- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
You must log in or register to comment.
Christ, google must be salivating
What the fuck is wrong with boomer Australian law makers hell bent on making Australia more dystopian day by day?!
Do you mean to say what is wrong with US multinational tech companies forcing Australians to log into their services so they can extract more value from them under the cover of a voluntary industry code of conduct they wrote and submitted to their US born ex-employee that isn’t mandated by any Australian legislation and isn’t part of any Australian party policy to my knowledge?
Curiously enough, the only thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was Oh no, not again.
Oz gov yet again doing something unfathomably stupid with tech privacy, shocked I tell ya. Might have to point my SearxNG instance VPN endpoint somewhere else, maybe, see how it pans out…
Just use Qwant. They won’t even LET you log in.
EDIT: I think Qwant may have some ties to the far-right. So maybe not Qwant. But I’m not gonna bother checking.
how would Qwant have links to the far right 😅
Do a lot of people log in to search engines?
Most people a) have a Google and/or Microsoft account b) use Google or Bing to search the web and c) don’t clear their cookies at the end of a session. So by default, most would be signed into their search engine (though perhaps without even knowing).
Some search engines like Kagi also require their users to login (because it is a paid service).
I login to Ecosia to see how awesome I am, in this case I am a
we’re gonna fumble our way forward one way or another!
Interestingly apart from effectively mandating “safe search” on by default, this doesn’t appear to attempt to restrict users who aren’t logged in.
@brisk I thought the same, though also I presume you’d have to be logged in to turn safe search off.
I don’t see anything in the document suggesting that, although there’s also nothing stopping companies from doing that.
@brisk The article says “However, the code does preempt concerns that children might get around controls by simply not logging in to their accounts.”
The actual document is linked in the first paragraph. These are the only sections I can find that seem to care about account holding
Seems like a case of a Industry lobby group getting out ahead of the government to try to push an agenda to me.
Logged in users are worth more than logged out users as far as digital profiling and advertising so let’s conceal the juicy stuff behind a log in. Doing it this way makes the government the scapegoat. So I would guess 100% compliance isn’t anything too concerning, they just want to juice their numbers to make line go up.
If Google & Microsoft have to degrade our privacy and freedoms to raise their Oceania region profitability by 0.00000001% that’s a price they are happy for us to pay.
I don’t see anything in the document as written that would stop users who aren’t logged in from turning off safe search etc… Of course it’s in the company’s interest to interpret it that way, but I would think an honest interpretation based on the current document would dramatically reduce the user value of being logged in to a search engine.
Sorry I just see a “In compliance with government regulation to provide you with a full set of search results you need to be logged in” prompt in the near future. If they can drive people to log in, or even better/worse make people who haven’t had an account create one, I see some big financial incentives for them to do so. Of course that is going to be offset by the potential cost of any breaches, but I can also see the silver lining on that of raising a bigger barrier to entry for any new competition that wants to get started in Australia, and a bit of supporting legislation that blocks “non-compliant” search engines from being accessed in Australia might actual serve to increase lock in. Maybe I am just being paranoid, but when I see an Industry aligned body co-authoring legislation I start to look for their angle.
