[RobertMiller]

A simple "the law requires us to" somewhere in that quote would have gone a long way to convey displeasure at their arm being twisted. But nothing in that quote suggests any arm twisting, and why should google of all corporations be given the benefit of the doubt? They look like eager and willing collaborators.

[emteycz]

So why they didn't try to require ID for all the previous years until laws required it?

[syshum]

Large Corporations will often have government enact laws they know would be unpopular policies for a variety of reasons... Many times companies will even publicly opposes the very laws they actually support behind the scenes.

Not saying that is the case here, but it pretty common for corporations to use government as their tool

[RobertMiller]

If they want us to believe they're displeased at this requirement, why don't they say so? Google has certainly complained and protested about other laws before.

> In response to multiple complaints we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 15 results from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaints that caused the removals at LumenDatabase.org:

[MiroF]

You're comparing a quote from an article clearly being written in the context of this Australian law to the actual quote from Google's implementation of DMCa law. There is nothing in your quote indicating they are "protesting" DMCA law.

Here is the full quote.

> Over the coming month, we will also be introducing a new age assurance step on YouTube and Google Play. This added step is informed by the Australian Online Safety (Restricted Access Systems) Declaration, which requires platforms to take reasonable steps to confirm users are adults in order to access content that is potentially inappropriate for viewers under 18.

> This is in line with the actions we took in the European Union in response to the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD).

> As part of this process some Australian users may be asked to provide additional proof of age when attempting to watch mature content on YouTube or downloading content on Google Play. If our systems are unable to establish that a viewer is above the age of 18, we will request that they provide a valid ID or credit card to verify their age. We’ve built our age-verification process in keeping with Google’s Privacy and Security Principles.

Pulling out a quote and then saying "they don't mention the law", when they actually do mention the law a few lines above is frankly... a bad objection.

[RobertMiller]

They aren't required to disclose any DMCA removals, but choose to anyway, citing the law by name. Pointing out that a law is requiring them to do something is the least anybody can do if they object to that law's requirements. The omission of such a statement is sufficient evidence to conclude they are willing collaborators. A tech corporation like Google does not deserve the benefit of the doubt anyway.

[MiroF]

Are you still not following that this "omission" is something you've entirely made up in your own mind by selectively copying one quote from an entire article?

[RobertMiller]

The text you quoted does not seem to convey any displeasure at the law. Think what you like.

> This added step is informed by

Why so passive? Why not "required by"?

> We’ve built our age-verification process in keeping with Google’s Privacy and Security Principles.

Why not omit this apologia?

Also, that statement about the DMCA is on every single search page with DMCA omissions. Do you think Google is going to cite the ID law by name on every page requiring it? I guess we'll find out, but I'm not holding my breath for this.

[zuminator]

1) For Google to "complain" about the law and then still enforce it is just a toothless objection, virtue signaling. At least in the case of the LumenDatabase.org notice, their complaint actually serves a valid purpose of subverting the law (by allowing the user to see the offending domains.)

2) Google is a US corporation. If it is unhappy with US laws, it could be considered perhaps reasonable or even responsible for it to voice its concerns as a "corporate person" while it continues to fulfill its legal obligations. But it's a guest in Australia. If it doesn't want to obey the laws enacted by the people of Australia in Australia, it doesn't have to. After exhausting any judicial remedies, it can simply choose to leave Australia voluntarily. But to continue to reap Australian dollars while being demonstratively surly about it, could come across as disrespectful to the people of Australia. It would be as if someone came as a "plus one" to an exclusive party at your house, and then vocally complained the entire time that they were "forced" to remove their shoes.