A message to Google from the good people of New Zealand: ‘Sod off’

New Zealand should play Google at its own game. The country should boycott its search engine and move en masse to the many alternatives.

Last Friday major media companies revealed that Google had given notice that it would remove links to New Zealand news and ditch the agreements it has with them if the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill is passed by our Parliament in its present form.

That would amount to an effective blackout of the news content it exploits on a daily basis in a way that users have come to rely upon.

Google’s parent Alphabet wishes to continue that exploitation unencumbered by laws and regulation and has already played hardball by threatening the governments of Canada and Australia over legislation similar to that proposed here. Facebook’s owner Meta went further and instituted bans. This is online bullying on a monumental scale.

We may see some of the resulting frustrations vented in a report on internet searches from the Australian Competitions and Consumer Commission that was due to be presented to the federal treasurer last Monday, but which has yet to be publicly released.

Let’s not wait to register our refusal to be intimidated. Let’s show our utter disdain for American corporate bullying by telling Google to sod off. In other words, let’s vote with our fingers. No, not that well-known gesture, but a nationwide campaign to switch now to the likes of Yahoo! and Microsoft Bing.

Back in August, PC Magazine ran an article on alternative search engines and stated that, although the quality of results between Google and other search engines used to be a real issue, “now you’d be hard-pressed to find much difference”. It listed 15 alternatives. Elsewhere, it has been estimated that ChatGPT is now the ‘go-to’ search engine for about eight per cent of Americans.

So, there is little to be lost by New Zealand users turning their backs on Google and putting a large dent in the $1 billion it is reported to have made in this country last year.

Imagine the impact if such a campaign went international.

This is not simply a fight between news media companies and tech giants. Nor is it part of the submission process that hopes to influence parliamentary outcomes. It is an overt attempt to tamper with sovereign power.

The two giants, Alphabet and Meta, are powerful empires but, like all imperial power, their influence will eventually diminish.

It may not be long before artificial intelligence knocks Google off its perch. Apple’s billion dollar investment in OpenAI is no doubt motivated in part by the opportunity to surpass traditional search technology. For its part, Facebook is already experiencing migration, particularly by younger users.

And Google is facing perhaps the greatest legal challenge of its existence. Tomorrow (NZ time), the US Department of Justice is expected to file a set of suggested remedies in an antitrust action that saw a judge in the District of Columbia rule that Google had a monopoly in online search. Judge Amit Mehta said in his ruling that, through agreements that made it the default on many systems, Google had blocked rivals and raised prices for its advertising beyond free market rates.

Media speculation has included the possibility that the DoJ will ask for Alphabet to be broken up, perhaps by selling its browser (Chrome) or its mobile operating system (Android). An editorial in The Economist last week called dismantling the organisation “a terrible idea” because it would not solve the problem. As long as Google could sign default search agreements with manufacturers and operators, the editorial stated, its dominance of the search engine field could continue. It recommended targeting the agreements to prevent Google from achieving default status and requiring Alphabet to make public some of the technology that enables its search engine to work. This would make it easier for rivals to match its service.

Irrespective of the suggested remedy, Alphabet can – and almost certainly will – stave off any penalty through exhaustive use of the appeal system in US courts. Even while the trial was underway, the New York Times was speculating on the certainty of an appeal if the case went against Alphabet. The newspaper listed five protracted cases against the tech giant in which it had either won on appeal, settled after years of litigation, remained unresolved within the justice system, or were under threat of appeal.

Alphabet has fared worse in European courts where three antitrust cases have gone against it, and it has been ordered to pay a total of $US8.7 billion in fines. In one case Europe’s highest court sides with the regulators, but the other two remain subject to appeal by Alphabet.

The Economist editorial also pointed out, however, that technology is outpacing the legal system, particularly in the realm of artificial intelligence. Given the appeal processes, a remedy such as breaking up Alphabet could already by meaningless if other players became dominant in the field in the meantime.

But no-one should write off Alphabet yet. The Economist also notes that although AI developments and antitrust actions may have sped up Alphabet’s decline – its once ascendant share price is now “wobbling” – it could still regain dominance if it is able to harness AI to build on its huge proprietary datasets.

It has pockets deep enough to buy it time, which is why consumer power may be the best shorter-term means of curtailing its power.

However, none of the foregoing should be seen as support on my part for the Fair Digital News Bargaining Bill. Unlike the larger media companies who (optimistically, I think) believe they can bargain with the likes of Alphabet and Meta, I think the bill is a hiding to nothing. Alphabet’s current attitude adds weight to that view.

The only way in which platforms like Google and Facebook can, with any certainty, be made to pay for the news content they appropriate is through tax or levies. Although the United States has yet to sign up to the OECD’s multilateral convention to prevent base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS), more than 100 jurisdictions (including New Zealand) have done so. China and India are already signatories. If there is a concerted multilateral move to implement the taxation structure within the BEPS framework, the United States would be hard pressed to retaliate. And the antitrust actions suggest waning support for the hugely wealthy tech giants anyway.

Taxation on the platforms’ revenue within New Zealand – before it can be siphoned off in service charges to reduce taxable profit to ludicrously low levels – could service a fund to sustain public value journalism for the foreseeable future.

The threat made last week by Google should be taken by the government as a signal to change tack. Taxation is a tried and true means of making everyone pay their dues.

Two bouquets  

To the Otago Daily Times for, first, acting as the strongest voice for the people of the lower South Island in demanding a new Dunedin Hospital that is fit for purpose and what was promised in the first place and, second, for its coverage of the city’s wettest day in 10 years – five graphic pages of wet and muddy pictures and comprehensive reporting.