10 GOTO 10
Yep, looks legal enough.
News Corp publications and networks traditionally rail against government intervention, but the media giant's boss Robert Thomson has urged governments to establish "algorithm review boards" to help police Google and Facebook. "If properly conceived," said Thomson on Friday's quarterly investor relations call, such boards " …
Yep, looks legal enough.
"urged governments to establish "algorithm review boards""
So grab the most incompetent and wasteful group you can and let them take control of something successful. Sounds like a recipe for success not. The authoritarian push continues *imperial march tune*
Can nibble my giblets.
I do not want the Sun etc. appearing in my search results, so please News Corp have zero relationship with Google (use robots.txt to stop them spidering any of your websites)
.. and obviously that should apply to all search engine companies - they might all be using iffy algorithms -I use multiple search engines and do not want to risk dangerous (soaraway) sun exposure.
Can nibble my giblets.
Personally, I wouldn't want News Corp, Google, or Facebook anywhere near my giblets.
I an happy to support the regulation of Google's algorithmns to stop their computers perverting news delivery ... but not until we have equivalent regulations on News Corp, who are far, far worse news perverters than Facebook and Google and Twitter put together.
Why does News Corp reckon that massive and deliberate information fraud on their part should be exempt?
contenders: evil corps v. good boys, i.e. traditional media under the wing of a benevolent government (no, seriously!) Won't someone think of the children?! But they DO! It's about THEIR future voters, THEIR future "consumers" :/
"since they give away free stuff (often other people's stuff) for free - then the consumer always wins."
Just what percentage of the IP that Google gives away is Google's to give away compared to that of other people?
As far as I can see if it wasn't for exploiting other people's IP Google wouldn't have a business at all.
> As far as I can see if it wasn't for exploiting other people's IP Google wouldn't have a business at all.
Could also be written as:
As far as I can see if it wasn't for exploiting other people's PII News Corp wouldn't have a business at all.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Incorrect News Corp had a business long before the founders of Google were conceived. Similarly writers, film companies, musicians, and photographers had a business long before the parents of the Google founders went through puberty, and should Google and its like disappear overnight all of those groups will still have a business. This is not a symbiotic relationship it is a parasitic one.
Google doesn't give anything away for free. You're paying dearly for it all.
"Challenging these dominant digital platforms is important for our businesses but also meaningful for the societies in which we operate.""
"Challenging these dominant digital platforms is important for our businesses as we are becoming less relevant and therefore struggling to push our hate fuelled bile through to the gullible public.."
I guess dodgy traders put forward the same arguments when someone invented a weighing device.
Horse traders were not too impressed when carts carried more than a single horse.
Horse and carts were put out of business by mechanical vehicles - road safety improved.
Sailing ships lost out to steam and other powered vessels tough, but maritime safety improved.
News corp are worried that they could lose out on the creation and distribution of fairy stories, see above.
Should anyone need the exercise they can still walk/drive/fly to an outlet to buy their fantasy fix from News Corp.
The digital platforms have taken over where the likes of News Corp have already failed in the digital era.
Anyone got a mirror for those dinosaurs at News Corp to understand their historical failure.
Mirror is under Trinity bet yes progress always almost eliminates something, one day they'll be something different to google.
All of your examples posit something different replacing the old. Google does not bring anything different to the table its the same people generating the content, the content is the same all that is happening here is that Google devalues what monetary value that content had.
Devalue it enough and you end up with click bait, fake news, uninformed tripe, and regurgitate pulp music, films, and novels.
"Devalue it enough and you end up with click bait, fake news, uninformed tripe, and regurgitate pulp music, films, and novels."
New Corp managed to do that to printed news long before google came along.
News Corps logic dictates that governments must not legislate press freedom.
News Corp publications and networks traditionally rail against government intervention
in their business, but encourage it in rivals' businesses.
I agree with Mr. Thomson that Google (and every other company that engages in widespread spying) needs to be regulated.
But it's not as if News Corp is any better. The likes of News Corp should be regulated to the same degree.
The interesting thing about this is that News Corp uses Google to provide business functions like email... (AC as I'm unfortunate enough to work for them...)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018