Mel Silva, Managing Director of Google Australia and New Zealand said...

The principle of unrestricted linking between websites is fundamental to Search. Coupled with the unmanageable financial and operational risk if this version of the Code were to become law it would give us no real choice but to stop making Google Search available in Australia.

[blog.google...]

Earlier stories with some background to this
Australia to Amend Proposed Law Making Google & Facebook Pay for News [webmasterworld.com]
Google Argues Australia's proposed "News Media Bargaining Code" Will Have "Negative Consequences" [webmasterworld.com]

Wasn’t that a headline from Weekend Update, lo these many decades ago? “President Ford announced today that he is pulling out of Angola. A frustrated Angola could not be reached for comment.”

I’ll let myself out.

Wasn’t that a headline from Weekend Update, lo these many decades ago?

I guess you just needed to be there.

What I don't get is this headline:
[webmasterworld.com...]

Google Agrees to Pay French Publishers For Use of Snippets in News

So, I guess the Google position can summarized as "we will pay for some content but only on our terms"

Yes, it's "do it our way, or no way" attitude isn't going to win any friends.

It would be fascinating to see the result of google pulling out, and how it could stimulate innovation from others at they fill the void.

Does anyone hereabouts live in Czechia? They seem to be about the only place that has wholeheartedly adopted its own national search engine, and surely there's a history behind it. (I know France has one too, but it isn't nearly as much in evidence.)

Not sure if the Australian government understands how search really work and how late they are bringing this issue up.

You could see Google still operate in Australia but not show any Australian news. That would hurt Australian news even more.

Plus why does the News industry get special attention, how about all the other small businesses that have their content in full display on Google?

The only way I see fixing this is preventing search engines from providing these long featured snippets that answer searches questions directly without requiring them to visit the site that has the actual content.

Google needs to provide just the link, title, and SHORT description about the content. This way the user will be forced off Google properties and if the website that post the original content wants to put it behind a paywall, let them, and they can charge as much as they want for it.

JesterMagic
What you said is exactly correct
All news website without google search will worth less
We can remind what happened with Dailymail when lost 50 percent traffic from google..
So news websites will lose traffic if google search will not be related to Australia

Surely, if all news websites were removed from Google, those looking for news would find other ways to get their news. Maybe, from the news sources, themselves......

There is, of course, an example of this in action. Google News To Close In Spain [webmasterworld.com]

In one respect, I can see why Google doesn't want to pay: It doesn't actually make money directly from the News service, unless it puts ads on the News Serps. In another respect, not having an agreement benefits nobody. Lawmakers need to wake up and not dig their heels in without understanding the full implications. They don't have a good track record, do they: Cookie law as a prime example.

Google sends traffic, and Publishers can block their feeds to Google News if they wish.

In the example linked by NickMNS, Google has agreed a framework to explore this further [webmasterworld.com...] At least they are talking, and this is not legislation, unlike Australia.

In May 2011, Google managed to bully Kazakhstan enough by retracting their search services from the country when a law was passed which required all owners of local TLD .kz domains to host their services on servers in the country. In that case, Google won the dispute, and existing domain owners were exempted from the requirement.

It has to be seen if this same technique will work with Australia, in this new era where governments more and more oppose unchecked monopolies by big companies.

@engine Google has News and ads all over the place. What Governments needs to do is require Google to be a search engine and not a knowledge engine (based on others people content). If Google wants to display news articles like they own them they should have to open their own news outlets that create content.

But then again Google is a now a huge monopoly in search and ads and has huge sway in other industries like mobile phones thanks to that dominance. You don't want one company providing all the facts (not that it would ever happen).

Google is a company that has a global service which is a monopoly. First world countries need to create a consortium and work together to create a set of rules that makes sense to all and is fair to all.

@JesterMagic I don't see those ads you mention. It may be because of regional differences, ad blocking, etc.

Back on topic, the other issue is that Google appeared to be heading towards an agreement with publishers in Australia for Google's News Showcase, which is curated news. But that agreement was put on hold because of the "Code." I wonder if Google could still roll that out with selected publishers, side-lining all the others.

You can read more about News Showcase here Google News Showcase Will Start Paying For Paywalled Content [webmasterworld.com]
There's also this piece by Our $1 billion investment in partnerships with news publishers [blog.google]

My take on this is that Google stands to lose a lot of Australian ad revenue, as Aussie searchers will have to look for other options, such as foreign Google sites or, dare I say it, Bing. Hence it's a matter of who blinks first - the Aussie government or Google. The news media involved are mainly TV channels and News Corp and they have daily contact with politicians, whereas Google is seen as a foreign entity that pays very little tax. So, I don't expect the government to care what Google does.

Once again a Government is putting on band aids to try to fix a deeper issue. A select group of media companies (who probably paid lobbying groups) are going to get special treatment on the internet while others do not get the same treatment. These type of measures will further cement these media companies positions as the head of their industries while preventing others from rising up. What a way to stifle competition.

Also this shouldn't be just a Google/Facebook only rule and apply to and similar company of a certain size (for example I would include Bing in this as well).

Plus having different rules all over the place doesn't help anyone and makes things really confusing. A few countries need to setup some sort of consortium dealing with problems like this but at a global level and allow other countries to join if they meet the conditions. This way any "deals" made with companies like Google would apply to all countries who belong. Something like what the EU did for GDPR but give it greater scope (and allow other countries to join).

It is for governments, supported by the population, to make laws not an unelected, greedy foreign company.

I spent a few weeks in Australia and met hundreds of people. Nearly all were proud to be Australians. If Google threatens them then they will be taking on the wrong group.

Mark Zuckerberg phoned our Treasurer, but nothing came out of it, i.e. the Treasurer was not fazed by the threats. OK, so FB will stop the sharing of news links. Most people I know have set up accounts on other platforms, some for many years.

This is could turn into a mini-series Now, "Microsoft's Bing ready to step in if Google pulls search from Australia, minister says"
[theguardian.com...]

Microsoft understands where Google is standing now :) They were in the hot seat some fifteen years ago when the EU tried to crack down their market domination.

Google is running experiments in Australia by hiding some Australian news sites from search.

A Google spokesperson confirmed the company was “running a few experiments that will each reach about 1% of Google Search users in Australia to measure the impacts of news businesses and Google Search on each other”. The experiments would finish by early February, he told Guardian Australia.

Google sought to downplay the significance of the move by noting the company conducted “tens of thousands of experiments in Google Search” every year.

[theguardian.com...]

I am referring to comments on social media platforms, not necessarily this thread. People are making amazing assumptions about what could happen. You CAN use Gmail, Google, Ads etc at the dot com level or Google from other countries. You will probably lose the localised results, but a quick check in google dot com for pizza near me shows me local ads and local results. As for ads, there will be an impact if a company advertises the same website in google dot com and in dot com dot au (but with different ads).

I think at best, Google will de-index Australian news companies, which is fine. That has no effect on our reading news in apps and on the news websites - which will probably have to loosen their paywalls.

I cannot see Google blocking access from Australian IP addresses across the world. That is, in effect what many seem to be thinking.

This will gonna be a pay per link. I wonder how business sectors will get affected by this.

Now that Google has further extended it's Google News Showcase program [webmasterworld.com] it feels justified to start taking swipes at Microsoft for agreeing to support Australia's "Code," and quotes others that feel the "code" is a dangerous precedent.

Through these partnerships, we are paying significant amounts to support news organizations large and small — with more to come.

But we and others have pointed to significant concerns with the proposed Australian law, while proposing reasonable amendments to make it work. The issue isn’t whether companies pay to support quality content; the issue is how. The law would unfairly require unknown payments for simply showing links to news businesses, while giving, to a favored few, special previews of search ranking. Those aren’t workable solutions and would fundamentally change the Internet, hurting the people and businesses who use it. But there are better ways, and we’re committed to making progress.

[blog.google...]

In most jurisdictions, it is the governments who make the laws, and the companies which have to abide by them, not the other way around. Google undoubtedly has a better PR apparatus than the Australian government and is better at spinning their words to make the message look better, but in the end, they won't have a choice.

The thing they are scared about is the avalanche effect in other countries if the Australian government succeeds, and they are trying to wiggle enough to stay in the game in Australia, without giving up too much of their bottom line.

I know Canada is looking into this as well.

I am curious to know how much money is changing hands? Is it even enough for News agencies?

Still this doesn't really solve the main problem of Google showing so much of the content that the visitor feels he doesn't have to leave Google and visit the source website. How about all the other small and large companies not in the small circle of major media companies getting paid by Google for showing their content. This is just favoring large businesses.

There are reports that the "code" is still being re-worked and there are "technical amendments" to the Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill.

amendments would “streamline the requirements for digital platforms to give advanced notice of algorithm changes”, though did not elaborate.

The government has already offered the digital platforms concessions around the need to provide advanced notification, having narrowed the requirement to only significant algorithm changes.

According to the bill’s explanatory memorandum, digital platforms must give media companies 14 days' notice of algorithm changes “likely to have a significant effect on the referral traffic to ... new content”.

[itnews.com.au...]

The following message was cut out to new thread by engine. New thread at: facebook/5027627.htm [webmasterworld.com]
11:28 am on Feb 18, 2021 (utc 0)