was also a law that Google had to pay news websites (but nobody else) to basically advertise the content of the news services. So Google said they were going to drop those websites from the "News" index and the news providers saw the error in their ways.

The Math behind that is quite simple: Newspapers these days make most of their money by online advertising and most of their traffic comes in via google search. Google can survive not showing the News for a country. Those advertising agencies that call themselves "newspapers" these days can't afford to loose google.

Also, if Google were to pay for content, why only pay for news websites? What about bloggers and tweets, who these days provide most basis of the content for news websites anyway? Why don't news agencies have to pay Twitter user whenever they link a tweet and report it as news?

[fcb]

This is the perfect thread for the popcorn emoji

 

[EEVblog]

For example, in Germany there was also a law that Google had to pay news websites (but nobody else) to basically advertise the content of the news services. So Google said they were going to drop those websites from the "News" index and the news providers saw the error in their ways.

Yes, I don't know why they don't do this here, just block these companies from the Australian search results. It's not like there are thousands of companies to manage.

[Benta]

I use DuckDuckGo. Problem solved, spread the word.   

[SilverSolder]

[...] I use Google search a heck of a lot in my professional work, as well as privately. Maybe I should switch. [...]

It is not safe to put your entire business in the hands of someone else - this applies to any cloud based service, not just Google.

If you absolutely have to use cloud services, it definitely makes sense to spread the risk by using at least two of them.  But it is often more economical in the long run to run a couple of computers on site, with your own software that you never upgrade unless YOU think it makes sense.

[rstofer]

Probably a better approach for Google is to simply leave the search feature as it is but not include any of the costly content, anywhere in the world.  That would satisfy everybody, or nobody.

We have (in the US) the same problems with cable television.  The content creators want more money, the cable companies, and their subscribers, don't want to pay, so the service (say football) gets blocked for a few weeks.  Eventually, it all works out.  I don't watch sports but I notice that the channels are included in my monthly bill.  I can't get rid of them because they are 'bundled'.

Sellers want to sell and this applies to content providers.  For the content provider, Google isn't their customer, we are.  If we can't click on their links, even if we can get there directly, the providers lose revenue.  There's a reason that most content providers pay Google, not the other way around.  Notice how Amazon is at the top of every product search?  That doesn't happen by accident, Amazon pays Google to get there.  Don't want to pay?  No problem, there's a little room on page 375.

It is unreasonable to break up any company regardless of how large they get.  There is no valid reason to punish success.  We broke up AT&T but they were primarily a public utility.  Google probably should be a public utility but they aren't.  We also broke up Standard Oil and I haven't seen any benefits but maybe...  Google can decide what they buy and what they sell and where they do it.  That's what companies do.

What they can't do is get involved with 'stupid stuff' like the EU suing Microsoft for including Internet Explorer (their product) with Windows but not including every competitor's version.  On what reasonable basis can the EU insist that Microsoft distribute its competitor's products?  Were I Microsoft, I would have discontinued sales within the EU.  If anybody wanted Windows in the EU they would have to order it retail from somewhere else, as is, where is.  And no PCs could ship to the EU with Windows preloaded.  Let them eat Linux!

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-21684329

I have the choice of Linux versus Windows and I could follow along with the other 2% of desktop users and convert to Linux.  How is it that after 20+ years, Linux has only penetrated 2% of the desktop market?  Try it and see!  Breaking up Microsoft could trash every company on the planet.

I use Chrome but if it gets to be a hassle, I can use Microsoft Edge.  I prefer Chrome but changing over is no big deal.

As to the other social media companies, who cares?  I don't use social media; eevBlog is about the only forum I participate on.  Zoom is another platform I use but only once per week.

[Ed.Kloonk]

I use DuckDuckGo. Problem solved, spread the word.   

I know, right?

Was thinking that last night when watching the news. The news story depicted those poor Journos having their livelihoods ruined by the almighty Google.

But once again, the Journos stopped short of being brave enough to point out the obvious.

[jpanhalt]

Maybe Google will buy Western Australia.  Problem half solved?

[Ed.Kloonk]

Maybe Google will buy Western Australia.  Problem half solved?

Only of the deal includes their mud-slinging leader.

[magic]

FYI Goolag officially dropped that "do no evil" mantra years ago so they are openly evil now

That being said, pay for what exactly?

[JohnnyMalaria]

Bing

[S. Petrukhin]

Friends, let me remind you once again about the Russian service yandex.com (yandex.ru, ya.ru).
In our country, money bags are not yet as rich as in the United States and have not gone crazy enough to crush the Internet. 

[S. Petrukhin]

It is rumored Google recently shut off the official president of the United States of America (although it seems, they were probably right to do it), along with Twitter, Facebook and maybe others.

The 70 million Americans who voted for Trump probably won't agree with you. 

[tszaboo]

Google is doing the right thing here.

Something something, slippery slope. They can do it to your country next, or your industry, because they were allowed to. Google decides if something is good, something is bad. If one the presidential candidate is bad or good. Even if you agree with it this time, maybe not the next time.

[Ed.Kloonk]

Nobody wants to talk about the taxation issue.

[rstofer]

It is rumored Google recently shut off the official president of the United States of America (although it seems, they were probably right to do it), along with Twitter, Facebook and maybe others.

The 70 million Americans who voted for Trump probably won't agree with you. 

I suppose some of those folks gave up Twitter for Parler until Parler was dumped off of Amazon's AWS and Apple removed the app from their store.

There's a fundamental problem with 'echo chambers' regardless of political slant.  They tend to validate clearly dangerous positions and the 'whack-a-do's get reinforcement.

How to balance that kind of rhetoric with the 1st Amendment is problematic.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The thing is, the assemblies have to be peaceful.  It is a protest against the Government, not Nike or the boutiques in Beverly Hills.  Looting is not included in the 1st Amendment.

[Ground_Loop]

I see globally complaints about the evil rich not paying their fair share of taxes. Do you have a figure in mind that would correspond to Google's fair share.

[rstofer]

Google is doing the right thing here.

Something something, slippery slope. They can do it to your country next, or your industry, because they were allowed to. Google decides if something is good, something is bad. If one the presidential candidate is bad or good. Even if you agree with it this time, maybe not the next time.

Google is in the business of selling clicks.  It does them no good to shut out millions of users generating billions of clicks.  There is no way they cut off Australia but they can sure cut off a few content providers.  OTOH, the proposed Australian law may have other implications about which I know nothing.  One thing is certain, Google will work in its own best interest.  Their Board of Directors will insist on it.

Of course the content providers are also selling clicks and they will sell a heck of a lot less if they aren't in the Google response to a search.  Getting the governments involved in this won't result in a happy ending for anybody but the people that get hurt the worst are the content providers.  Google will simply omit the links.  Providers will become unknown unless particular users have them bookmarked.

Everybody wants the government to help them out, few are happy with the results.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

Ronald Reagan