Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Australian Government is demanding more control of digital media content such as Google search rankings, and more renumeration for traditional mainstream media for use of content.
For example, the following clause demands that Google etc. provide advance notice of changes to search ranking algorithms, so establishment news services have time to prepare a means to game the new algorithm to ensure they retain a permanent prominent position on Google searches or Facebook feeds, regardless of whether what they publish is of interest to consumers;
52N Algorithmic ranking of covered news content
(1) Subsection (2) applies if:
(a) (b)
changes are planned to be made to an algorithm of the digital platform service; and the changes are likely to have a significant effect on the ranking of the registered news business’ covered news content made available by the digital platform service.
(2) The responsible digital platform corporation for the digital platform service must ensure that:
(a) (b) notice of the change is given to the registered news business corporation for the registered news business; and
the notice is given:(i) unless subparagraph (ii) applies—at least 28 days before the change is made; or
(ii) ifthechangerelatestoamatterofurgentpublic interest—no later than 48 hours after the change is made; and
the notice describes the change, and the effect mentioned in paragraph (1)(b), in terms that are readily comprehensible; and
Source : Draft Legislation Document, ACCC
the notice describes how the registered news business can minimise negative effects of the change on the ranking of its covered news content made available by the digital platform service.
Google / YouTube have made it clear they believe this amounts to a demand for special treatment for establishment mainstream media. I agree with their assessment.
Open letter to Australians
We need to let you know about new Government regulation that will hurt how Australians use Google Search and YouTube.
A proposed law, the News Media Bargaining Code, would force us to provide you with a dramatically worse Google Search and YouTube, could lead to your data being handed over to big news businesses, and would put the free services you use at risk in Australia.
The way Aussies search every day on Google is at risk from new regulation
You’ve always relied on Google Search and YouTube to show you what’s most relevant and helpful to you. We could no longer guarantee that under this law. The law would force us to give an unfair advantage to one group of businesses – news media businesses – over everyone else who has a website, YouTube channel or small business. News media businesses alone would be given information that would help them artificially inflate their ranking over everyone else, even when someone else provides a better result. We’ve always treated all website owners fairly when it comes to information we share about ranking. The proposed changes are not fair and they mean that Google Search results and YouTube will be worse for you.
Your Search data may be at risk
You trust us with your data and our job is to keep it safe. Under this law, Google has to tell news media businesses “how they can gain access” to data about your use of our products. There’s no way of knowing if any data handed over would be protected, or how it might be used by news media businesses.
Hurting the free services you use
We deeply believe in the importance of news to society. We partner closely with Australian news media businesses — we already pay them millions of dollars and send them billions of free clicks every year. We’ve offered to pay more to license content. But rather than encouraging these types of partnerships, the law is set up to give big media companies special treatment and to encourage them to make enormous and unreasonable demands that would put our free services at risk.
This law wouldn’t just impact the way Google and YouTube work with news media businesses — it would impact all of our Australian users, so we wanted to let you know. We’re going to do everything we possibly can to get this proposal changed so we can protect how Search and YouTube work for you in Australia and continue to build constructive partnerships with news media businesses — not choose one over the other.
You’ll hear more from us in the coming days — stay tuned.
Thank you,
Read more: https://about.google/intl/ALL_au/google-in-australia/an-open-letter/
Mel Silva, Managing Director, on behalf of Google Australia
WUWT have our differences with Google and other digital media companies over allegations of political bias and secret black lists for Climate Skeptics, but we never sought an unfair advantage – all we want is a level playing field where everyone is treated equally, we want better compliance with Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
The intent of the “Mandatory news media bargaining code” does not appear to be level playing field. In my opinion mainstream media in Australia is asking the government for special privileges, to fend off legitimate competition from digital media companies.
Digital service providers like Google regularly tweak their algorithm to try to maximise value to consumers, by pushing content they think people will find interesting to the top of the search list. But the advance notice of changes to algorithm requirement would give establishment media plenty of time to figure out how to game the new algorithm, to ensure their tired content is always at the top of everyone’s search.
You want chilling? Read Powers that may be exercised in relation to declared emergencies (page 14 of the South Australia Emergency Management Act 2004) and the amendment to section 25.
Here is the relevant text:
Emergency Management Act 2004—24.7.2020 Part 4—The management of emergencies
Division 4—Powers that may be exercised in relation to declared emergencies
25—Powers of State Co-ordinator and authorised officers
(1) On the declaration of an identified major incident, a major emergency or a disaster under Division 3, and while that declaration remains in force, the State Co-ordinator must take any necessary action to implement the SEMP and cause such response and recovery operations to be carried out as he or she thinks appropriate.
(2) Without limiting or derogating from the operation of subsection (1), but subject to the regulations, the State Co-ordinator or an authorised officer may, if of the opinion that it is necessary to do so, do or cause to be done all or any of the following things:
(a) enter and, if necessary, break into any land, building, structure or vehicle (using such force as is necessary);
(b) take possession of, protect or assume control over any land, body of water, building, structure, vehicle or other thing;
(ba) remove or destroy, or order the removal or destruction of, any building, structure, vehicle, vegetation, animal or other thing;
(bb) carry out, or cause to be carried out, excavation or other earthworks;
(c) construct, or cause to be constructed, barriers, buildings or other structures;
(ca) subject a place or thing to a decontamination procedure;
(d) direct the owner of, or the person for the time being in charge of, any real or personal property to place it under the control or at the disposition of a specified person;
(e) remove, or cause to be removed, to such place as the State Co-ordinator or authorised officer thinks fit, any person or animal, or direct the evacuation or removal of any person or animal;
(f) direct or prohibit the movement of persons, animals or vehicles;
(fa) direct a person to submit to a decontamination procedure;
(fb) direct a person to remain isolated or segregated from other persons or to take other measures to prevent the transmission of a disease or condition to other persons;
(fc) direct a person to undergo medical observation, examination (including diagnostic procedures) or treatment (including preventative treatment); …
and the amendment:
COVID-19 Emergency Response Act 2020
ea) after section 25 insert:
25A—Removal of children
(1) Without derogating from section 25, an authorised officer may, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with any direction under that section, remove a child from any premises, place, vehicle or vessel to a place of residence of the child or to a hospital or quarantine facility, as the authorised officer thinks fit (and may, in doing so, use such force as is reasonably necessary).
(2) In this section— child means a person under 18 years of age;
place of residence includes, in the case of a child who is in the custody, or under the guardianship, of the Chief Executive under the Children and Young People (Safety) Act 2017, any place directed by that Chief Executive.
It’s the same for most Australian States and kudos to you that you have bothered to look at the powers in effect. Many previous posters were commenting on police breaking windows of cars etc as if the operation of the law currently was normal.
The long and short of it is while those powers are in effect if you are given a directive by police or a health official you obey it without hesitation.
If you disagree with the law(s) and use of them you will need to get them removed by making it an election issue. There is simply no way to get them removed while they are in effect because they are so wide sweeping.
That’s nothing, breaking the windows is standard police tactic if the car driver refuses to identify themselves.
That’s small cheese, in Australia you can be convicted of retrospectively created crime. When they appeal the High Court favours the government as the Constitution doesn’t prohibit it ( unlike US which does). Original case which setbthe precedent was 1915 but even more recent cases follow that path.
In West Australia the other week the state passed a law , supported by most of the MPs, to prevent a mining billionaire from winning a long running legal dispute with the state in court. They say it could cost the state tens of billions if he wins…which he can’t now.
Well, it is SA after all. But this stuck out to me;
“State Co-ordinator must take any necessary action to implement the SEMP and cause such response and recovery operations to be carried out as he or she thinks appropriate.
(2) Without limiting or derogating from the operation of subsection (1), but subject to the regulations, the State Co-ordinator or an authorised officer may, if of the opinion that it is necessary to do so, do or cause to be done all or any of the following things:
(a) enter and, if necessary, break into any land, building, structure or vehicle (using such force as is necessary);”
With the words “thinks” and “opinion” being quite vague terms.
Well done. I have copied the text.
The Western Australian version they just can, they don’t need any excuse read section 127 a & b
https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/prod/filestore.nsf/FileURL/mrdoc_43104.pdf/$FILE/Public%20Health%20Act%202016%20-%20%5B00-j0-00%5D.pdf
They are emergency powers and you will comply and you have no rights to object.
No-one has rights in Australia, there is no bill of rights like the US. Everything is by grant.
Did these laws come in to effect after gun laws were changed effectively removing ones right to defend yourself from the state?
This is not as back and white as many believe. One of the supporters of this change is the Murdock media and they are the furthest to the right and most opposed to the cancel culture. Their argument is that google et al are using their content to increase advertising revenues, which amounts to theft of their IP and this legislation would force google et al to pay for the use of MSM content. The notice being published by Google is more of a threat that they would simply not publish the local media content to avoid having to pay the fees and therefore users would get a worse service. The legislation being referred to above that requires Google to advise of search engine listing changes would be used to help determine the $ value payments to MSM outlets.
The bottom line here is that Google, Facebook, et al would be paying media companies for second hand use of their material and this would represent a profit loss for them and a profit gain for the media outlets. The AU government (IMO) is also possibly seeing this as a way of increasing tax revenues in this sector, having realised that huge profits by Google escape the tax system and falling profits by MSM outlets result in further tax losses. The conservative Murdock press is also far more affected by the IP theft than the far left government owned and subsidised ABC, and the more conservative LNP government obviously needs them to remain profitable and in business as they would also cease to exist in a conservative free media.
Spain tried this a few years ago. When Google cancelled Spain, after a bit they backed down.
I’m no fan of Google, I think they’ve behaved abominably, but the thought of Aussie MSM dominance of digital media by fiat is worse – even if Murdoch is one of the new tyrants.
Typo: remuneration.
(sorry)
They are asking for clarity from Google, what is wrong with that?
Google is the problem, hiding and taking down articles and videos it decides are ‘wrong’.
Maybe Google should stop showing results for the Australian news sites at all, then they can’t be accused of stealing revenue.
Eric…. check the spelling of the ‘ren…. word in the first paragraph. I think you have the ‘n’ and ‘m’ transposed.
Just think how easy it will be to change history once there are no books and no civilian oversight