[altindag]

interesting. it seems to me that if Google really wanted to influence Australian public opinion, they have far more sophisticated ways to go about it than this clumsy attempt at PSA outreach slash fear mongering. It's almost as if they need to be seen to be taking some responses to the media payment legislation but they don't really care. That's what's interesting to me. I wonder why they would not care.

perhaps because they have inside knowledge that the legislation is a dead duck and the government doesn't intend to follow through but perhaps the government is simply doing this for whatever reasons maybe political points with the population.

I have no doubt that the Australian government and Google play a delicate dance with each other while they both cooperate and see that they both get the outcomes they both want. so the gloss that this is all about consumers, spouted by both sides, I think is false.

anyway, interesting to watch where this goes.

[foxylad]

Google's entire business depends on being squeaky clean. If they ever got caught doing "sophisticated" opinion influencing, they'd lose half their value overnight as customers switched to alternatives. And then every democratic government would join in with a serious kicking, given their elections are so vulnerable to said influencing.

I think Facebook sails very close to the wind here, but my impression is that Google's management is a lot more professional about protecting their business long term. So I'd be suprised if they tried any dirty tricks.

However, their efforts won't be limited to open letters. There will be some very high-powered lobbying going on, and I bet this letter is mostly to frame that debate to counter the lobbying from Murdoch's empire. All in all, a great time to be an Aussie politician - a lot of very expensive trips, lunches and other inducements coming there way.

[mola]

I know it's not a common opinion, but I believe that other than the rational argument you presented (which I agree with) I do think it's also a matter of values and mentality.

Yes Google is a big org, their business is problematic, and they do crap at times. But I think their mentality is much more less Machiavellian than Facebook.

I believe the "do no evil" as a compass, they might not always adhere to that as you or me may perceive it (after all, it is rather subjective), but it does seem to somewhat guide their actions.

[arathis]

Switched to who? Bing?

[altindag]

I doubt this. we are beholden to Google. we can't just go elsewhere even if we disagree with some things some people in Google do. advertiser or consumer. or government. they ain't losing half their business anytime soon, no matter what kind of things they pull.

[zmmmmm]

> It's almost as if they need to be seen to be taking some responses to the media payment legislation but they don't really care

They care. I'm currently situated in Australia and did a random google search and a giant popup jumped up saying "The way Aussies use Google is at risk". No way they are doing that on their main search page if they do not care.

[altindag]

That's more like it. if it was just that letter and PR release I'd be surprised. but even so... I think it's just for show.

remember news Corp is not just an Australian company. this could be part of a bigger game between Google and newscorp, and between newscorp and the aus gov.

[chillfox]

My guess, is that they will comply by either giving the media a copy of their "Quality Raters Guidelines", or just setup an office where the media can send staff to sit at a slow computer and view a billion lines of source code.

[altindag]

hehehe. yeah the due diligence document room. and lots of minified JavaScript UI code.

I love how companies can say complying with legislation would be overly burdensome. and how governments can make laws that have no technical reality. the interface between tech and law is pretty leaky and inefficient.

[eru]

In theory a tech-competent judge could enforce laws to be closer to technical reality.

[altindag]

That's true. I suppose that's the idea. If that's the case, technical education should become a part of judgeship, if it's not already.

[eru]

Yes. Though of course it would also help if the laws were written by tech-competent people.

(That doesn't mean that all people in parliament need to be competent. Most laws are written by specialists, not MPs.)