Reply With QuoteAl Bundy (19-08-20),eaglem (30-08-20),Landytrack (31-08-20)
Google's letter to all aussies
Uh-huh?
Al Bundy (19-08-20),eaglem (30-08-20),Landytrack (31-08-20)
| Look Here -> |
Hmmm
There is a fine line between "Hobby" and "Madness"
Google have to pay for something and they are having a whinge.....poor buggers, my heart pumps purple piss for them. How about they pay some tax to our government?
Al Bundy (19-08-20),allover (19-08-20),alpha0ne (19-08-20),Bigfella237 (19-08-20),eaglem (30-08-20),enf (19-08-20),Godzilla (21-08-20),Landytrack (31-08-20),MotoBill (30-08-20),Uncle Fester (19-08-20)
Exactly....Originally Posted by gamve
Aren't they going to have to pay for some of the content to the originators as well? I seem to recall that was mentioned, but I'm not sure.
They're just whining.
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
Al Bundy (19-08-20),Bigfella237 (19-08-20),eaglem (30-08-20),Godzilla (21-08-20),Landytrack (31-08-20),MotoBill (30-08-20),Uncle Fester (19-08-20)
i just went to watch a youtube video tutorial and had a popup bottom left
telling me to view the story
What a load of croc that open letter.
Google has been selling user info/behaviour to third parties since 2005.
It is called Google analytics.
As for
...more Google BS.You’ve always relied on Google Search and YouTube to show you what’s most relevant and helpful to you
Your Google search results are most relevant to what is most likely to entice you to buy products which is why I have always avoided Google and use DuckDuckGo that does not track me and gives me often less but better results and sometimes direct solutions that really are most relevant and helpful to me.
Either this chick is having a piss at us dumb gullible Aussies or she is REALLY stupid.
The ACCC ruling is about reducing the monopoly of Google and possibly Facebook and levelling the playing field for others and I am all for it.
Last edited by Uncle Fester; 19-08-20 at 12:05 PM.
Update: A deletion of features that work well and ain't broke but are deemed outdated in order to add things that are up to date and broken.
Compatibility: A word soon to be deleted from our dictionaries as it is outdated.
Humans: Entities that are not only outdated but broken... AI-self-learning-update-error...terminate...terminate...
Al Bundy (19-08-20),alpha0ne (19-08-20),Bigfella237 (19-08-20),eaglem (30-08-20),enf (19-08-20),Godzilla (21-08-20),Landytrack (31-08-20),LeroyPatrol (19-08-20),MotoBill (30-08-20)
Faceache...I think that's where the cost for content may come into it....
The fact that there's a highway to hell and a stairway to heaven says a lot about the anticipated traffic flow.
eaglem (30-08-20),Landytrack (31-08-20)
I thought Google was the centre of the Universe ...
If Australia is a democracy why, then, is voting compulsory?
"What has changed between the arrival of the First Fleet and today?"
"Wearing leg irons is now not required."
Goo who???
Cheers
Ted (Al)
eaglem (30-08-20)
You'd have to be reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaly stupid to believe anything the stupid bint has published in said letter...............I'm expecting the black looters matter brigade to rally behind goooogle to demand we pay them (and goooogle) $$$
eaglem (30-08-20)
Annual revenue of Google from 2002 to 2019 (in billion U.S. dollars)
Revenue in billion U.S. dollars 2019 160.74 2018 136.36 2017 110.55 My heart Bleeds for them doing it so damn tough.
Lets not forget Youtube's recent reminder's too.
It looks like they're both pretty crap at politics because even though local television like prime tv have been talking our of their arses.
Australian's would sooner be arse raped by a local.
Nobody is buying their shit.
Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
Al Bundy (29-08-20),eaglem (30-08-20),enf (29-08-20),Landytrack (31-08-20)
You are right Trash it is a bit of biting your nose off just to spite your face, but F#@k Em!!!
Cheers
Ted (Al)
eaglem (30-08-20)
Interesting responses so far -- I do take it folks have read the draft of the amendment? -->
I would not blame many folks for not reading it ~ it is literally beyond the comprehensive ability of many to understand ; that is not any slight against individuals here, it's just (legal) documentation like that, are often worse than patent submissions...(which make for horrid reading most all of the time).
We all know who we are here (rhetorical) -- some believe like myself, in that the only real news to be got, is from listening to the conversations of children in a sandpit at the local kindergarden (which often reminds my of parliamentary question time for the most part), to the consideration of others that purport that all news media outlets have some dark ulterior motive, closely coupled to and tainted by political affiliations -- like I say, we all know who we are here, and each to their own opinion.
That said, being news media intolerant, I saw this claim by the google press machine, that has nothing to do with profits, and a lot to do with other things;
If you check the draft proposed legislation, the claim is correct - there's more being slipped into this bill than mere fiscal considerations & equations with regards google's bottom line ... which, I hasten to point out, is that big and fat in the black, any fiscal losses incurred by google as a result of such a bill passing 'as is', in a country like Oz with some 24million ppl, will be like pissing in the ocean for google, or removing a teacup's worth of sand from the Simpson desert ; it doesn't matter.
I don't pay her wages ... and there's a good chance that chick is just a hand-puppet reciting a very carefully letter formal created by the greatest minds of the PR dept of Google Inc in the US...so yeah, agreed...muppet time all over again -- don't write letters to Australians like that, we tend to smell the BS before we even start reading =)
However, what I'm suggesting is, once the bush-pudding dries up & you flip it over, you'll find it's been hiding another pile of different shit -- that which continually and slowly whittles away facets of what we call civil liberties.
Last edited by wotnot; 30-08-20 at 02:17 PM.
You would think they would just buy up a news conglomerate of some sort then they would own the news?
Well excellent, this new rule looks like it is doing a great job:
No more brainwashing with dodgy news on FaceButt and InstaPoop
Update: A deletion of features that work well and ain't broke but are deemed outdated in order to add things that are up to date and broken.
Compatibility: A word soon to be deleted from our dictionaries as it is outdated.
Humans: Entities that are not only outdated but broken... AI-self-learning-update-error...terminate...terminate...
I have read the draft legislation and totally agree with you. I have been meaning to post to this thread for a while, but to do justice to the topic would involve a lengthy post and some time. What I will say is that the proposed code is horrific. Money is only one part. Requirements are placed on Google and Facebook initially, but can be easily extended to other platforms. The requirements include disclosure of substantial information to media companies. It also prohibits discrimination in ranking of search results for media content, which quite frankly seems to be extremely difficult or perhaps even impossible to achieve. The monetary provisions seek to quantify the benefit to Google of using the content as a guide, amongst other factors, with arbitrators to decide if necessary between competing offers, and even to themselves amend one of the offers before choosing it.Interesting responses so far -- I do take it folks have read the draft of the amendment? -->
I would not blame many folks for not reading it ~ it is literally beyond the comprehensive ability of many to understand ; that is not any slight against individuals here, it's just (legal) documentation like that, are often worse than patent submissions...(which make for horrid reading most all of the time).
We all know who we are here (rhetorical) -- some believe like myself, in that the only real news to be got, is from listening to the conversations of children in a sandpit at the local kindergarden (which often reminds my of parliamentary question time for the most part), to the consideration of others that purport that all news media outlets have some dark ulterior motive, closely coupled to and tainted by political affiliations -- like I say, we all know who we are here, and each to their own opinion.
That said, being news media intolerant, I saw this claim by the google press machine, that has nothing to do with profits, and a lot to do with other things;
If you check the draft proposed legislation, the claim is correct - there's more being slipped into this bill than mere fiscal considerations & equations with regards google's bottom line ... which, I hasten to point out, is that big and fat in the black, any fiscal losses incurred by google as a result of such a bill passing 'as is', in a country like Oz with some 24million ppl, will be like pissing in the ocean for google, or removing a teacup's worth of sand from the Simpson desert ; it doesn't matter.
I don't pay her wages ... and there's a good chance that chick is just a hand-puppet reciting a very carefully letter formal created by the greatest minds of the PR dept of Google Inc in the US...so yeah, agreed...muppet time all over again -- don't write letters to Australians like that, we tend to smell the BS before we even start reading =)
However, what I'm suggesting is, once the bush-pudding dries up & you flip it over, you'll find it's been hiding another pile of different shit -- that which continually and slowly whittles away facets of what we call civil liberties.
It is not inevitable but quite likely that Google and Facebook may choose to simply exclude news stories from its search results where the code would apply to those stories. This, of course, would adversely affect the quality of all of our search results. This type of proposal was tried a number of times in Europe. In one, there was an internet campaign to stop what was referred to as a "links tax". In Germany, from memory, the Publishers who had pushed for similar rules all quickly signed fee free agreements with Google after their hits plummeted when Google excluded their articles from search.
These tech giants have acquired such pervasive power that they do need to be subject to scrutiny and regulation where reasonable. But the proposed code is not the way to go. I would be surprised if it works as intended.
Is this a joke ??, shouldn't this post be in the jokes section ???...................no more brainwashing whilst linking to the abc............Well excellent, this new rule looks like it is doing a great job:
No more brainwashing with dodgy news on FaceButt and InstaPoop
Yep, predictable really ;
Al Bundy (02-09-20)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks