What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
64 Comments
- Mish48, on 11/26/2007, -8/+49Just wait for Australia to disappear from Google Maps...then Google Earth....then as expected, the Earth itself.
- dillyhoo, on 11/26/2007, -3/+40I know! Search for "Kevin Rudd" and I just get a bunch of ads about earwax remover.
- biftek, on 11/26/2007, -0/+28just to clarify things , the ACCC is not the government , the ACCC is and independent commission to investigate dodgy business practices
- XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 11/26/2007, -3/+22for cheating !!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
! - dattaway, on 11/26/2007, -0/+15"These claims are entirely without merit, and we will continue to defend against them vigorously,"
This appears to be the Mission Statement of all companies these days. - aussieNickuss, on 11/26/2007, -0/+14Bush already thought that was the case.
- eliburford, on 11/26/2007, -2/+15ahahahaha! I'd like to digg you up here for that, but I'm Australian ya see... so I'm not sure I should :
- yahoofrom, on 11/26/2007, -0/+12Google just announced that now Australia is part of Austria.
- taizoshiozaki, on 11/26/2007, -1/+13I searched "Tibet" in Google Maps and the pop-up says it's part of China. Probably the same will happen to Australia.
- Mish48, on 11/26/2007, -0/+12Richard Pratt wasn't exactly small, still copped $36 million fine
- beatryder, on 11/26/2007, -2/+11Perhaps because it's misleading when you get an add rather than a search result. Hence you could be considered to be coercing them.
- aussieNickuss, on 11/26/2007, -1/+9Despite the enormity of Google, it is nowhere near the size or power of the Aussie government.
- jono10, on 11/26/2007, -1/+8Saturdays election results prove we who came from criminals are a Democracy, unlike other nations that are run by criminals and not democracies
- Myztry, on 11/26/2007, -0/+7It's a broad term but "obtaining money by deception" could be one.
- prosthetichead, on 11/26/2007, -1/+8the ACCC dose some weird things sometimes
it is not the government though it is a independent group that investigates businesses
They ignore problems like dodgy rug sellers like Goodge rugs in Adelaide who have closing down sales once a week and pick on businesses for very very slight wording problems on receipts. recently a large jewelery group called Zamels was fined millions for putting incorrect double pricing on jewelery (saying it was some high made up amount and is now a lower amount) so they do, do some good.
not a fan of the ACCC not unless they are picking on Telstra. - andrewcsayer, on 11/26/2007, -3/+9Ruddy adsued.
- nichenet, on 11/26/2007, -1/+7This is several months old story wise. ACCC took action months ago and this story has been on Digg before.
- rarson, on 11/26/2007, -0/+6They're called "ads" not "adds," because it's short for "advertisements."
- reaper, on 11/26/2007, -0/+6Dugg for well constructed sentance.
- inactive, on 11/26/2007, -0/+4Readers outside Australia may want to read: http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/ ...
The ACCC conduct 100's of test cases every year, the only reason this case is getting publicity is because a large corporation is involved.
The people who are complaining about the ACCC taking on Google would be the first to shout and whine when they get screwed by an internet shark.
Australia has its own set of consumer laws and is not subservient to USA laws. Normal straight forward consumer cases are investigated by the consumer authority in your state of residence. The ACCC investigates consumer cases which are in the national interest and where there may be discrepancies in the consumer laws. There are too many dodgy operators on the internet. In this case Google may or may not be breaking any Australian consumer laws. The ACCC puts forward a test case to rectify the legal situation and to eliminate any discrepancies which may have arisen. If the consumer laws need clarification it is then referred to the Federal Parliament to close any loopholes or redefine the applicable clauses in the existing legislation. - Myztry, on 11/26/2007, -0/+4It's much better to have evolved from criminals, then to have devolved into criminals like some weapon crazy nations...
- blast_flame, on 11/26/2007, -0/+4Nope. Sentience means to have feeling while sapience means to think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapience - MunkeeBoy, on 11/26/2007, -4/+7This was back in 2005, Google has changed a lot since then... besides all other forms of media in this country are held to the same standards... what makes Google any different? Oh and on the whole nation descended from criminals? How about a whole nation descended from minorities the English abused? Most of the convicts who originally came here were sent for stealing small items such as clothes and food and such. Learn your history...
- sexybobo, on 11/26/2007, -2/+5Coercing them to use google?
Doesn't really matter any way since all ads on Google say "Sponsored Links" or are a different color and say "Sponsored Links" - Tenoq, on 11/27/2007, -0/+3That's the crux of the debate. Apparently the distinction in colour and text is not clear enough for your 'average person' to tell the difference. That kind of misleading advertising is illegal in Australia.
- spyrochaete, on 11/26/2007, -0/+3Just search for ACCC on Google and read the snippet (though maybe it's an advertisement and not a real search result.. I need the government to tell me which is which):
ACCC home
Australian government organisation responsible for ensuring compliance with the Trade Practices Act 1974.
www.accc.gov.au/ - Tenoq, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2So is nearly every industry in the country. That doesn't make them 'the Government' now does it? :p
- Himself, on 12/04/2007, -0/+2google is "a god" in the mormon sense: http://gmail-is-too-creepy.com/
- aussieNickuss, on 11/26/2007, -4/+6Funded by the government.
- etnlIcarus, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Just to clarify this. They're not talking about the links down the side of the page; they're talking about the first search results being ads, with only minor indication that they're not straight search results.
Example, I just did a search for, "ipod":
http://img101.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screensho ... - Tenoq, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2They're a Government organisation as much as the Police and Ambulance services are Government organisations. :p
- sexybobo, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2It is not that i want google to do that. I just think that it should not be illegal if they did if google search result started to such and they would if they mixed paid results in with real results people would stop using their service and would switch to something with better results.
I guess what i am saying is the market would balance its self with out the government having to interfere. - Tenoq, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2It's not the Government, it's the ACCC. While sometimes they appear to serve the Government's purpose, they are an independent entity. Their gripes with Telstra are a good example of where the ACCC doesn't always see eye-to-eye with Federal Government.
- Tenoq, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Dugg for incorrect spelling of sentence? :p
- Tenoq, on 11/27/2007, -0/+2Actually, yes. Deceptive conduct, misleading advertising, etc, etc.
- leonidas333, on 11/26/2007, -0/+2Dude you are a tool. Do you want to have the search engines we had back in the early days were the search results were by who could pay the most? no!
I want clear relevant search results, not who has paid the most to have their page display at the top. - muffinmanpoo, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Your mum's lame.
- mozillar, on 11/26/2007, -1/+1Don't Link to CNET.
- blast_flame, on 11/26/2007, -3/+3As an Australian I say I fully support Google in this case and hope that due to this Google does not exterminate me when it gains sapience...
- Cattrin, on 11/26/2007, -1/+1Ok, I think I need some help understanding this. Pretty sure I missed something. I hope I missed something... or else this makes little to no sense.
The article was published on November 16, 2007, however the allegations are over the sponsor-setup google used in 2005? And the article itself is from 2005 too? Yet it's Still just being published now (and dugg two years later too)? - sexybobo, on 11/26/2007, -1/+1Sorry I didn't notice my spelling error until after my time expired I got it correct the second time.
- surfing, on 11/26/2007, -2/+1To subtle? Maybe they would like it better if there was some huge flash thing that took over you page.
- viksra, on 11/26/2007, -2/+1I tried searching for "Kevin Rudd" on Google just so I could get to see if a bunch of ads about earwax remover really did show up, but sadly, I was disappointed to see no ads. I forgot I had AdBlock on. :(
- Myztry, on 11/26/2007, -5/+3I had the misfortune of dealing with the online Trading Post about 2 weeks ago. Advertised some puppies on behalf on my ex-wife which didn't get any calls. Last time it was very effective. Such is life.
Anyway, then I started getting emails and multiple calls pushing me to re-advertise them. Script jockeys are very annoying. I didn't pay a service fee to be subjected to marketing. I know how to place ads with the Trading Post (obviously). All they did is put themselves on the blacklist.
In paper form the Trading Post was good, too bad they've gone down Desperate Street. - eekfuh, on 11/26/2007, -5/+3Copyright 2005? ...
- gbro, on 11/26/2007, -3/+1*sentience
- prosthetichead, on 11/26/2007, -4/+2dam spell check should have been Gouger
- breakspirit, on 11/26/2007, -5/+2Oh really ?!!!!!
- jono10, on 11/26/2007, -5/+2Harden the ***** Up
-
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 