| > Google will not be required to charge Australians for the use of its free services such as Google Search and YouTube, unless it chooses to do so. Yes the law doesn't imply this in any way. But it requires Google to notify most changes "in terms that are readily comprehensible". What if an algorithm cannot be explained in comprehensible terms (e.g. machine learning)? What if they don't want their teams to be limited to changes that can be explained? What if they don't want to share their internal changes (e.g. they don't want a competitor to know, or they don't want these changes to be a "TODO how to update your site")? What I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's impossible for a big company to decide to develop a less magic and simpler algorithm for Australia instead. And once you consider how small Australia is (in terms of population, and business opportunity), this might only sense if you combine it with a paid membership. Note that I'm not saying this will happen, I think it's more likely that big companies will decide to opt out from displaying news or (in extreme cases) opt out from the Australian market completely (if they can't make it work). > Google will not be required to share any additional user data with Australian news businesses unless it chooses to do so. IANAL but section 52M(2) seems to contradict this (52M(2)(e) implies Google must make the data available to media companies) > A healthy news media sector is essential to a well-functioning democracy. Strongly agree with this, and I'm generally in favour of making sure media companies get their fair share of $$$. But the idea that government can define which companies deserve an extremely unfair advantages (compared to all other companies, e.g. small media companies), and force google to explain all changes with a 28 days notice... that's just bollocks. |