Google threatens to remove its search engine from Australia

According to the article:

Hannah Marshall, a partner at Marque Lawyers that specialises in competition law, said the code in its current form left the tech giants with no choice.
“The code now says that Google and Facebook have to pay for the right to supply audience to the news publishers,” Ms Marshall said. “That makes no legal or commercial sense.”

I have to side with Google on this. Why would they pay a linked company for the right to send traffic their way? I have some retail websites. I don't pay Google to list them, nor would I expect Google to pay me for the right to list them on their search engines.
 

So how would somebody like me who fairly often
add a link from a newspaper to support something
that I have posted here, I don't pay the on-line news
paper for that information, be treated?

I do leave their identity on it and I do not claim to be
the author of the article.

Mike.
 

I am not a marketing major or even a marketing minor but IMHO some companies probably still utilize subliminal advertising techniques to align societal identification to their particular product.

1. Xerox: I want to make a Xerox copy of this as opposed to I want to make a copy of this.

2. Motorola: You can outrun my police car but you cant outrun my Motorola as opposed to you can outrun my police car but you cant outrun my radio.

3. VHS: I am going to rent this VHS tape as opposed to I am going to rent this videotape.

4A. I am going to Google that for the answer as opposed to I am going to search for the answer.

4B. The first 3 social media platforms: Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

4D. Even though the top five video platforms are Youtube, Panopto, Brightcove, Microsoft Stream and IBM Watson Media however IMHO I prefer just 3 and they are: Youtube, Vimeo and Dailymotion.

0a68409fcc53906ffef1ac1afc332892.gif
failbook-making-the-switch.gif

www.niemanlab.org/2020/06/google-paying-publishers-is-more-about-pr-than-the-needs-of-the-news-industry/




ctzk9R.gif

Now hear this AOL, Yahoo, Bing, Baidu, Quack Quack Leave and you B-list wannabees you do King Googles bidding and destroy our collective enemies. Destroy them all I say. Leave no vile contemptable search engine unturned. And tell your spoiled self indulgent children that our competition is the spawn of the devil himself.



TameArcticFairybluebird-small.gif

I am King Googles hand of destruction. I will render you useless and unsurmountable bankruptcies will follow with me.
 
Last edited:
I have also switched to DuckDuckGo. These tech companies have gotten very high handed. They censor conservative posts and websites all the time. And track your every movement on the web. Scary how I look up something and it shows up on Facebook as an ad.
 
CarolfromTX said:
I have also switched to DuckDuckGo. These tech companies have gotten very high handed. They censor conservative posts and websites all the time. And track your every movement on the web. Scary how I look up something and it shows up on Facebook as an ad.
Click to expand...
At least a part of this situation is due to pressures from the government and law enforcement. The government is going after these social networking platforms to hold them responsible for what people post. Law enforcement of various kinds goes after various sites for allowing copyright material to be made available, various types of illegal porn, etc.

I am not taking sides on this, but instead simply saying that there are reasons that these tech companies are doing what they are forced to be doing. I suspect that in at least some cases, they are overcompensating by doing more than what they are being pressured to do, just to play it safe because having to grapple with those who go after them gets to be quite expensive in legal fees, time employees have to spend gathering the necessary data to defend the company, creating ways to comply with what they are being forced to do, etc.

There was quite a period of time in which there were no restrictions, which is really what these companies envisioned in their early years. Go back and read or watch interviews with the people that started these companies, and you will hear this over and over again. It wasn't until trouble started and the government began creating and enforcing regulations on these companies that they started to limit the types of items that could be posted and downloaded.

Tony
 
CarolfromTX said:
Then why is only conservative speech limited? They dont censor Al Kaida, for Petes sake! And they use their power like a bully.
Click to expand...
If you are asking me, I don't have an answer for that. At the beginning of my post, I said "At least a part of this situation...", which means that I am not attempting to explain the entire picture. However, the censoring started in a more recent time frame, and these platforms existed well before any of that.

Edit: By the way, I have seen some of what you (CarolfromTX) have seen, but I did not want to veer into political territory in my post. My intent was more to provide some historical perspective. All of what I said is a matter of record, from the early interviews with many of these people to the more recent media coverage of them being called into Congressional and/or Senate hearings about censoring what appears on their sites.

Tony
 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top