But I think his sarcasm is an extension of the snide tone in the article, while missing the major point (which the journalist actually made in the introduction before diving into the culture-maintainance mumbo jumbo) - i.e. one set of companies are paying taxes on their revenue, while another industry isn't.

Both companies are paying taxes on their income, it's just that Google, MS and Yahoo choose to derive their revenue in a country that is more friendly to their operations (Ireland). France wants to tax the action (the click) instead of income (the advertising which is purchased in Ireland).

IMHO France is putting up the digital piracy bogey man to satiate the content industry while also allowing it to pass a tax onto it's populace. Once people become used to the tax they will increase it and divert the profits elsewhere. Of course I can't prove because it involves future actions that may or may not take place and the intent may not currently be there.

The irony of it all is that the telephone example is an example of my point that gov'ts keep taxes around long after their initial reasons for existence have passed. Income tax being another great example. I think the debts of WW1 have long since been paid.

But that's my point - aren't they really deriving their advertising income as, when, and where a user clicks on an ad?

Google Ads are different from regular advertising since the revenue accrues at the time the user clicks and located where that transaction occurs, which is on the user's desktop (i.e. place of delivery).