Facebook and Google Algorithms Are Secret, but Australia Plans to Change That(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Facebook and Google Algorithms Are Secret, but Australia Plans to Change That
https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-and-google-algorithms-are-secretbut-australia-plans-to-change-that-11564134106?mod=rsswn
86 comments
If you want support from Murdoch papers during election cycles you need to give them what they want. Which is for their businesses to be free from competition.
The National Broadband Network was crippled because it was a threat to Foxtel. And now Facebook and Google will need to be crippled because they are a threat to the Murdoch mastheads.
The National Broadband Network was crippled because it was a threat to Foxtel. And now Facebook and Google will need to be crippled because they are a threat to the Murdoch mastheads.
They think they can, but their time is over. Playing political games and being well-connected means jack all when large majority of the population doesn't buy or feed into your shit any more. Google and Facebook has way more power than the Australian government at this point. Should just have some intern transcribe thousands of loc into pseudo code and then release the gibberish to Australia who can then proceed to do fuck all with it.
But the large majority doesn't know any better. I'd argue very few voters understand what's going on, or even what the policies of their chosen party had to offer. I mean, liberals had barely any policies and they won off a fear and smear campaign against labor.
Unfortunately it seems that all this taught labor is that they should push whatever the libs are in order to slow their fall.
Facebook and Google should absolutely tell the government to FO and block their services here. Our bratty government will then hopefully see that there are limits to their power and stupidity
Unfortunately it seems that all this taught labor is that they should push whatever the libs are in order to slow their fall.
Facebook and Google should absolutely tell the government to FO and block their services here. Our bratty government will then hopefully see that there are limits to their power and stupidity
If you were from Australia I'd let your whole post go.
Murdoch isn't that powerful. When the media tells people what they want to hear, it's very difficult from the outside to figure out who's the one pulling the shots.
The AFP raided the ABC to ensure accuracy of a report about military action that was released under the reign of a far left management. Now that Ita Buttrose is in charge, you won't see that again.
The Australian people trust their own government several orders of magnitude more than the foreign SV tech companies that put people out of jobs and push around politics which America can barely reign in.
Murdoch isn't that powerful. When the media tells people what they want to hear, it's very difficult from the outside to figure out who's the one pulling the shots.
The AFP raided the ABC to ensure accuracy of a report about military action that was released under the reign of a far left management. Now that Ita Buttrose is in charge, you won't see that again.
The Australian people trust their own government several orders of magnitude more than the foreign SV tech companies that put people out of jobs and push around politics which America can barely reign in.
As an Australian, describing what the AFP did when raiding the ABC was intended as intimidation and nothing else. The report on the actions of the Australian military forces that may constitute war crimes. They know who leaked the information, he is already indicted for trial.
Similarly, and in the same week, raids by the AFP on a reporter from News Corporation, shows that your slur of ABC management as being "far left" is complete rubbish.
The management of the ABC has not changed. Ita Buttrose is the chair of the ABC board, which specifically does not involve itself in editorial decisions.
So Australians do not "trust" their own government, particularly after the various "anti terrorist" legislation that has creeped and allows ASIO etc to detain people for increasing periods of time without charge, or even notification that they are held (ie no habeas corpus).
The ACCC is one of the few Australian regulators that actually act on behalf of their stakeholders, ie the consumers of Australia.
Other regulators and law enforcement have either suffered extensive "regulatory capture" (particularly APRA and ASIC) or mission creep (AFP, "Border Force" etc).
Similarly, and in the same week, raids by the AFP on a reporter from News Corporation, shows that your slur of ABC management as being "far left" is complete rubbish.
The management of the ABC has not changed. Ita Buttrose is the chair of the ABC board, which specifically does not involve itself in editorial decisions.
So Australians do not "trust" their own government, particularly after the various "anti terrorist" legislation that has creeped and allows ASIO etc to detain people for increasing periods of time without charge, or even notification that they are held (ie no habeas corpus).
The ACCC is one of the few Australian regulators that actually act on behalf of their stakeholders, ie the consumers of Australia.
Other regulators and law enforcement have either suffered extensive "regulatory capture" (particularly APRA and ASIC) or mission creep (AFP, "Border Force" etc).
If it were a slur of the ABC that it was far left, I would be happy. https://youtu.be/kxgeevlRElw?t=445 It was the managing director, Michelle Guthrie that was very quickly sacked and replaced.
Turnbull in his Oxford Union address spoke about maintaining the ABC's accuracy.
edit: Just to expand on Turnbull's point of view a bit here, because it applies with the social media angle. Turnbull's election run was plagued with fake phone sms's saying that he would privatize Medicare (gov health provider, loss making, impossible to run as private business). It scared some people to the point of voting the other way. He also struggled with social media stories about the way the world was run. The old thinking was to not dignify the stories with airtime. But that didn't work, so later on in his ministership, his party did what they could to get ahead of the stories and squash them, because social media gave them an infinite platform.
Turnbull defended the ABC's accuracy as a virtue, even though it speaks the other side of the political table to him, precisely because having an accurate ABC was key to having a verifiably true source for stories.
This is relevant to the discussion about the government wanting access to social media platforms that do not adequately restrict fake content.
I also share a belief that the ACCC works well.
>Other regulators and law enforcement have either suffered extensive "regulatory capture" (particularly APRA and ASIC) or mission creep (AFP, "Border Force" etc).
I have family that have worked in the banking sector. The regulations in Australia (up until recently at least) are strict to the point of boring. Maybe things have changed in the last 10 years, but the cases of fraud that are being dragged through the royal commission at the moment pale in comparison to the recession that was prevented by having sane regulations pre-2008.
Turnbull in his Oxford Union address spoke about maintaining the ABC's accuracy.
edit: Just to expand on Turnbull's point of view a bit here, because it applies with the social media angle. Turnbull's election run was plagued with fake phone sms's saying that he would privatize Medicare (gov health provider, loss making, impossible to run as private business). It scared some people to the point of voting the other way. He also struggled with social media stories about the way the world was run. The old thinking was to not dignify the stories with airtime. But that didn't work, so later on in his ministership, his party did what they could to get ahead of the stories and squash them, because social media gave them an infinite platform.
Turnbull defended the ABC's accuracy as a virtue, even though it speaks the other side of the political table to him, precisely because having an accurate ABC was key to having a verifiably true source for stories.
This is relevant to the discussion about the government wanting access to social media platforms that do not adequately restrict fake content.
I also share a belief that the ACCC works well.
>Other regulators and law enforcement have either suffered extensive "regulatory capture" (particularly APRA and ASIC) or mission creep (AFP, "Border Force" etc).
I have family that have worked in the banking sector. The regulations in Australia (up until recently at least) are strict to the point of boring. Maybe things have changed in the last 10 years, but the cases of fraud that are being dragged through the royal commission at the moment pale in comparison to the recession that was prevented by having sane regulations pre-2008.
> The AFP raided the ABC to ensure accuracy of a report about military action that was released under the reign of a far left management.
A police raid for biased reporting is not a proportionate response. I don't care how biased and towards what wing.
A police raid for biased reporting is not a proportionate response. I don't care how biased and towards what wing.
It's the government's broadcaster. This is not a private company. They own it.
It's a public broadcaster, WE own it. The idea that the government should set the agenda for it either as an organization or via intimidation is insanity.
It should represent the diversity of people that it in itself is there for. It should have diversity of political thought, culture and the ability to report on whatever it can fact check.
It should represent the diversity of people that it in itself is there for. It should have diversity of political thought, culture and the ability to report on whatever it can fact check.
>The idea that the government should set the agenda for it either as an organization or via intimidation is insanity.
That's precisely what the government does on sensitive topics. That's why there's no anti-vax and conspiracy theory bs. What "we" want isn't always a good thing for running a country.
That's precisely what the government does on sensitive topics. That's why there's no anti-vax and conspiracy theory bs. What "we" want isn't always a good thing for running a country.
> That's precisely what the government does on sensitive topics. That's why there's no anti-vax and conspiracy theory bs. What "we" want isn't always a good thing for running a country.
That is not at all their role. That conspiracy theories are unverified is what makes them theories, that they take a pro-vax stance is based on the data, research and reaching out to experts in the field.
What you're describing is the propaganda arm of a regime, not a media outlet.
That is not at all their role. That conspiracy theories are unverified is what makes them theories, that they take a pro-vax stance is based on the data, research and reaching out to experts in the field.
What you're describing is the propaganda arm of a regime, not a media outlet.
I don't argue conspiracy theories or antivax is a good thing. My point is that the people have different interests in news than the gov does.
For or against the scientific arguments, there are some people out there that want to engage in stupidity and resentment. That is undeniable. The gov denies that outlet and you get it online. I'm not here to defend abject stupidity that you get online, merely to point out decision s are in fact being made by the media.
Yet and that's what every country in the west has. Watch the US media deal with NSA wiretapping laws in the 2000s. There are acres of examples of a value structure of stories imposed by governmental interest on gov broadcasters.
This is fundamental to what it does as an org.
For or against the scientific arguments, there are some people out there that want to engage in stupidity and resentment. That is undeniable. The gov denies that outlet and you get it online. I'm not here to defend abject stupidity that you get online, merely to point out decision s are in fact being made by the media.
Yet and that's what every country in the west has. Watch the US media deal with NSA wiretapping laws in the 2000s. There are acres of examples of a value structure of stories imposed by governmental interest on gov broadcasters.
This is fundamental to what it does as an org.
>What "we" want isn't always a good thing for running a country.
That isn't (and shouldn't be) up to anybody else to decide.
That isn't (and shouldn't be) up to anybody else to decide.
It should be, inside government institutions, like the ABC. Out in the commons and private companies, I agree it should be discussed openly.
This whole post has gotten too political and has already broken several rules. I'm bowing out.
This whole post has gotten too political and has already broken several rules. I'm bowing out.
That's irrelevant. Police raids are not a proportionate response to inaccuracy, regardless of ownership, bias, wing, hair colour, day of the week, preferred cologne or any other criteria whatsoever.
I don't agree, but say I give you that point, what's the difference? They can just do it behind closed doors and we wouldn't know.
> I don't agree, but say I give you that point, what's the difference?
The difference is not raiding journalists for reporting on matters of public interest.
The difference is not raiding journalists for reporting on matters of public interest.
So if they undermine reporting for matters of public interest in private it's okay? Just be aware you don't actually have control here.
What does that have to do with the critique of the raid? Or ABC's editorial independence?
> The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is Australia's national broadcaster founded in 1929. It is currently principally funded by the direct grants from the Australian government, but is expressly independent of government and partisan politics. The ABC plays a leading role in journalistic independence and is fundamental in the history of broadcasting in Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Broadcasting_Corpor...
> The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is Australia's national broadcaster founded in 1929. It is currently principally funded by the direct grants from the Australian government, but is expressly independent of government and partisan politics. The ABC plays a leading role in journalistic independence and is fundamental in the history of broadcasting in Australia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Broadcasting_Corpor...
That page has a list a mile long for criticisms on it's attempt to be editorial independent. The ABC Board is appointed by the Governor General with the Federal Parliament.
If they own the corporation and can appoint board members they want, even political ones as listed on that wiki page, then they have zero incentive to actually raid the place to get anything done, they can simply do it.
So that takes away intent or motive for the "removal of rights" angle. They have a right to run the company as the government sees fit already. The raid may have been done for legitimate reasons, the simple fact it happened isn't enough to say that there was excessive foul play involved and we should distrust the face value story.
If they own the corporation and can appoint board members they want, even political ones as listed on that wiki page, then they have zero incentive to actually raid the place to get anything done, they can simply do it.
So that takes away intent or motive for the "removal of rights" angle. They have a right to run the company as the government sees fit already. The raid may have been done for legitimate reasons, the simple fact it happened isn't enough to say that there was excessive foul play involved and we should distrust the face value story.
Every news outlet in existence has its own long list of controversies and accusations of being the government's lapdog; e.g. The New York Times has the legacy of Judith Miller [0] tied to its brand for the foreseeable future.
And in any case, what does this have to do with the critique of the raid? The previous commenter [1] argued that A police raid for biased reporting is not a proportionate response.. How is ABC's government charter, or its perceived lack of independence, a mitigating explanation? If the government has the "right to run the company as the government sees fit already" – again, an assertion with no official basis – then why was there a police raid in the first place? As opposed to the government, who purportedly runs and operates ABC, spiking the story?
And even this is just a tangential and irrelevant line of argument. In the U.S., the attorney general is appointed and directed by the President. When President Nixon initiated the "Saturday Night Massacre" [2], you believe that the public and the press should have remained unconcerned because Nixon is the boss of his attorney generals?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#Career_at_The_Ne...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20542135
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre
And in any case, what does this have to do with the critique of the raid? The previous commenter [1] argued that A police raid for biased reporting is not a proportionate response.. How is ABC's government charter, or its perceived lack of independence, a mitigating explanation? If the government has the "right to run the company as the government sees fit already" – again, an assertion with no official basis – then why was there a police raid in the first place? As opposed to the government, who purportedly runs and operates ABC, spiking the story?
And even this is just a tangential and irrelevant line of argument. In the U.S., the attorney general is appointed and directed by the President. When President Nixon initiated the "Saturday Night Massacre" [2], you believe that the public and the press should have remained unconcerned because Nixon is the boss of his attorney generals?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller#Career_at_The_Ne...
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20542135
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre
Murdoch owns 2/3rd of all newspapers and their associated brands in Australia. Arguing that he's "not that powerful" is disingenuous.
IIRC, that raid was over an article that was a few years old at that point. If it was about national security, it wouldn't have been delayed that long. It was a political stunt and intimidation.
IIRC, that raid was over an article that was a few years old at that point. If it was about national security, it wouldn't have been delayed that long. It was a political stunt and intimidation.
Less powerful than you’d think. If you’re familiar with the zones of popularity of his main newspapers, you’d see that they correlate very nicely with Labor-held electorates.
(Just think about your own personal experiences: in a typical Liberal electorate, which paper is the most read? In a typical Labor electorate, which paper is the most read?)
You might call it the Murdoch Paradox.
(Just think about your own personal experiences: in a typical Liberal electorate, which paper is the most read? In a typical Labor electorate, which paper is the most read?)
You might call it the Murdoch Paradox.
> tech giants controlling what people see.
This has been going on since the beginning of time. If it's not tech, it's a newspaper or magazine, spinning words around in print to elicit a response, a very specific one.
Matt Druge, drudgereport, did this today and it's exactly the problem: Headline read BCP agents helped across the border, with hands out, 5 illegals.
That's not how it went down and he left out a lot of important details. It did not stop the barrage of the right-wing internet news article commenters.
This has been going on since the beginning of time. If it's not tech, it's a newspaper or magazine, spinning words around in print to elicit a response, a very specific one.
Matt Druge, drudgereport, did this today and it's exactly the problem: Headline read BCP agents helped across the border, with hands out, 5 illegals.
That's not how it went down and he left out a lot of important details. It did not stop the barrage of the right-wing internet news article commenters.
Google, Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, Atlassian, and other significant concerned companies, please band together and stage a digital protest.
503 all your services, just for the city of Canberra (where our politicians congregate to shout insults at each other and legislate favours for their corporate donors).
A few days cutoff for Canberra will give enough momentum to bring us back from the current precipice, where many of Australia's software companies are realistically considering options for relocating out of Australia, and shifting all intellectual property to their newly created company headquartered in places like Singapore or Estonia or USA.
And then reopen again in Australia as a satellite subsidiary branch owned or licensed by the newly created foreign-domiciled (and now non-taxpaying) parent.
503 all your services, just for the city of Canberra (where our politicians congregate to shout insults at each other and legislate favours for their corporate donors).
A few days cutoff for Canberra will give enough momentum to bring us back from the current precipice, where many of Australia's software companies are realistically considering options for relocating out of Australia, and shifting all intellectual property to their newly created company headquartered in places like Singapore or Estonia or USA.
And then reopen again in Australia as a satellite subsidiary branch owned or licensed by the newly created foreign-domiciled (and now non-taxpaying) parent.
Let's hope it passes through. As much as companies would like to keep this as their trade secret, I as an individual have right to know what is the company doing with my data, and how exactly it process it and based on what logic interacts with me. Especially since those companies trends to dictate one significant part of the life experience of a person living on this planet.
If that would mean those company would just decide not to operate anymore on my country, I would still consider that as a net win.
With great power comes the great responsibility, and those companies showed that we can't count on then bring honest and open to us unless we force them to.
If that would mean those company would just decide not to operate anymore on my country, I would still consider that as a net win.
With great power comes the great responsibility, and those companies showed that we can't count on then bring honest and open to us unless we force them to.
Its millions of lines of code that is bucketing various sessions and users into thousands of experiments where +10k lines are changing every day. I don’t think you’ll get that much value out of it.
Its like saying you have a right to toyotas cad files because you drive their car and trust it with your life. You wont be able to use it and it’s the wrong approach.
Its like saying you have a right to toyotas cad files because you drive their car and trust it with your life. You wont be able to use it and it’s the wrong approach.
Your government isn't doing this out of strong ideological principles in order to protect the freedom and privacy of it's people. Your government is salty because big tech gets to screw you over without giving the govt it's cut. Don't be fooled, big tech is not your friend, but neither is the government.
Let's be clear here - the government is not as yet doing anything. This is a report from the technocrats who run our competition regulator. Which recommendations actually make it into government policy once they've gone through the political process is a completely different question.
If it doesn't involve taxes, welfare handouts and financial regulations the government sometimes do pretty well. One article is not much to go on, but it doesn't look like they are talking about taxing tech companies, but raising the transparency standards they must abide by.
If the government isn't setting the standards for privacy, it is obvious that there will be no standard other than 'profitable for Google, good for America'. I would like to see higher standards than that in Australia.
Going a little more to the root of this thread - if Google can raise enough political pressure to force the government to leave them alone that in itself would be evidence they have too much political power.
If the government isn't setting the standards for privacy, it is obvious that there will be no standard other than 'profitable for Google, good for America'. I would like to see higher standards than that in Australia.
Going a little more to the root of this thread - if Google can raise enough political pressure to force the government to leave them alone that in itself would be evidence they have too much political power.
I don’t think you can outrun this forever. Your Facebook feed, your LinkedIn feed and so on are all build to you specifically and once you reload it, there is no public record of what content has been pushed to you. This can be annoying, like when you spot an interesting LinkedIn post right as you’ve pushed up and you are never able of finding it again. It can also be illegal, like when you’re exposed to political campaigning that isn’t on public record.
Tech may have been able to get away with this for a really long time, but almost every political leadership around the world is gearing up to fight it. The internet and the big tech companies have simply gotten too big to ignore, and maybe it’ll be tough for the first movers, but this isn’t only happening in Australia. The GDPR was Europes first serious response, but it certainly won’t be the last. I think they’ll respond by doing what governments always do, with heavy regulation, and that’s what I think we’re witnessing the start of.
I’m not so sure that’s a bad thing. I prefer openness, and Facebook and Google aren’t transparent when they won’t tell you how their services build your results or who pays for it to look the way it does. I don’t think it’ll really break the internet or tech industry either, people are adaptive and someone will find a way to make a lot of money without selling everyone’s private data.
Maybe that’s not going to be Google or Facebook, but do we really care about that?
Tech may have been able to get away with this for a really long time, but almost every political leadership around the world is gearing up to fight it. The internet and the big tech companies have simply gotten too big to ignore, and maybe it’ll be tough for the first movers, but this isn’t only happening in Australia. The GDPR was Europes first serious response, but it certainly won’t be the last. I think they’ll respond by doing what governments always do, with heavy regulation, and that’s what I think we’re witnessing the start of.
I’m not so sure that’s a bad thing. I prefer openness, and Facebook and Google aren’t transparent when they won’t tell you how their services build your results or who pays for it to look the way it does. I don’t think it’ll really break the internet or tech industry either, people are adaptive and someone will find a way to make a lot of money without selling everyone’s private data.
Maybe that’s not going to be Google or Facebook, but do we really care about that?
There are only two particularly feasible outcomes: (1) open, transparent algorithms & (2) open, transparent data.
If I were Google and FB, I'd be pushing like hell that regulators choose the first one.
And honestly, it's going to need to happen at some point.
Because there's going to be something that looks like a violation of the Fair Housing Act (f.ex., or any number of other laws promoting equality) and "Our algorithms handle it" isn't going to satisfy a judge.
If I were Google and FB, I'd be pushing like hell that regulators choose the first one.
And honestly, it's going to need to happen at some point.
Because there's going to be something that looks like a violation of the Fair Housing Act (f.ex., or any number of other laws promoting equality) and "Our algorithms handle it" isn't going to satisfy a judge.
> Because there's going to be something that looks like a violation of the Fair Housing Act (f.ex., or any number of other laws promoting equality) and "Our algorithms handle it" isn't going to satisfy a judge.
What is an open algorithm? Pseudocode? Actual implementation code? A certificate from some third party auditor? A certificate from some formal verification system?
What is an open algorithm? Pseudocode? Actual implementation code? A certificate from some third party auditor? A certificate from some formal verification system?
We could start by forcing google and Facebook to disclose who paid for what advertising.
It’s something a lot of European countries have rather strict laws on, yet, even if you’re in a partnership with Google, you can’t know. If you have a record company with a YouTube channel, Google will pay you for your views, but they won’t disclose to you what share of the money it is that they are paying you. It could be 90%, it could be 1%, you have no idea. That’s just crazy to me, at least it’s relatively harmless in this example.
They won’t tell you who paid for political content either. They won’t disclose how many users it reached or why those specific users were targeted. We have rather strict laws on political advertisements in many European countries, but those laws are completely ineffective when this data is hidden by big Tech.
It doesn’t have to be about political advertisements or elections. I could be anything really. I could run a hiring campaign that targeted young men on Facebook. That would be illegal, but there wouldn’t be any evidence I did it, because Facebook won’t release that information. Facebook got in trouble for making those tools available, but as far as I know, no one who uses them got caught.
That’s a little less harmless, and couldn’t that be a good place to start introducing some transparency?
It’s something a lot of European countries have rather strict laws on, yet, even if you’re in a partnership with Google, you can’t know. If you have a record company with a YouTube channel, Google will pay you for your views, but they won’t disclose to you what share of the money it is that they are paying you. It could be 90%, it could be 1%, you have no idea. That’s just crazy to me, at least it’s relatively harmless in this example.
They won’t tell you who paid for political content either. They won’t disclose how many users it reached or why those specific users were targeted. We have rather strict laws on political advertisements in many European countries, but those laws are completely ineffective when this data is hidden by big Tech.
It doesn’t have to be about political advertisements or elections. I could be anything really. I could run a hiring campaign that targeted young men on Facebook. That would be illegal, but there wouldn’t be any evidence I did it, because Facebook won’t release that information. Facebook got in trouble for making those tools available, but as far as I know, no one who uses them got caught.
That’s a little less harmless, and couldn’t that be a good place to start introducing some transparency?
For political campaign Facebook actually does disclose who ran it and how much they payed for it
There's also an ad library, which is fun to see because you might not be targeted for an ad in the first place: https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/
Looks like Trump is now selling plastic straws, and has spent 15 million in the quarter so far.
Looks like Trump is now selling plastic straws, and has spent 15 million in the quarter so far.
Thank you, this is amazing!
Sounds good - as a Canberran, I think I'd really benefit from an involuntary social media detox for a few weeks!
This is a policy area in which it's completely legitimate for government to exercise its powers. A digital economy dominated by a handful of American companies is not healthy for our own software industry or our society.
I'll be looking out for the government's (and Labor's) response to this report - it will be interesting to see which recommendations they do and do not accept.
This is a policy area in which it's completely legitimate for government to exercise its powers. A digital economy dominated by a handful of American companies is not healthy for our own software industry or our society.
I'll be looking out for the government's (and Labor's) response to this report - it will be interesting to see which recommendations they do and do not accept.
I see 2 problems with this. The first is that most of the algorithms they’re using are probably based heavily on machine learning, making them inscrutable not just to the general public but also to any experts they have auditing them. Fact is, Google and Facebook probably don’t know how their tech works half the time.
Second, this sets pretty bad precedent. Asking one of these companies to reveal the algorithms they’re using is tantamount to theft. Why should they hand over their golden goose just because a lot of people want it? What’s to stop the same government to take the technology of a smaller company by force later?
If people are interested in protecting the data Google displays, I think a better solution would be to go after who is leaking the information in the first place (e.g. if Google can crawl HIPAA info from another site, that’s the other site’s fault). If consumers willingly hand over their data to Google, on the other hand, that’s on them.
Second, this sets pretty bad precedent. Asking one of these companies to reveal the algorithms they’re using is tantamount to theft. Why should they hand over their golden goose just because a lot of people want it? What’s to stop the same government to take the technology of a smaller company by force later?
If people are interested in protecting the data Google displays, I think a better solution would be to go after who is leaking the information in the first place (e.g. if Google can crawl HIPAA info from another site, that’s the other site’s fault). If consumers willingly hand over their data to Google, on the other hand, that’s on them.
> Asking one of these companies to reveal the algorithms they’re using is tantamount to theft.
Intellectual property is a legislative creature. There was never a "natural law" conception of it and it largely didn't evolve in caselaw either.
That said, Australia has a constitutional guarantee against compulsory acquisition without payment on "just terms"[0] and which is not for a purpose supported by another Parliamentary power.
Such a case might not succeed (a case by tobacco companies against plain packaging was not successful in arguing that it represented an acquisition of their brands and trademarks[1]), but it would almost certainly reach the High Court.
If their Honours ruled that an algorithm or trained model was property within the meaning of the Constitution, it's likely that compulsory acquisition would require payment of billions, perhaps tens of billions, of dollars. At that point it would be easier to regulate it, which would be unlikely to trigger the guarantee.
I am, of course, not a lawyer. But Constitutional law was one of my favourite subjects before dropping out of law school.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_51(xxxi)_of_the_Consti...
[1] http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2012/HCA/43
Intellectual property is a legislative creature. There was never a "natural law" conception of it and it largely didn't evolve in caselaw either.
That said, Australia has a constitutional guarantee against compulsory acquisition without payment on "just terms"[0] and which is not for a purpose supported by another Parliamentary power.
Such a case might not succeed (a case by tobacco companies against plain packaging was not successful in arguing that it represented an acquisition of their brands and trademarks[1]), but it would almost certainly reach the High Court.
If their Honours ruled that an algorithm or trained model was property within the meaning of the Constitution, it's likely that compulsory acquisition would require payment of billions, perhaps tens of billions, of dollars. At that point it would be easier to regulate it, which would be unlikely to trigger the guarantee.
I am, of course, not a lawyer. But Constitutional law was one of my favourite subjects before dropping out of law school.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_51(xxxi)_of_the_Consti...
[1] http://eresources.hcourt.gov.au/showCase/2012/HCA/43
> Intellectual property is a legislative creature. There was never a "natural law" conception of it and it largely didn't evolve in caselaw either.
IMO the issue isn't with IP but trade secrets which have a long and well established history within human endeavours. In fact, they are the basis of the patent system which intended to get them "freed" from companies so others could expand on their work.
IMO the issue isn't with IP but trade secrets which have a long and well established history within human endeavours. In fact, they are the basis of the patent system which intended to get them "freed" from companies so others could expand on their work.
Trade secrets are often legislative creatures too, especially in the US where it is within the authority of state legislatures to regulate.
In Commonwealth countries it typically arose from equity (through the doctrine of confidence) but has also been subject to tinkering. In Australia it's a mix of confidence and corporations law, the former from equity and the later from §51(xx).
It's not clear to me if a trade secret would be considered property under the just terms clause. I'm sure various law firms will make a mint advising Google, Facebook et al on that question.
In Commonwealth countries it typically arose from equity (through the doctrine of confidence) but has also been subject to tinkering. In Australia it's a mix of confidence and corporations law, the former from equity and the later from §51(xx).
It's not clear to me if a trade secret would be considered property under the just terms clause. I'm sure various law firms will make a mint advising Google, Facebook et al on that question.
There are other motivations for accountability besides consumer protection. The potential for disinformation is unparalleled. And both have proven in recent years that their judgment is not beyond approach. Trust is no longer an option.
Yeah I think in the long run, some aspects of search are going to be under purview of some regulation.
There is too much potential for SERP manipulation for political ends. Be it regulation, unionization, candidate preference, social issues, etc.
Google and others like it may not overly abuse it now, but there certainly is potential for it.
There is too much potential for SERP manipulation for political ends. Be it regulation, unionization, candidate preference, social issues, etc.
Google and others like it may not overly abuse it now, but there certainly is potential for it.
The first is that most of the algorithms they’re using are probably based heavily on machine learning, making them inscrutable not just to the general public but also to any experts they have auditing them.
I still think this is going to be a big problem with regards to legislation and safety boards. I'm pretty sure they are not going to accept the black box decision making nature. They see the results of prejudice or unsafe decisions, real or imagined[1], and will probably see lack of ability to explain these actions clearly as hubris on the part of companies. The algorithm did it will not hold as an excuse.
1) iPod shuffle play randomness
I still think this is going to be a big problem with regards to legislation and safety boards. I'm pretty sure they are not going to accept the black box decision making nature. They see the results of prejudice or unsafe decisions, real or imagined[1], and will probably see lack of ability to explain these actions clearly as hubris on the part of companies. The algorithm did it will not hold as an excuse.
1) iPod shuffle play randomness
With regard to protected data, is there any reason for google to index it? They can filter that out and not index it at all.
They should hand over whatever they are required to by law if they want to be available in a country that demands they hand things over. This is no different to cooperating with legal warrants and other law enforcement requests.
As to how appropriate the request is, that’s up for debate, but it’s not theft.
As to how appropriate the request is, that’s up for debate, but it’s not theft.
Hand me over any intellectual property you own simply because I want it.. Lets not pretend there isnt a maltitude of pretty dumb laws that were passes simply because lets say "the law makers are not the sharpest tools in the shed"
However intellectual property is the creation of the government.
Not in my country. Here it is a private property and also a one I can simply "refuse" to give to the goverment.
If they started to extract it by force (the same way some countries steal land) believe me, it will be a desert of dumb people here, because anyone half decent would migrate..
If they started to extract it by force (the same way some countries steal land) believe me, it will be a desert of dumb people here, because anyone half decent would migrate..
They don’t need to use force to extract it. All they would have to do is pass a law that said that courts would no longer enforce the limited monopoly. If you can’t sue for copyright violation then it would no longer be property.
> As to how appropriate the request is, that’s up for debate, but it’s not theft.
Yea I guess by definition if the state takes it's not theft. If the state kills it's not murder.
Yea I guess by definition if the state takes it's not theft. If the state kills it's not murder.
I demand public minutes of all meetings at all news outlets, because their decision process is an algorithm that determines the content going out to the public
Exactly, if people can demand this of Google and Facebook it means they can demand this of every single company! People act like FAANG are the only companies with any influence and any user data.
The analogy doesn't quite hold. We can see the outputs of the editorial meetings because they're released to the entire public. Whereas the outputs of Google and Facebook models are tuned to each individual, it would be an incredible privacy violation to share those with the government.
But this creates a problem of incentives. In mass media, bad behaviour is highly observable and more likely to be punished or regulated. For example, Australia has defamation laws that are notoriously slanted against the media. Political communication is illegal without the name and address of the individual who authorised it. And so on.
But when each of us sees a different feed, it is impossible to both easily detect violations of law and to preserve individual privacy. Asking to see the algorithm at least allows for correction of potential biases. I expect however that increasingly, these companies will be required to internalise that regulatory function on pain of heavy fines.
But this creates a problem of incentives. In mass media, bad behaviour is highly observable and more likely to be punished or regulated. For example, Australia has defamation laws that are notoriously slanted against the media. Political communication is illegal without the name and address of the individual who authorised it. And so on.
But when each of us sees a different feed, it is impossible to both easily detect violations of law and to preserve individual privacy. Asking to see the algorithm at least allows for correction of potential biases. I expect however that increasingly, these companies will be required to internalise that regulatory function on pain of heavy fines.
Knowing the algorithms without having the data they operate on is useless.
And even if you had the two, at this point you still wouldn't be able to debug how a result is returned. The code is fairly complicated, there are many signals and quite a bit of ML.
source: worked as search ranking engineer and had quite a bit of difficulty debugging certain controversial results despite having access to everything.
And even if you had the two, at this point you still wouldn't be able to debug how a result is returned. The code is fairly complicated, there are many signals and quite a bit of ML.
source: worked as search ranking engineer and had quite a bit of difficulty debugging certain controversial results despite having access to everything.
There seems to be a significant incentive to getting data that fits the purpose and run it through these algorithms. It's probably not trivial, but paid experts should be able to deal with it pretty quickly.
It's probably enough to run confined experiments. I think you don't need all the data to derive the most important conclusions.
It's probably enough to run confined experiments. I think you don't need all the data to derive the most important conclusions.
I know I probably don't speak for the people who are drafting these rules, but personally that doesn't bother me so much. I don't have a specific interest in knowing the computations that produced a particular result, I just want to force some kind of transparency on how this data is being used and stored.
[deleted]
Australia can try, but I don't see this happening. It's not only a trade secret for FB and Google but it would open the ecosystem to a crazy amount of gaming.
I watched the announcement and it seemed like more talk than action. A few new inquiries to report in a year or so and a new unit in the ACCC for big tech companies to capture. Not much new legislation, though.
“This particular branch of the [commission] will be able to be approached by various companies who believe that the algorithms have been misused,”
The lobby of accountants seems to desire approving every algorithm, including AI. I've seen this come up in government circles in Europe. Yearly approval of financial numbers, algorithms, and tech in general. All this is going to do is create more red tape and no real change.
Just make online profiling illegal.
The lobby of accountants seems to desire approving every algorithm, including AI. I've seen this come up in government circles in Europe. Yearly approval of financial numbers, algorithms, and tech in general. All this is going to do is create more red tape and no real change.
Just make online profiling illegal.
Honest question, why should I care what Google or Facebook does with my data? I am honestly curious, and would love if someone could explain the pros and cons to me.
The main "practical" reason is your personal security. Despite anonymization, the kind of data collected by these companies is generally enough to identify you easily. A bad actor at that company could do you quite a bit of harm. So could a politically hostile government, if it demands the company hand its data over.
And with the exception of HIPAA-controlled medical data in the USA, the company that collected the data is free to do anything it wants. It can resell the data, or store it in 10 places and never delete it. This means the window of risk for your data being compromised and used against you extends far into the future.
There is also the general belief that, if any of this data collection and tracking we're done off-line it would be considered terrifyingly creepy.
So even if you have "nothing to hide", as many of us don't, it's not necessarily about protecting what you have right now. It's basically saying that people have a right to some amount of basic privacy, if only to protect their individual personal freedoms and security. Therefore we should take a principled stand against unmanaged black-box data collection at all times, in the same way that people in the USA try to defend their rights to free speech and press even if it does not necessarily affect them in daily life.
So it's about protecting your personal security now and into the future, as well as taking a principled stand on something that should be considered an individual right.
Edit: in this particular case they are interested in knowing how and why you saw some search results or some advertisement as a result of whatever algorithms are being run on your data. This is probably in response to increasing news coverage of people being unduly influenced by various search and advertising algorithms out there on the Internet. Personally I don't know if I care specifically about the algorithms, I just care what data has been collected, where it is being kept, and how I can have it deleted or not have it be kept in the first place.
And with the exception of HIPAA-controlled medical data in the USA, the company that collected the data is free to do anything it wants. It can resell the data, or store it in 10 places and never delete it. This means the window of risk for your data being compromised and used against you extends far into the future.
There is also the general belief that, if any of this data collection and tracking we're done off-line it would be considered terrifyingly creepy.
So even if you have "nothing to hide", as many of us don't, it's not necessarily about protecting what you have right now. It's basically saying that people have a right to some amount of basic privacy, if only to protect their individual personal freedoms and security. Therefore we should take a principled stand against unmanaged black-box data collection at all times, in the same way that people in the USA try to defend their rights to free speech and press even if it does not necessarily affect them in daily life.
So it's about protecting your personal security now and into the future, as well as taking a principled stand on something that should be considered an individual right.
Edit: in this particular case they are interested in knowing how and why you saw some search results or some advertisement as a result of whatever algorithms are being run on your data. This is probably in response to increasing news coverage of people being unduly influenced by various search and advertising algorithms out there on the Internet. Personally I don't know if I care specifically about the algorithms, I just care what data has been collected, where it is being kept, and how I can have it deleted or not have it be kept in the first place.
People might elect a genocidal government that decides to send all people with Trait X to the gulag, and Google or Facebook have data identifying you as having Trait X. Clearly the solution is to give the government even more power so it can stop these companies collecting the data, because without them there's no way the government could conduct mass data colllection on its citizens.
In all likelihood if I had access to Google or FB data I could get reams of personal information on ex-s and make their life hell. I could find out secrets about local business owners. I could use the data to imply all kinds of untrue things about said person just for the sake of being a dick.
There's an interesting point Dan Geer made about identities for state-level spying activities. If he were to do something illegal (shall we say) in a place he shouldn't, with the level of information collected across the whole of the network, it would be far more feasible to borrow somebody else's identity for the work than it would be to create a plausible fake person from the ground up.
Our database identities are skins for spies now, you want to be caught in that game?
There's an interesting point Dan Geer made about identities for state-level spying activities. If he were to do something illegal (shall we say) in a place he shouldn't, with the level of information collected across the whole of the network, it would be far more feasible to borrow somebody else's identity for the work than it would be to create a plausible fake person from the ground up.
Our database identities are skins for spies now, you want to be caught in that game?
Presently the way things are with how folks get their information with regard to politics, if you don't know the algorithm, you don't have a democracy.
Algorithms can change though. An extreme and made up example might be that Facebook could publish their algorithms, then update them just prior to an election and not disclose that until afterwards due to needing administration time publishing that information.
Obviously I'm not suggesting this would happen in practice but my point is governments having a published document for tech algorithms is essentially meaningless in terms for protecting democracy (instead you'd need other controls in place). If anything, it just makes it even easier for governments to exploit technology for their own personal gain - which is more likely the reason why they want insider knowledge.
Obviously I'm not suggesting this would happen in practice but my point is governments having a published document for tech algorithms is essentially meaningless in terms for protecting democracy (instead you'd need other controls in place). If anything, it just makes it even easier for governments to exploit technology for their own personal gain - which is more likely the reason why they want insider knowledge.
Well, this one is easy - you simply fine them when they change their algorithms without publishing the diffs.
Not so easy because:
1/ You don't know "when" nor even "if" they have changed any algorithms. As I alluded to in my previous post, there is no real way you'd know they've changed their routines without them formally telling you. Thus you need other controls in place to manage this (such as regular independent audits - though even these can be useless if an organisation really wants to be deceptive)
2/ A lot of American businesses already run on the principle of "Ask for forgiveness not permission." In fact that saying is often regarded as an important key to success. Thus businesses frequently bend or even break the rules and then pay the fines afterwards (usually after much arguing though). So I cannot see a fine - not even a large one - as a strong enough incentive to keep them compliant. Maybe the threat of jail time might be a greater incentive but I'm still sceptical there when it's such an easy rule to break and a difficult one to prove
1/ You don't know "when" nor even "if" they have changed any algorithms. As I alluded to in my previous post, there is no real way you'd know they've changed their routines without them formally telling you. Thus you need other controls in place to manage this (such as regular independent audits - though even these can be useless if an organisation really wants to be deceptive)
2/ A lot of American businesses already run on the principle of "Ask for forgiveness not permission." In fact that saying is often regarded as an important key to success. Thus businesses frequently bend or even break the rules and then pay the fines afterwards (usually after much arguing though). So I cannot see a fine - not even a large one - as a strong enough incentive to keep them compliant. Maybe the threat of jail time might be a greater incentive but I'm still sceptical there when it's such an easy rule to break and a difficult one to prove
Right now there's zero insight but anecdotally I have been hearing from multiple content creators that they've reported huge engagement drops and their audience claim to be randomly unsubscribed and not see their content in the curated newsfeed.
I see this very often myself on Facebook. There are some politically oriented pages whose content I almost never see on my newsfeed, and I try to nudge the algorithm to change it by engaging with the posts directly on the page - still no luck. Meanwhile pages I am not interested in, liked by others, are able to show up frequently in my newsfeed.
So the general public sort of already knows if something shady is going on, particularly when it's blatant. Regulation just means they have to do something about it, to make it a fair platform or transparently unfair.
I see this very often myself on Facebook. There are some politically oriented pages whose content I almost never see on my newsfeed, and I try to nudge the algorithm to change it by engaging with the posts directly on the page - still no luck. Meanwhile pages I am not interested in, liked by others, are able to show up frequently in my newsfeed.
So the general public sort of already knows if something shady is going on, particularly when it's blatant. Regulation just means they have to do something about it, to make it a fair platform or transparently unfair.
Nobody is forcing you to use FB or Google, and I have all their domains null routed at my firewall.
However, you do not get to use the government to force your preferred terms of doing business on them. That is the definition of authoritarian. It's akin to nationalizing a company's valuable assets.
Even China was able to just ban them (i.e. choose not to do business with them), and try to steal their tech instead. The US government will not stand for this intellectual property theft, even if it's done through legislation.
However, you do not get to use the government to force your preferred terms of doing business on them. That is the definition of authoritarian. It's akin to nationalizing a company's valuable assets.
Even China was able to just ban them (i.e. choose not to do business with them), and try to steal their tech instead. The US government will not stand for this intellectual property theft, even if it's done through legislation.
The US government has investigated things like Russian activity on social media and the media refers to it as "hacking the election". There was a whole Cambridge Analytica scandal about it.
If the dismissive view of "nobody forced those people to use social media" and "the government should not force preferred terms" arguments were generally favored then none of those incidents would have been treated the way they were.
It is already the mainstream view that that the US government play some role in "securing elections", which means ensuring that social media platforms are not "taken advantage of" by biased interests as they allegedly were in 2016.
If the dismissive view of "nobody forced those people to use social media" and "the government should not force preferred terms" arguments were generally favored then none of those incidents would have been treated the way they were.
It is already the mainstream view that that the US government play some role in "securing elections", which means ensuring that social media platforms are not "taken advantage of" by biased interests as they allegedly were in 2016.
You honestly do not have any knowledge of the Federalist Papers (they represent arguments supporting the Constitution), nor the Constitution itself.
I do not think you have the courage to make these claims in Denver, nor Farmington, NM. I will say what I'm saying IRL in either place (which is why I'm within HN guidelines). I'll pay for your ticket and pick you up at the ABQ (or DEN airport, with enough notice). America is about liberty, not race or anything else, We have the smartest and most ambitious people from around the world, from all countries. We do not care about "blood and soil" people.
I do not think you have the courage to make these claims in Denver, nor Farmington, NM. I will say what I'm saying IRL in either place (which is why I'm within HN guidelines). I'll pay for your ticket and pick you up at the ABQ (or DEN airport, with enough notice). America is about liberty, not race or anything else, We have the smartest and most ambitious people from around the world, from all countries. We do not care about "blood and soil" people.
> Make no mistake, these companies are among the most powerful and valuable in the world. They need to be held to account and their activities need to be more transparent.
Opensource is as important today as ever. The only way of controlling our own economy, news, even who we date and marry is to know how the algorithms and software that guide our lives works.
All these algorithms are being optimized for things that have nothing to do with our wellbeing. To know what they do is just a step in the right direction.
I would like to see all these tech giants to be forced to use open source solutions that everybody can scrutinize. If we are so dependent on this digital infrastructure to make it transparent is in need. That is also true for software used in the goverments themselves.
Opensource is as important today as ever. The only way of controlling our own economy, news, even who we date and marry is to know how the algorithms and software that guide our lives works.
All these algorithms are being optimized for things that have nothing to do with our wellbeing. To know what they do is just a step in the right direction.
I would like to see all these tech giants to be forced to use open source solutions that everybody can scrutinize. If we are so dependent on this digital infrastructure to make it transparent is in need. That is also true for software used in the goverments themselves.
Google is google because they have gulped down enormous infrastructure and data, leaving everyone else so far behind they 're impossible to catch.
Facebook is FB because it went into an uberaggressive spree of acquiring users circa 2007 , which paid off massively by creating the biggest network lock-in ever.
My bet is their algorithms are what everyone expects them to be, and no actionable info will come from this legislation. The real, hard question is how to create a nonmonopolistic market in internet media.
Facebook is FB because it went into an uberaggressive spree of acquiring users circa 2007 , which paid off massively by creating the biggest network lock-in ever.
My bet is their algorithms are what everyone expects them to be, and no actionable info will come from this legislation. The real, hard question is how to create a nonmonopolistic market in internet media.
This is an obvious attempt to control those algorithms because (a) why else would you want to lift the veil (b) it's not like some super hidden secret sauce: they train models to increase feedback signals and (c) those models are too complicated to figure out their effect unless australian MP's are geniuses. It has the potential to set out a chain of events outside Australia, since both the left and the right everywhere are waving their fists at google/fb. The result could be the first algorithm literally designed by a committee, and could cripple google's revenues. This should teach them a lesson, however, not to cozy up to any governement or take political sides.
A follow up question - once the AU government has the ability to view/audit this information, what would it do with it?
Perhaps there are solutions that could let the government regulate search without violating the business's right to privacy. Regulators probably don't need to know how many layers a neural net has, they need to know what the outputs are from politically important queries.
> Digital-industry group DIGI—which represents Google, Facebook, Twitter and Verizon Media—said lawmakers need to think carefully about unintended consequences that could affect competition and the range of products available to Australian consumers.
Seems a little disingenuous, pretty sure Facebook and Google aren't really concerned about competition, and the range of products available
Seems a little disingenuous, pretty sure Facebook and Google aren't really concerned about competition, and the range of products available
The group is suggesting that its members will make some of their products unavailable to Australian users if regulations they deem unacceptable are imposed.
It's plausible. Australia's population is about 25 million. Assuming 90% of the population uses Facebook, they're under 1% of Facebook's userbase. That's enough of a loss to care about, but not so much that the company couldn't consider it as an option.
It's plausible. Australia's population is about 25 million. Assuming 90% of the population uses Facebook, they're under 1% of Facebook's userbase. That's enough of a loss to care about, but not so much that the company couldn't consider it as an option.
This article makes it seem like they will try to force Google and Facebook to share algorithms, but it doesn't look like that to me in the report:
https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Digital%20platforms%20i...
From my read most of it is basically a copy of GDPR. The parts related to algorithm and data transparency where basically:
* Content sites suddenly drop in search rankings creating huge revenue drops. They want to force content aggregators to give ample warning before pushing changes which would influence content creators cash flow.
* SEO is expensive. They want Google and Facebook to make it easier for them.
* Content sites doesn't like AMP since its requirements limits the number of ads they can put on the site and it makes it hard for them to track their users. They want Google to share more user data to make up for it.
In my view these concerns are mostly fine and are unlikely to make a dent in Google or Facebook. I think the most interesting point is this:
* Amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 so that unfair contract terms are prohibited (not just voidable). This would mean that civil pecuniary penalties apply to the use of unfair contract terms in any standard form consumer or small business contract.
That might actually help news sites in a fair way, contracts like "Google might display snippets from my site for free because otherwise it hurts my bottom line" will probably result in fines for Google.
https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Digital%20platforms%20i...
From my read most of it is basically a copy of GDPR. The parts related to algorithm and data transparency where basically:
* Content sites suddenly drop in search rankings creating huge revenue drops. They want to force content aggregators to give ample warning before pushing changes which would influence content creators cash flow.
* SEO is expensive. They want Google and Facebook to make it easier for them.
* Content sites doesn't like AMP since its requirements limits the number of ads they can put on the site and it makes it hard for them to track their users. They want Google to share more user data to make up for it.
In my view these concerns are mostly fine and are unlikely to make a dent in Google or Facebook. I think the most interesting point is this:
* Amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 so that unfair contract terms are prohibited (not just voidable). This would mean that civil pecuniary penalties apply to the use of unfair contract terms in any standard form consumer or small business contract.
That might actually help news sites in a fair way, contracts like "Google might display snippets from my site for free because otherwise it hurts my bottom line" will probably result in fines for Google.
I’m not sure that this helps the the news sites that much. The ACCC’s site on unfair contracts gives examples such as.
terms that enable one party (but not another) to avoid or limit their obligations under the contract terms that enable one party (but not another) to terminate the contract terms that penalise one party (but not another) for breaching or terminating the contract terms that enable one party (but not another) to vary the terms of the contract.
“Google may display short snippets in exchange for a better position on the index” I don’t reached the type of unfairness that the law covers.
terms that enable one party (but not another) to avoid or limit their obligations under the contract terms that enable one party (but not another) to terminate the contract terms that penalise one party (but not another) for breaching or terminating the contract terms that enable one party (but not another) to vary the terms of the contract.
“Google may display short snippets in exchange for a better position on the index” I don’t reached the type of unfairness that the law covers.
They don't have that leverage, Australia needs Google more probably.
Making the algorithm public won’t make them lose their competitive edge. Its the data and their experts that allow them to use their algorithms in any meaningful way.
And to control what people see is to control how they think and who to vote for, and before you know it you run nations who have convinced themselves they are democratic and free thinking.
It's a mistake to think the Australian government is doing this just for the good of its people. This is the same government that wants a sovereign backdoor into every system under the guise of anti-terrorism. The same govenrment who raided journalists from the national broadcaster to stop whistles being blown at the government and also to put the broadcaster back in its place.
So good luck legislating it. Perhaps try untangling some of your own hypocrisy first.