Australian Posters, what is this Yahoo search bullshit? Have Google gone Nuclear?

[Taranaki Snapper]

as above...

[Working Class Rugger]

[quote
="Taranaki Snapper " post_id=6794804 time=1611323904 user_id=7742]
as above...
[/quote]

Nope. Still works fine for me.

[CrazyIslander]

Yahoo 7, it's been around for ages. It's funny how we've lived through the evolution of the internet. I remember first time I've heard of a search engine it was called Hotbot. I also remember some guy telling me to also use Google. He wrote it down in a piece of paper to make sure of the spelling.

[Gavin Duffy]

Is there much controversy about the award that was given to some gay-hating auld wrinkly tennis player?

[kiap]

Theiving big techs need to pay up. Google can get ta fvck. Zuck can also geffarked.

As can the US and the Biden they rode in on...

And most importantly, Towny can fark off too.

US attacks Australia’s ‘extraordinary’ plan to make Google and Facebook pay for news

Calla Wahlquist
Mon 18 Jan 2021 11.30 EST

The United States has urged the Australian government to ditch draft media laws that would force tech giants Google and Facebook to pay news organisations for sharing their content.

The US, in a submission to an Australian parliamentary inquiry, has said that the proposed legislation is unreasonable, impractical, “fundamentally imbalanced” and could run counter to the US-Australia free trade agreement.

The media laws would impose a mandatory code of conduct on digital platforms which would allow for both individual and collective bargaining by Australian media companies to determine payment for displaying news content in Google Search and on Facebook.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.thegua ... y-for-news

BTW, that Grauniad link I've just posted doesn't go to the Guardian, the material has been syphoned as a Google accelerated mobile page. Sounds wonderful, that means it loads faster, right? ... Yes, it's faster but it is Google owning their ass.

Time to break up these monopolies, Standard Oil style.

Unfortunately there is no Roosevelt here. Biden and the Dems are in a long line of corporate shills.

But I'm happy to ditch Google. Let 'em depart, I say. Gradually attrit their customer base, five million at a time...

[kiap]

Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for News Limited who are largely piloting the content pay play.

But it's not just them, news providers generally are being hollowed out. Old Rupe is still a cvnt but he's fading into yesterday's gorilla.

[Ali's Choice]

It's stupid. News Ltd are haemorrhaging money in Australia and this law is a way for them to cash in on Google and Facebook's success. What's stopping both sites simply blocking Australian news sites from their platforms? I hope that happens.

[kiap]

What's stopping both sites simply blocking Australian news sites from their platforms? I hope that happens.

I'm also happy for that to happen.

And then join the dots...

Put it this way, the techs don't want that.

[Gavin Duffy]

What's stopping both sites simply blocking Australian news sites from their platforms? I hope that happens.

I'm also happy for that to happen.

And then join the dots...

Put it this way, the techs don't want that.

Is news ltd what the rest of us call newscorp?

[kiap]

Is news ltd what the rest of us call newscorp?

News Limited was specifically the original oz arm of the old newscorp, pre-split... Newscorp Australia, if you will.

The holding company for those assets is now News Pty Limited.

Which is still owned/controlled by Rupe, despite his sell offs elsewhere, such as in the UK.

[Zico]

fudge anything to do with Murdock.

[Ali's Choice]

Sky News Breakfast just ran a story on this. Their argument seems to be that Google and Facebook get 81% of advertising revenue in Australia, and that's not fair so the Australian govt is going to force them to share revenue with Australian news sites (the majority of which are owned by News ltd). It seems that Google and Facebook have been too successful in Australia, and so they will be punished by Scott Morrison's government. It's unbelievably bad policy, and if people think that FB and Google will simply cop this on the chin, and set a precedent for other countries to follow, then they are stupid.

[kiap]

fudge anything to do with Murdock.

Absolutely, but if that's your take away from the content syphoning question then you're missing the point.

[kiap]

that's not fair so the Australian govt is going to force them to share revenue with Australian news sites.

Why shouldn't they pay revenue?

[Gavin Duffy]

that's not fair so the Australian govt is going to force them to share revenue with Australian news sites.

Why shouldn't they pay revenue?

Why should they?

[Ali's Choice]

that's not fair so the Australian govt is going to force them to share revenue with Australian news sites.

Why shouldn't they pay revenue?

Why should they? Search engines simply direct people to other sites. If it wasn't for Google or FB all the aussie news sites would have reduced visits. Google provides our news sites with a huge audience, it's not Google's fault that so few people want to subscribe to The Australia or The Courier Mail sites.

[kiap]

that's not fair so the Australian govt is going to force them to share revenue with Australian news sites.

Why shouldn't they pay revenue?

Why should they? Search engines simply direct people to other sites. If it wasn't for Google or FB all the aussie news sites would have reduced visits. Google provides our news sites with a huge audience, it's not Google's fault that so few people want to subscribe to The Australia or The Courier Mail sites.

Lol. You think Google is merely a search engine?

[Ali's Choice]

that's not fair so the Australian govt is going to force them to share revenue with Australian news sites.

Why shouldn't they pay revenue?

Why should they? Search engines simply direct people to other sites. If it wasn't for Google or FB all the aussie news sites would have reduced visits. Google provides our news sites with a huge audience, it's not Google's fault that so few people want to subscribe to The Australia or The Courier Mail sites.

Lol. You think Google is merely a search engine?

So they should subsidise failing news sites because they are more than a search engine?

I'm not sure what your argument is Kiap?

If I want to read about the Cronulla riots, I type 'Cronulla riots' into my Google chrome search bar. The first link is wikipedia, then youtube, and then some Aussie news sites. The Guardian Australia is one of the first few. Why should Google pay The Guardian for the service of directing me to their site? That makes no sense to me.

[kiap]

Why should Google pay The Guardian for the service of directing me to their site? That makes no sense to me.

Ahh. But they're NOT directing you to the Guardian site much of the time.

Click on the link I provided earlier. ... you are directed to Google's syphoned cache taken from the Grauniad website.

Were you clicking on their actual website? Well, no. The Guardian has minimal control over that content.

What the draft legislation is about is enabling content providers to properly negotiate for the use of their material. Have you read the ACCC statements?

The gateway reach is only becoming more and more pervasive. The potential unregulated self interest here is huge.

[Salient]

that's not fair so the Australian govt is going to force them to share revenue with Australian news sites.

Why shouldn't they pay revenue?

Exactly what for, listing Australian news sites articles?

If Google pull the pin on Aussie sites as they are threatening in the face of ScoMo trying to redirect Google's cash flow to failing Aussie news sites then those News sites are going to collapse.

It might interest you to know most Internet training courses including at least one paper on SEO, i.e. how to garner ranking in Google and other search engines. For those wondering that would be a black art as Google et al change their ranking code every few months to avoid attempts to manipulate it, mainly by news and social media sites ironically.

News Ltd are trying to have their cake and eat it as well to be honest.

There are dangers involved with Google's rapid expansion plans, naturally ScoMo has missed this completely while he panders to the big end of town.

If anyone from Google is reading can I get a couple of sites pushed to the first page of their respective search term metrics?

[Ali's Choice]

Kiap, I think you have a quoting issue?

[Ali's Choice]

Ahh. But they're NOT directing you to the Guardian site much of the time.

I just did it, and was directed to The Guardian's site.

You want Google to pay The Guardian for the service of directing me to their site?

[Gavin Duffy]

Why should Google pay The Guardian for the service of directing me to their site? That makes no sense to me.

Ahh. But they're NOT directing you to the Guardian site much of the time.

Click on the link I provided earlier. ... you are directed to Google's syphoned cache taken from the Grauniad website.

Were you clicking on their actual website? Well, no. The Guardian has minimal control over that content.

What the draft legislation is about is enabling content providers to properly negotiate for the use of their material. Have you read the ACCC statements?

The gateway reach is only becoming more and more pervasive. The potential unregulated self interest here is huge.

Most of 'their material' has been nicked in the first place.

[Zico]

fudge anything to do with Murdock.

Absolutely, but if that's your take away from the content syphoning question then you're missing the point.

I was about to go off about independent journalism but then I remembered that's what QAnon muppets call themselves.

Letting that out of the lightly controlled box it's in would be a very bad idea.

[kiap]

It might interest you to know most Internet training courses including at least one paper on SEO

I have worked in the tech and telco industry.

Again, the question here is not on search algorithms. It is about content control.

[Salient]

Why should Google pay The Guardian for the service of directing me to their site? That makes no sense to me.

Ahh. But they're NOT directing you to the Guardian site much of the time.

Click on the link I provided earlier. ... you are directed to Google's syphoned cache taken from the Grauniad website.

Were you clicking on their actual website? Well, no. The Guardian has minimal control over that content.

What the draft legislation is about is enabling content providers to properly negotiate for the use of their material. Have you read the ACCC statements?

The gateway reach is only becoming more and more pervasive. The potential unregulated self interest here is huge.

Most of 'their material' has been nicked in the first place.

You really aren't getting the whole SEO and search engines are you. Most companies are paying people to make sure they rank highly in Google searches, this isn't "knicked", you are redirect to the company page by the search engine for the actual content.

Please don't confused your bias against the monolith that is Google with the actual commercial reality, you are in danger of selling snake oil just like ScoMo.

[Gavin Duffy]

Could you try that again, please?

[kiap]

Ahh. But they're NOT directing you to the Guardian site much of the time.

I just did it, and was directed to The Guardian's site.

You want Google to pay The Guardian for the service of directing me to their site?

Check the url again (select and scroll it in the address bar of your browser) carefully .... What is the actual location?

It's not the Guardian.

Do you sometimes consider it is possible that your knowledge may be incomplete?

[Ali's Choice]

Ahh. But they're NOT directing you to the Guardian site much of the time.

I just did it, and was directed to The Guardian's site.

You want Google to pay The Guardian for the service of directing me to their site?

Check the url again (select and scroll it in the address bar of your browser) carefully .... What is the actual location?

It's not the Guardian.

Do you sometimes consider it is possible that your knowledge may be incomplete?

Sure I do. And I enjoy learning new things. Why be so condescending?

So this is the url. Not The Guardian?

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... s-10-years

[The Optimist]

Google will go the way of the chinese... fvck em.

Remember Cigarette advertising. This little battler country punches above its' weight, AC excluded.

Ask yourself why Australia gets TV series movies etc late, when the internet of all things is instantaneous? Fvck em all. And especially Murdoch.

[shanky]

You just know that if the ALP were to support this, that AC would think it’s the best idea since sliced bread

[Ali's Choice]

You just know that if the ALP were to support this, that AC would think it’s the best idea since sliced bread

The ALP is supporting this.

[shanky]

You just know that if the ALP were to support this, that AC would think it’s the best idea since sliced bread

The ALP is supporting this.

Oh well, it was a decent shot

[kiap]

Sure I do. And I enjoy learning new things. Why be so condescending?

So this is the url. Not The Guardian?

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... s-10-years

I tend to respond in kind...

Yes, your url is the Guardian ... but the one I posted (served up by Google, as I did say -- much of the time) was definitely not.

I'm guessing, as a middle-aged man, you're not using a mobile device at the moment.

The purpose for the amp is valid, i.e. within an increasingly mobile market to compensate for the slower transition 4G (or even 3G) networks. But as a consequence, traffic ostensibly meant for third-party websites is instead increasingly directed to Google's own accelerated cache. Gamekeeper turned poach and the potential for exploiting that is awesome.

The reach is becoming all pervasive.

[grievous]

You just know that if the ALP were to support this, that AC would think it’s the best idea since sliced bread

The ALP is supporting this.

Oh well, it was a decent shot

Until they dont support it, very possible before next election

[shanky]

You just know that if the ALP were to support this, that AC would think it’s the best idea since sliced bread

The ALP is supporting this.

Oh well, it was a decent shot

Until they dont support it, very possible before next election

I’m just impressed that AC had an actual opinion - that wasn’t given to him

[Ali's Choice]

Sure I do. And I enjoy learning new things. Why be so condescending?

So this is the url. Not The Guardian?

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... s-10-years

I tend to respond in kind...

Yes, your url is the Guardian ... but the one I posted (served up by Google, as I did say -- much of the time) was definitely not.

I'm guessing, as a middle-aged man, you're not using a mobile device at the moment.

The purpose for the amp is valid, i.e. within an increasingly mobile market to compensate for the slower transition 4G (or even 3G) networks. But as a consequence, traffic ostensibly meant for third-party websites is instead increasingly directed to Google's own accelerated cache. Gamekeeper turned poach and the potential for exploiting that is awesome.

The reach is becoming all pervasive.

So just to clarify, you feel that Google should pay The Guardian lots of money for directing me to their website?

[shanky]

Of course, we’re really all just marking time until the oracle of social media policy, Towny, comes along to tell us we’re all fvckwits and..blah blah

[Ali's Choice]

Until they dont support it, very possible before next election

Doubtful. There is nothing to be gained politically by opposing this stupid proposal. By the next election FB and Google will no longer service Australia, and we'll all be using My Space and Bing.

[grievous]

Until they dont support it, very possible before next election

Doubtful. There is nothing to be gained politically by opposing this stupid proposal. By the next election FB and Google will no longer service Australia, and we'll all be using My Space and Bing.

True they might have their hands full duking short straws on who will challenge Albo