We need to choose between free search engines and access free social network
or we rather prefer to pay for those services.So far Facebook and Google , which provide as with good services are free to use.
No monthly charges or fees.
Than money will be siphoned to News Media Corporation,
and their offices overseas.
Most likely outcome from this altercation between Facebook and Australian government will be : .....
introduction of taxes and fees payable to our government for using Facebook or Google,.
Such like an import tax. What is you thought?
Well, generally Google and Facebook provide links and subsets of other people's actual news feeds, so I am not sure what good services they provide.
Clearly Facebook and Google make ad revenue off of their use, which people tend to use more because of the content, including news, so its not as if they are not making money.
I am all for them paying for things that they use. They are making money from it. If they weren't it would be a different question.
I like how Google provides 'reviews' of lots of books. Just enough that people can read a fair bit, but not enough that they have copyright problems.
I was just reading something about google algorithms that extract content from other websites to make a good human readable result. Clearly getting content from others but making it automated, and why would they do that? To help the world? Of course not, to get more clicks and more ad revenue.
Situation is clear.
If Google and Facebook do refuse to pay our government for free serviced they provide to our citizens,
then
our government should introduce fees and charge all our people for using Facebook and Google.???
Then give the money to somebody else. Like privately owned corporate news media so they could feed us more crap.
???
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Well, generally Google and Facebook provide links and subsets of other people's actual news feeds, so I am not sure what good services they provide.
Clearly Facebook and Google make ad revenue off of their use, which people tend to use more because of the content, including news, so its not as if they are making money.
I am all for them paying for things that they use. They are making money from it. If they weren't it would be a different question.
I like how Google provides 'reviews' of lots of books. Just enough that people can read a fair bit, but not enough that they have copyright problems.
How it works?
Facebook and Google redirect us only to our local newspaper ,
by link and to read any news from The Age or similar Australian you need to pay subscription fee.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Well, generally Google and Facebook provide links and subsets of other people's actual news feeds, so I am not sure what good services they provide.
Clearly Facebook and Google make ad revenue off of their use, which people tend to use more because of the content, including news, so its not as if they are making money.
I am all for them paying for things that they use. They are making money from it. If they weren't it would be a different question.
I like how Google provides 'reviews' of lots of books. Just enough that people can read a fair bit, but not enough that they have copyright problems.
How much you pay for you Gmail account?
google maps?
answering your questions in search engine? disk storage for your documents and photo?
socializing on FB without need to pay for the beer ?
so now you ask them to pay you for all this stuff you have for free ??
I have no issue with government asking fb/google for money to share news. If they don't want to, my feeling is that they will be worse off.
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..
I have no issue with government asking fb/google for money to share news. If they don't want to, my feeling is that they will be worse off.
Yeep , News , information in general...
why should be free to read wiki encyclopedia,
while you should pay for outdated Britannica. ??
Why information,. knowledge , education may be for free if you could ask to pay for it?
I would rather live happily without any single news from local papers then knowledge database offered now for free on internet.
Google and Facebook is not " sharing" ( copy / paste) news published by someone, buy only pointing to the source,
The source then require you to pay for reading content.
Example,
-Stranger on street ask you for direction to theatre.
-You - point him in right direction." ... go straight, 200m then turn left and there is theatre building'''
-Stranger "Great service, mate! Pay me now five bucks for direction, then another $20 for my ticket"
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..FormulaNova said..
Well, generally Google and Facebook provide links and subsets of other people's actual news feeds, so I am not sure what good services they provide.
Clearly Facebook and Google make ad revenue off of their use, which people tend to use more because of the content, including news, so its not as if they are making money.
I am all for them paying for things that they use. They are making money from it. If they weren't it would be a different question.
I like how Google provides 'reviews' of lots of books. Just enough that people can read a fair bit, but not enough that they have copyright problems.
How it works?
Facebook and Google redirect us only to our local newspaper ,
by link and to read any news from The Age or similar Australian you need to pay subscription fee.
You ask how it works and then show that you don't understand what is being discussed.
Google and facebook don't 'just' redirect you to another media site. They summarise a lot of news articles and present it to you as a news feed, with enough detail that you can read it without needing to visit the media site. Just because you don't use it or see it does not mean it is not used that way.
My phone seems to present a 'summary' of news articles, as does my ipad. all without visiting the parent media sites. This is what this is all about. Not just providing a link to a story, but providing most of the content... for free.
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..FormulaNova said..
Well, generally Google and Facebook provide links and subsets of other people's actual news feeds, so I am not sure what good services they provide.
Clearly Facebook and Google make ad revenue off of their use, which people tend to use more because of the content, including news, so its not as if they are making money.
I am all for them paying for things that they use. They are making money from it. If they weren't it would be a different question.
I like how Google provides 'reviews' of lots of books. Just enough that people can read a fair bit, but not enough that they have copyright problems.
How much you pay for you Gmail account?
google maps?
answering your questions in search engine? disk storage for your documents and photo?
socializing on FB without need to pay for the beer ?
so now you ask them to pay you for all this stuff you have for free ??
For someone that likes to pretend they have a good IQ you don't look into things in much depth. Anyone can see that these apps are used by Google and Facebook to make money from ad revenue.
No one is asking them to provide this stuff for free. If they want to charge for it, they will, which will just erode their own revenue as less people using them means less money paid for ads. As an example, if Google charged for gmail then there would be competitors and they could all compete for users. The ad revenue pays for it, which is pretty clear to anyone when they send emails on these platforms and find ads start showing up with similar topics to those used in the emails.
Maybe you should understand what the government is asking these companies a bit more?
I can see Facebook will do a bit of a backtrack if they start to see less users visit their site from Australia over the next few weeks. Good on them for testing the waters though as you don't know the result until you give it a try.
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..myscreenname said..
I have no issue with government asking fb/google for money to share news. If they don't want to, my feeling is that they will be worse off.
Yeep , News , information in general...
why should be free to read wiki encyclopedia,
while you should pay for outdated Britannica. ??
Why information,. knowledge , education may be for free if you could ask to pay for it?
I would rather live happily without any single news from local papers then knowledge database offered now for free on internet.
Google and Facebook is not " sharing" ( copy / paste) news published by someone, buy only pointing to the source,
The source then require you to pay for reading content.
Example,
-Stranger on street ask you for direction to theatre.
-You - point him in right direction." ... go straight, 200m then turn left and there is theatre building'''
-Stranger "Great service, mate! Pay me now five bucks for direction, then another $20 for my ticket"
Your analogy should be more like:
-Stranger on street ask you for direction to where to buy a newspaper.
-You - well here is at least a paragraph on the top 20 news articles, and can you see this ad here for Chinese tractors?, point him in right direction." ... go straight, 200m then turn left and there is news agent building'''
-Stranger "Great service, mate! Now I don't think I really need to buy a paper, but do you know where I can buy a Chinese Tractor?"
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Macroscien said..FormulaNova said..
Well, generally Google and Facebook provide links and subsets of other people's actual news feeds, so I am not sure what good services they provide.
Clearly Facebook and Google make ad revenue off of their use, which people tend to use more because of the content, including news, so its not as if they are making money.
I am all for them paying for things that they use. They are making money from it. If they weren't it would be a different question.
I like how Google provides 'reviews' of lots of books. Just enough that people can read a fair bit, but not enough that they have copyright problems.
How it works?
Facebook and Google redirect us only to our local newspaper ,
by link and to read any news from The Age or similar Australian you need to pay subscription fee.
You ask how it works and then show that you don't understand what is being discussed.
Google and facebook don't 'just' redirect you to another media site. They summarise a lot of news articles and present it to you as a news feed, with enough detail that you can read it without needing to visit the media site. Just because you don't use it or see it does not mean it is not used that way.
My phone seems to present a 'summary' of news articles, as does my ipad. all without visiting the parent media sites. This is what this is all about. Not just providing a link to a story, but providing most of the content... for free.
Thanks, I know how it works now.
Taliban fighter will cut few heads off.Facebook do reports the event ....
then sends a cheque to Taliban for providing content....
now all Facebook needs to recover some money is to attach some add relating to event
( butcher knife manufacturer add? )
Here is link to the best in Australia chef knife available online.
We did insert this add / promotion at our SB social network.
Who should pay to who?
1.We to knife dealer for using his content?
2. Knife seller to us for link and advertising to public?
3.Maybe Laurie for providing us free service utilizing Seabreeze for conversation exchange
then next question is :
To who Laurie should pay?
a) to us for using this site
b) to knife dealer
c) to Facebook ?
d) to Taliban?
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..
Pointing/Sharing: semantics. Same thing
not necessary.If you just point with link to the site - that is pointing
If you copy the content and reprint on your site , then will be sharing
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
Situation is clear.
If Google and Facebook do refuse to pay our government for free serviced they provide to our citizens,
then
our government should introduce fees and charge all our people for using Facebook and Google.???
Then give the money to somebody else. Like privately owned corporate news media so they could feed us more crap.
???
I think you are missing the deterrent part as well. If these tech companies decide that they will keep providing content from others against the government's rules, and not paying anything for it, the government will just restrict their ability to get ad revenue from Australian businesses.
How can they do this? My guess is that they can refuse to allow tax deductions for ad services from foreign companies. "Force" these companies to pay more tax if they have local arms of their business.
If these companies just stop providing content from other people's sources, the government wont really care. They won't charge anyone for anything. The media companies will be happier though as they will get more clicks from people viewing their content or subscribing to their services.
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..myscreenname said..
Pointing/Sharing: semantics. Same thing
not necessary.If you just point with link to the site - that is pointing
If you copy the content and reprint on your site , then will be sharing
Since when have you ever seen Google or Facebook just have a link that says 'news.com.au' and asks you to click it? Never.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Since when have you ever seen Google or Facebook just have a link that says 'news.com.au' and asks you to click it? Never.
Never!
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..FormulaNova said..Macroscien said..FormulaNova said..
Well, generally Google and Facebook provide links and subsets of other people's actual news feeds, so I am not sure what good services they provide.
Clearly Facebook and Google make ad revenue off of their use, which people tend to use more because of the content, including news, so its not as if they are making money.
I am all for them paying for things that they use. They are making money from it. If they weren't it would be a different question.
I like how Google provides 'reviews' of lots of books. Just enough that people can read a fair bit, but not enough that they have copyright problems.
How it works?
Facebook and Google redirect us only to our local newspaper ,
by link and to read any news from The Age or similar Australian you need to pay subscription fee.
You ask how it works and then show that you don't understand what is being discussed.
Google and facebook don't 'just' redirect you to another media site. They summarise a lot of news articles and present it to you as a news feed, with enough detail that you can read it without needing to visit the media site. Just because you don't use it or see it does not mean it is not used that way.
My phone seems to present a 'summary' of news articles, as does my ipad. all without visiting the parent media sites. This is what this is all about. Not just providing a link to a story, but providing most of the content... for free.
Thanks, I know how it works now.
Taliban fighter will cut few heads off.Facebook do reports the event ....
then sends a cheque to Taliban for providing content....
now all Facebook needs to recover some money is to attach some add relating to event
( butcher knife manufacturer add? )
Here is link to the best in Australia chef knife available online.
We did insert this add / promotion at our SB social network.
Who should pay to who?
1.We to knife dealer for using his content?
2. Knife seller for link and advertising to public?
3.Maybe Laurie for providing us free service utilizing Seabreeze for conversation exchange
then next question is : To who Laurie should pay?
a) to us for using this siteb) to knife dealerc) to Facebook ?
d) to Taliban?
What planet are you on and did Elon get you there?
In your 'Taliban' example, Facebook would not report on the event. They would include the content from the Taliban website. Collecting ad revenue for you reading it through facebook because you also see the ads.
Do you ever re-read your posts to see if other people will understand them, or is this your attempt to confuse the google algorithms?
I have no idea what you question means with regards to knives.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Macroscien said..
Situation is clear.
If Google and Facebook do refuse to pay our government for free serviced they provide to our citizens,
then
our government should introduce fees and charge all our people for using Facebook and Google.???
Then give the money to somebody else. Like privately owned corporate news media so they could feed us more crap.
???
I think you are missing the deterrent part as well. If these tech companies decide that they will keep providing content from others against the government's rules, and not paying anything for it, the government will just restrict their ability to get ad revenue from Australian businesses.
How can they do this? My guess is that they can refuse to allow tax deductions for ad services from foreign companies. "Force" these companies to pay more tax if they have local arms of their business.
If these companies just stop providing content from other people's sources, the government wont really care. They won't charge anyone for anything. The media companies will be happier though as they will get more clicks from people viewing their content or subscribing to their services.
Yep , I know how to resolve the problem.
Lets introduce small, very very small fee every time we use Google search engine.Lets it be just 1c - one cent only.The money could be now split to provide our government with adequate tax, some to internet providers that provide background for transaction, part to Google, a bit to nearest charity, then the rest to news media that may report online what are you looking at you private search
ok we need a bit more money so search cost us only 10c
but we will make everybody happy
Lets introduce the fee for road direction once driving. Google present you with two roads option:
a) the cheapestb) most expensive
you chooses the cheapest answer of course;
Google may divert you to the place ,far away to be completely lost in the bushes.
Now the price for right direction could sky rocket. You may try to find a way on your own , before you die or you could share content of you VISA card with map provider . Just typical market behaviour, You pay as much as information is worth for you at the moment.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Do you ever re-read your posts to see if other people will understand them, or is this your attempt to confuse the google algorithms?
Yep , I have usually much better communication with google algorithms then with living people.
Hardly any algorithm is designed to constantly abuse and humiliate.( in fact I did insert some malign comment about you in my post above, but after short consideration, removed them. Then I feel better. I should an can be better the that. I don't need to lower my standing and principles to feel good and crash oponent)
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..FormulaNova said..Macroscien said..
Situation is clear.
If Google and Facebook do refuse to pay our government for free serviced they provide to our citizens,
then
our government should introduce fees and charge all our people for using Facebook and Google.???
Then give the money to somebody else. Like privately owned corporate news media so they could feed us more crap.
???
I think you are missing the deterrent part as well. If these tech companies decide that they will keep providing content from others against the government's rules, and not paying anything for it, the government will just restrict their ability to get ad revenue from Australian businesses.
How can they do this? My guess is that they can refuse to allow tax deductions for ad services from foreign companies. "Force" these companies to pay more tax if they have local arms of their business.
If these companies just stop providing content from other people's sources, the government wont really care. They won't charge anyone for anything. The media companies will be happier though as they will get more clicks from people viewing their content or subscribing to their services.
Yep , I know how to resolve the problem.
Lets introduce small, very very small fee every time we use Google search engine.Lets it be just 1c - one cent only.The money could be now split to provide our government with adequate tax, some to internet providers that provide background for transaction, part to Google, a bit to nearest charity, then the rest to news media that may report online what are you looking at you private search
ok we need a bit more money so search cost us only 10c
but we will make everybody happy
Lets introduce the fee for road direction once driving. Google present you with two roads option:
a) the cheapestb) most expensive
you chooses the cheapest answer of course;
Google may divert you to the place ,far away to be completely lost in the bushes.
Now the price for right direction could sky rocket. You may try to find a way on your own , before you die or you could share content of you VISA card with map provider . Just typical market behaviour, You pay as much as information is worth for you at the moment.
You still don't understand the problem.
Google does not need money for you to use their search engine. That's why it sells ads.
Do you understand how ads generate money for Google? Do you really? Have you read and understood this sentence?
You want to read the news? No. Don't. You do? news.com.au get their revenue from the ads they host on their pages, even if they come from Google ads. 'News' are winners as they get paid for producing the content that their journalists produce.
Why would Google want to charge for searching when other search providers are happy to do it and make their money from ads?
Perhaps you can go work for the Google and Facebook legal teams? You would help the government that way.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Google does not need money for you to use their search engine.
Yep ,Google don't need money for their search engines ,
because their data centre works on hot air alone !
here look at Google secret data centers machine.That doesn't require your money to provide world with free internet services
Macro.... macro, macro.
You sooo don't get the point.
Its not the search and direct that is the issue.
It's the "feed", where Google or Facebook or whoever publish and send you a copy of somebody else's product. Then they charge people to advertise because they have consumers viewing somebody else's product, but don't pay for the original product.
If you want to make analogies it is like me make a website called "BreezeSea" then reproducing everything in these forums in a slightly different format, charging advertisers to put ads on my site and paying nobody anything for the original content from Seabreeze.
The excuse from Facebook for what they did today is :
...For Facebook, the business gain from news is minimal. News makes up less than 4% of the content people see in their News Feed.
about.fb.com/news/2021/02/changes-to-sharing-and-viewing-news-on-facebook-in-australia/
Difficult to know where to being with that ...
They admit 4% of what they "sell" you is somebody else's product they haven't paid for, or that 96% of what they sell you is bollocks. The fact they choose to charge you zero is their choice. The fact they don't pay for what they take shouldn't be their choice.
Even Facebook are muddying the waters claiming that they are being asked to pay for ABC's facebook page. They aren't. If the ABC chooses to publish news on it's Facebook page that is what ABC chooses to do with their own property. If Facebook want to charge ABC for using the Facebook site, they would be free to do so.
Facebook is being told that principle is a two way thing. If Facebook publish other people's work, which they do in News feeds and the such like, those other people should be allowed to ask to be paid. They don't have to ask, but they should be allowed to. And if Facebook doesn't pay then the law will ensure they have to.
Seems fair enough to me.
But it has nothing to do with internet search engines or the ABC's Facebook page.
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..FormulaNova said..
Google does not need money for you to use their search engine.
Yep ,Google don't need money for their search engines ,
because their data centre works on hot air alone !
here look at Google secret data centers machine.That doesn't require your money to provide world with free internet services
I won't insult you any more, but do you still not realise how ads work? You have a web page, lets call it seabreeze.com.au. Someone uses that site, sees an ad for Rolled Steel Rocket Fuel Tanks, and clicks on it. That click is registered with Google or whoever provides the ads, and the advertiser, in this case TESLA RSRFT pays a couple of cents or fractions of cents to Google, who then passes on a bit to the owner of seabreeze.com.au.
If you have not noticed it, do a search on something from google. The first bunch of results are paid links that are displayed first. This is not like the good old days when Google did its best to provide the most accurate result for you. It is the result that gets them 'sponsored' results first and then other stuff further down the page.
Google gets money from ads. Simple. They do not need money from search engines, as they get it from ads. Ads are not as useful if they are not targeted to the user, so gmail helps in making sure you get ads for RSRFTs and I get ads for books on 'how to insult anyone on any topic'.
Open up 'Maps' and do a search for a mechanic business in Toowoomba and see how many ads start showing up that are similar.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
.....and I get ads for books on 'how to insult anyone on any topic'
I can send you my old copies of volumes 1 through 17 if you want.
I am up to Advanced Diploma level, so I don't need the basic levels anymore.
I only have two more modules and then I am considered smart enough to get a bonus architects qualification for free (drawing houses cert 2 I think).
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Macroscien said..FormulaNova said..
Google does not need money for you to use their search engine.
Yep ,Google don't need money for their search engines ,
because their data centre works on hot air alone !
here look at Google secret data centers machine.That doesn't require your money to provide world with free internet services
I won't insult you any more, but do you still not realise how ads work? You have a web page, lets call it seabreeze.com.au. Someone uses that site, sees an ad for Rolled Steel Rocket Fuel Tanks, and clicks on it. That click is registered with Google or whoever provides the ads, and the advertiser, in this case TESLA RSRFT pays a couple of cents or fractions of cents to Google, who then passes on a bit to the owner of seabreeze.com.au.
If you have not noticed it, do a search on something from google. The first bunch of results are paid links that are displayed first. This is not like the good old days when Google did its best to provide the most accurate result for you. It is the result that gets them 'sponsored' results first and then other stuff further down the page.
Google gets money from ads. Simple. They do not need money from search engines, as they get it from ads. Ads are not as useful if they are not targeted to the user, so gmail helps in making sure you get ads for RSRFTs and I get ads for books on 'how to insult anyone on any topic'.
Open up 'Maps' and do a search for a mechanic business in Toowoomba and see how many ads start showing up that are similar.
At least the lack of understanding is complete.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
I won't insult you any more...
Come on FN, don't be like that.
The evening is young and the beer is cold. Crack another one open and let it all flow out....
I heard there is big motor company that comes with idea to:
Supply everybody with the latest model vehicle for FREE!!!
absolutely FREE!!!but there is even more !!
you receive free petrol , diesel or electricity to run your car completely FREE!!
but there is a catch.
There will be advertising constantly coming of your radio speakers.
You may choose to ignore it , not listen, but you could not turn it off 
Will you take an offer to ride it "free"
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..FormulaNova said..
.....and I get ads for books on 'how to insult anyone on any topic'
I can send you my old copies of volumes 1 through 17 if you want.
I am up to Advanced Diploma level, so I don't need the basic levels anymore.
I only have two more modules and then I am considered smart enough to get a bonus architects qualification for free (drawing houses cert 2 I think).
I wrote them you twit, and why don't you have the complete collection up to vol 30? Did you want autographed copies? You probably pirated them through google's book 'review'. They would have just censored out the diagrams with swear words in them anyway.
Please note that when you actually get to that level, you don't actually need the architects qualification as by that stage it is beneath you.
You would know this if you read my blog!
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..FormulaNova said..
I won't insult you any more...
Come on FN, don't be like that.
The evening is young and the beer is cold. Crack another one open and let it all flow out....
Is this an ad for beer.... Mmmmm beer.... did my fridge tell Google that I had some beer in there and charge Carlsberg for a product placement?
I need to find out what Cisco drinks and give that a try.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..Macroscien said..FormulaNova said..
Google does not need money for you to use their search engine.
Yep ,Google don't need money for their search engines ,
because their data centre works on hot air alone !
here look at Google secret data centers machine.That doesn't require your money to provide world with free internet services
I won't insult you any more, but do you still not realise how ads work? You have a web page, lets call it seabreeze.com.au. Someone uses that site, sees an ad for Rolled Steel Rocket Fuel Tanks, and clicks on it. That click is registered with Google or whoever provides the ads, and the advertiser, in this case TESLA RSRFT pays a couple of cents or fractions of cents to Google, who then passes on a bit to the owner of seabreeze.com.au.
If you have not noticed it, do a search on something from google. The first bunch of results are paid links that are displayed first. This is not like the good old days when Google did its best to provide the most accurate result for you. It is the result that gets them 'sponsored' results first and then other stuff further down the page.
Google gets money from ads. Simple. They do not need money from search engines, as they get it from ads. Ads are not as useful if they are not targeted to the user, so gmail helps in making sure you get ads for RSRFTs and I get ads for books on 'how to insult anyone on any topic'.
Open up 'Maps' and do a search for a mechanic business in Toowoomba and see how many ads start showing up that are similar.
Yep that is my problem !!Anytime I click something to learn about rockets,
this awful Google and FB try to sell my one of those Falcon 9 from SpaceX.
even worse.
I can buy two and have one for free ! I hate it because I have my own saucer already .
You could see it clear and in details. Much better then any Falcon 
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
I heard there is big motor company that comes with idea to:
I heard a motor company puts Bridgestone tyres on their cars when they sell you the car.
They don't charge you for the tyres, just for the rest of the car. They don't sell Bridgestone tyres, they just sell cars... Cars with Bridgestone tyres on them.
They don't pay Bridgestone for the tyres, they just take them from Bridgestone for nothing when Bridgestone aren't looking.
Why should they pay Bridgestone ? They don't charge the person who buys the car for the tyres, (just for the car which is theirs) so why should they pay Bridgestone for the tyres.
If you ask the motor company what tyres are best on the car they will tell Bridgestone are best.
So they are actually doing a favour for Bridgestone. 4% of people who buy their cars go on and buy new Bridgestone tyres.
Bridgestone asked to be paid for the tyres that the motor company use. The motor company was so outraged by this request they took all the wheels off all the cars they ever sold so now nobody has Bridgestone tyres.
It is not the motor companies fault that nobody can now use their car. It is Bridgestone's.
Would you be willing to pay extra when you buy a new car for Bridgestone tyres ?
