[strken]

I'm fine with using your arbitrary power to regulate companies in an effective way, but when you leave them no recourse but to agree to your demands or pull their most useful product out of your country, you don't get to turn around and act like they're leaving out of spite.

[robin21]

> Leave them no recourse

They can go along with it and then report the impact of it on their 5bn yearly profit and then they can leave not out of spite.

I suspect it’s a tiny impact on their profits ans this is just an attempt to build support from public. Problem is everybody hates them now. I’d gladly use other products if they didn’t have a monopoly.

[strken]

Why should we act to funnel Google's profits to nobody except large media outlets over a certain revenue threshold, the largest group of which are owned by Rupert Murdoch?

Why can't we allow all Australian businesses and individuals to receive payments from Google's money hose if they want to?

Why can't we standardise some API for doing so? robots.txt or .well-known/summary-fees.json or something of that sort would work fine.

Why can't Google hide results that cost too much to show? Surely choosing your suppliers is a foundational principle of any market.

I don't have an ideological problem with charging them for showing a link summary or regulating what price negotiation should look like, I have an strategic problem with this oddly specific and coercive way of doing so.