Google may shut down its news service in Europe(techgraph.co)
techgraph.co
Google may shut down its news service in Europe
https://techgraph.co/hubs/google/google-may-shut-down-its-news-service-in-european-union/
119 comments
If we're talking about news.google.com, then yeh it's ridiculous. That site is just headline links. It's not "content", it's a list of text links.
The foundation of the web is text links. So the EU wants to charge for HTML links. Struggling to see the logic there. Users click those links, read the story content, and end up on the news website. That is the fair transaction right there, no money needed.
Unless I'm missing something? Is this about the web or app? I don't use the google app so not sure if clicking links just opens a web view in app?
The foundation of the web is text links. So the EU wants to charge for HTML links. Struggling to see the logic there. Users click those links, read the story content, and end up on the news website. That is the fair transaction right there, no money needed.
Unless I'm missing something? Is this about the web or app? I don't use the google app so not sure if clicking links just opens a web view in app?
> The foundation of the web is text links. So the EU wants to charge for HTML links.
What's scary here is how this would effect other aggregators of news: HN, reddit, automated online RSS Feeds, etc. These kinds of overreaching regulations don't happen in a bubble, they trickle down to everyone. So the question: why is Google specifically targeted?
Is this part of the Big Tech Backlash[0] - specifically... the flow and control of information? Or is it more like a Netflix thing, where I think that 'The Old Guard' News Orgs may be overvaluing themselves.
Also, it was my understanding that News Organizations voluntarily submitted and made an effort to be compliant with Google News[1]. That is, Google News doesn't display news source data without permission (I think they did early on?).
I'm certain that if Google (or other large-scale News aggregator) required permission to be listed, most news orgs (enough to make a viable product) would happily comply.
[0] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22The%22+%22EU%22+Tech+Backlash&n...
[1] https://support.google.com/news/publisher-center/answer/4078...
What's scary here is how this would effect other aggregators of news: HN, reddit, automated online RSS Feeds, etc. These kinds of overreaching regulations don't happen in a bubble, they trickle down to everyone. So the question: why is Google specifically targeted?
Is this part of the Big Tech Backlash[0] - specifically... the flow and control of information? Or is it more like a Netflix thing, where I think that 'The Old Guard' News Orgs may be overvaluing themselves.
Also, it was my understanding that News Organizations voluntarily submitted and made an effort to be compliant with Google News[1]. That is, Google News doesn't display news source data without permission (I think they did early on?).
I'm certain that if Google (or other large-scale News aggregator) required permission to be listed, most news orgs (enough to make a viable product) would happily comply.
[0] https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22The%22+%22EU%22+Tech+Backlash&n...
[1] https://support.google.com/news/publisher-center/answer/4078...
Well its different when the value of the page is precisely the title + summary of other pages.
That said its a bit of a last attempt from newspaper to get money when news nowadays is pretty much free
That said its a bit of a last attempt from newspaper to get money when news nowadays is pretty much free
[deleted]
We can certainly argue if the "link tax" is a good idea.
Google, however, playing the hurt and wounded entity because they're no more able to leech "free" content to make a killing is, well, not very plausible.
Don't want to provide EU users with Google News?
Well, good bye and good riddance.
Google, however, playing the hurt and wounded entity because they're no more able to leech "free" content to make a killing is, well, not very plausible.
Don't want to provide EU users with Google News?
Well, good bye and good riddance.
> leech "free" content
Google News doesn't (in itself) have revenue. No ads.
If you'd said Google Search or Youtube, then that's a completely different thing. Those are multi-billion dollar products, and I suppose your argument is that Google doesn't add any value between site/youtuber and customer?
But Google News? It's one thing to have a service for free. It's another to force someone to pay to run a free service.
"Playing the hurt"? I have seen zero indication of that. All I've seen is "Shrug, if that's the rules you make then a product like this cannot exist. We'll shut it, then".
I don't use Google News, myself.
> Well, good bye and good riddance.
People who like this kind of product (that now cannot exist) and news sites, would disagree. E.g. see what happened in Germany when the link tax was introduced.
You may not like it, but users (clearly… I mean they used it) and news sites do.
And now it's a thing that can't exist in the EU.
Google News doesn't (in itself) have revenue. No ads.
If you'd said Google Search or Youtube, then that's a completely different thing. Those are multi-billion dollar products, and I suppose your argument is that Google doesn't add any value between site/youtuber and customer?
But Google News? It's one thing to have a service for free. It's another to force someone to pay to run a free service.
"Playing the hurt"? I have seen zero indication of that. All I've seen is "Shrug, if that's the rules you make then a product like this cannot exist. We'll shut it, then".
I don't use Google News, myself.
> Well, good bye and good riddance.
People who like this kind of product (that now cannot exist) and news sites, would disagree. E.g. see what happened in Germany when the link tax was introduced.
You may not like it, but users (clearly… I mean they used it) and news sites do.
And now it's a thing that can't exist in the EU.
News sites complain about Google stealing their content, which is why the law came into existance in the first place. Which is, of course, ridiculous, because they profit a lot from the eyeballs sent their way by Google.
It's just plain greed, and I'd rather have Google shut down their news service instead of getting some unholy exemption which would stiffle innovation in the news gathering area.
It's just plain greed, and I'd rather have Google shut down their news service instead of getting some unholy exemption which would stiffle innovation in the news gathering area.
Even though I'm not in favor of this law I understand the point of view of the news outlets. Basically it's a team effort: Google aggregates the news which gives users a convenient entry point to access articles that interests them from a variety of websites but of course that wouldn't be possible if journalists didn't write the articles in the first place. Google wins by having more people use their services and log into their Google account, news outlets wins by reaching a larger audience through Google.
But then, from the point of view of the news outlets, the benefits from this arrangement are not split fairly because they're the ones who do the hard and expensive part (writing the articles, investigating etc...) while Google merely links to them while making money from ads and collecting user data. If they're lucky the user may end up clicking on the headline to actually access the website, and then if they don't have an ad blocker they may generate a couple of ad impressions. Basically they're left with the scraps even though they're the one who actually did most of the actual work.
Now I think the link tax is a bad solution to this issue but I also think it's not completely fair to call news agencies "greedy" in a blanket statement. The business model of journalism in the internet era is still very much an open question.
But then, from the point of view of the news outlets, the benefits from this arrangement are not split fairly because they're the ones who do the hard and expensive part (writing the articles, investigating etc...) while Google merely links to them while making money from ads and collecting user data. If they're lucky the user may end up clicking on the headline to actually access the website, and then if they don't have an ad blocker they may generate a couple of ad impressions. Basically they're left with the scraps even though they're the one who actually did most of the actual work.
Now I think the link tax is a bad solution to this issue but I also think it's not completely fair to call news agencies "greedy" in a blanket statement. The business model of journalism in the internet era is still very much an open question.
I agree with all that except it should be clearer that Google doesn't gain anything (except PR?) from actually running Google News. There are no ads on it.
Google probably does gain from people logging in (though you can use Google News without logging in, it probably does cause people to log in, even if just a little more).
If the newspaper has ads from Google, then Google does take a cut (that's the business logic), and arguably Google News is similar to the newspaper buying ads on Google Search, except they don't have to pay.
People do pay for Google Search ads to drive traffic to their site, and for newspapers that probably gives them ad revenue and signups.
Newspapers get a similar service from Google News for free.
"Should Google (or anyone else) pay newspapers in order to run a news aggregation service" really boils down to "how much $ is a login worth to Google"?
It becomes a formula:
Google News value to google = google_news_users_per_month * fraction_not_logged_in * fraction_who log_in_because_of_google_news * value_of_a_login_to_google
Let's guess some numbers:
1M * 0.7 * 0.2 * $0.01 = $1400 per month
If Google has to pay developers, server infrastructure, AND newspapers more than $1400 then Google loses money on this and SHOULD turn down the product. I say this as a shareholder of GOOG: If it doesn't make financial sense then stop wasting my money.
(but yes, there's also brand value)
PS: Yes, there's one more value to Google, and that's the general: "More Internet use is a benefit to Google because any increase of Internet use will have a fraction on it go to sites that have Google ads on them". But saying that's bad is as if Google were to give free Internet, and people would demand that Google pay to give free Internet to people, because users would browse to sites where many of them would have Google ads on them.
Google probably does gain from people logging in (though you can use Google News without logging in, it probably does cause people to log in, even if just a little more).
If the newspaper has ads from Google, then Google does take a cut (that's the business logic), and arguably Google News is similar to the newspaper buying ads on Google Search, except they don't have to pay.
People do pay for Google Search ads to drive traffic to their site, and for newspapers that probably gives them ad revenue and signups.
Newspapers get a similar service from Google News for free.
"Should Google (or anyone else) pay newspapers in order to run a news aggregation service" really boils down to "how much $ is a login worth to Google"?
It becomes a formula:
Google News value to google = google_news_users_per_month * fraction_not_logged_in * fraction_who log_in_because_of_google_news * value_of_a_login_to_google
Let's guess some numbers:
1M * 0.7 * 0.2 * $0.01 = $1400 per month
If Google has to pay developers, server infrastructure, AND newspapers more than $1400 then Google loses money on this and SHOULD turn down the product. I say this as a shareholder of GOOG: If it doesn't make financial sense then stop wasting my money.
(but yes, there's also brand value)
PS: Yes, there's one more value to Google, and that's the general: "More Internet use is a benefit to Google because any increase of Internet use will have a fraction on it go to sites that have Google ads on them". But saying that's bad is as if Google were to give free Internet, and people would demand that Google pay to give free Internet to people, because users would browse to sites where many of them would have Google ads on them.
If Google news holds so little value to Google, why didn't they shut it down at the first sign of controversy? After all they publicly oppose these laws and shutting the service down would remove a big argument of their opponents, wouldn't it?
In particular I'm sure Google benefits from news indirectly by giving them valuable info about their users (you can tell a lot about somebody by what news they're interested in) and also by adding one more potentially useful service to the Google "suite", giving one more reason for users to commit to their ecosystems. That being said I'm incapable of judging of the actual monetary value of either of these things.
>People do pay for Google Search ads to drive traffic to their site, and for newspapers that probably gives them ad revenue and signups.
>Newspapers get a similar service from Google News for free.
That's a bit of mental gymnastics here. That's like saying "people pay to have google ads, but you can also get listed in the organic results for free! Thanks Google!". If I go to Google news then I expect to see news, them only displaying newspapers that agree to pay for it would make the service objectively worse. That would be like having Google search only listing ads and no organic results.
As rational actors it's in the newspaper's best interest to create content that interests people and it's in Google's best interest to promote that content to make their service valuable. Nobody is giving anybody a freebie here.
In particular I'm sure Google benefits from news indirectly by giving them valuable info about their users (you can tell a lot about somebody by what news they're interested in) and also by adding one more potentially useful service to the Google "suite", giving one more reason for users to commit to their ecosystems. That being said I'm incapable of judging of the actual monetary value of either of these things.
>People do pay for Google Search ads to drive traffic to their site, and for newspapers that probably gives them ad revenue and signups.
>Newspapers get a similar service from Google News for free.
That's a bit of mental gymnastics here. That's like saying "people pay to have google ads, but you can also get listed in the organic results for free! Thanks Google!". If I go to Google news then I expect to see news, them only displaying newspapers that agree to pay for it would make the service objectively worse. That would be like having Google search only listing ads and no organic results.
As rational actors it's in the newspaper's best interest to create content that interests people and it's in Google's best interest to promote that content to make their service valuable. Nobody is giving anybody a freebie here.
I obviously don't have all the data about why Google is or isn't shutting Google News down.
But given that we are in 2018, not right after 2001-09-11 as when it was created, even if Google News doesn't add anything positive to Google's bottom line or PR (big, BIG "if") there's a huge cost to shutting it down to Google PR, since it's another example of Google shutting a popular product.
If the EU is doing this, it actually gives Google an excuse, in case they wanted to shut it down anyway. And nobody else would make a replacement because it's just not economical.
Yes. I agree that "being logged in while browsing the Internet" has value to Google.
You may disagree on what that value is. I may be way off, but it's a Fermi estimate. I encourage you to plug in the numbers you would estimate, and see what monetary value Google News has to Google, and see if a link tax with amounts that news sites would actually care about makes economic sense.
> That's a bit of mental gymnastics here.
I agree. It's more a counter-point to "obviously Google should pay" than a suggestion for a better model.
> Nobody is giving anybody a freebie here.
On this we agree. Both supply-side parties add value, and all three parties gain value. To say that one of the parties is a "leech" is not accurate.
If the EU forces Google to pay a meaningful fee to news sites, then that may (in my estimate: extremely likely to) completely erase any benefits, and it'd be rational for Google to bug out.
But given that we are in 2018, not right after 2001-09-11 as when it was created, even if Google News doesn't add anything positive to Google's bottom line or PR (big, BIG "if") there's a huge cost to shutting it down to Google PR, since it's another example of Google shutting a popular product.
If the EU is doing this, it actually gives Google an excuse, in case they wanted to shut it down anyway. And nobody else would make a replacement because it's just not economical.
Yes. I agree that "being logged in while browsing the Internet" has value to Google.
You may disagree on what that value is. I may be way off, but it's a Fermi estimate. I encourage you to plug in the numbers you would estimate, and see what monetary value Google News has to Google, and see if a link tax with amounts that news sites would actually care about makes economic sense.
> That's a bit of mental gymnastics here.
I agree. It's more a counter-point to "obviously Google should pay" than a suggestion for a better model.
> Nobody is giving anybody a freebie here.
On this we agree. Both supply-side parties add value, and all three parties gain value. To say that one of the parties is a "leech" is not accurate.
If the EU forces Google to pay a meaningful fee to news sites, then that may (in my estimate: extremely likely to) completely erase any benefits, and it'd be rational for Google to bug out.
I agree with all that except it should be clearer that Google doesn't gain anything (except PR?) from actually running Google News.
I'm pretty sure they use News as part of their tracking efforts. Being an extremely tight lipped and secretive company this point would be extremely hard to prove.
But given their history of shutting down unprofitable properties I would be surprised if they just provide this service for altruistic reasons.
I'm pretty sure they use News as part of their tracking efforts. Being an extremely tight lipped and secretive company this point would be extremely hard to prove.
But given their history of shutting down unprofitable properties I would be surprised if they just provide this service for altruistic reasons.
> But given their history of shutting down unprofitable properties I would be surprised if they just provide this service for altruistic reasons.
Google News was ostensibly started for altruistic reasons, because on 2001-09-11 ALL news websites went down under the load.
In 2018 news websites maybe are more behind cloudflare/akamai and would be able to handle load, so less relevant technically.
But to say that altruistic reason would surprise you because of this history is extremely cynical. Even by my standards.
Google News was ostensibly started for altruistic reasons, because on 2001-09-11 ALL news websites went down under the load.
In 2018 news websites maybe are more behind cloudflare/akamai and would be able to handle load, so less relevant technically.
But to say that altruistic reason would surprise you because of this history is extremely cynical. Even by my standards.
But that logic also applies to search in general (in fact, it applies even more there, because Google actually makes money off ads on search but not off news).
I call it greed because news websites have always had the option to exclude themselves from Google if they want to. But they don't, because it's actually a net positive for them. They just want Google's money on top of that.
I call it greed because news websites have always had the option to exclude themselves from Google if they want to. But they don't, because it's actually a net positive for them. They just want Google's money on top of that.
I think there are notable differences between search and news. News is more like HN or Reddit. That's a subtle difference though and I can see why you could say that it's effectively equivalent.
>I call it greed because news websites have always had the option to exclude themselves from Google if they want to. But they don't, because it's actually a net positive for them. They just want Google's money on top of that.
I think that the main reason I object to the word "greed" is because it's no secret that most news organizations are struggling to stay afloat these days, so can you really call somebody "greedy" when it's potentially a matter of life or death? Saying that they're doing it in bad faith or that they're barking at the wrong tree would sit better with me I think.
>I call it greed because news websites have always had the option to exclude themselves from Google if they want to. But they don't, because it's actually a net positive for them. They just want Google's money on top of that.
I think that the main reason I object to the word "greed" is because it's no secret that most news organizations are struggling to stay afloat these days, so can you really call somebody "greedy" when it's potentially a matter of life or death? Saying that they're doing it in bad faith or that they're barking at the wrong tree would sit better with me I think.
For plain old linking, I think you're right. But for AMP and the search algo boost that comes with it, this complaint is kind of justified isn't it?
Google won't lose much from this, the reaction was entirely forseeable.
I'm much more worried about aggregators acting in the EU and having no eternal fountain of revenue like Adsense to withdraw back to.
Now that the regulation would finally be there, a giant swarm of rent seeking publishers will move on to these local players in order to extract at least some revenue from someone, potentially killing a whole industry.
I'm running an aggregator and just the administration effort and legal exposure of being forced to make a deal with every single "content owner" out there (for giving them free traffic in the first place) would make me consider to shut down completely in the EU.
I'm much more worried about aggregators acting in the EU and having no eternal fountain of revenue like Adsense to withdraw back to.
Now that the regulation would finally be there, a giant swarm of rent seeking publishers will move on to these local players in order to extract at least some revenue from someone, potentially killing a whole industry.
I'm running an aggregator and just the administration effort and legal exposure of being forced to make a deal with every single "content owner" out there (for giving them free traffic in the first place) would make me consider to shut down completely in the EU.
What is Google leeching here exactly? They're providing a free service: driving traffic to news sites. If they have to pay for providing that free service, of course they're going to stop doing it. Apparently the EU thinks news sites are sufficiently well known to not need Google for traffic.
Keep in mind that Google News doesn't show ads.
Keep in mind that Google News doesn't show ads.
And is hopefully a death knell to their awful amp standard. I see amp as Google's play (pun) to shape how the WWW works, in a lop-sided, selfish manner.
I really dislike many things about Google lately. But I still would rather have their services instead of EU regulation.
We had quite a few experiments through out the history where central entity could decide what's best for citizens. Those did not end well.
So how about, if you don't like Google News, just don't use it. You don't need any EU regulation for that.
We had quite a few experiments through out the history where central entity could decide what's best for citizens. Those did not end well.
So how about, if you don't like Google News, just don't use it. You don't need any EU regulation for that.
I rather have democratically elected entites decide how to regulate than tech giants deciding what not to regulate.
The "just don't use it" doesn't cut it. I don't use Facebook (or any of their products). It still very much affects - and has a direct impact on my life.
Edit : Added paragraph 2
The "just don't use it" doesn't cut it. I don't use Facebook (or any of their products). It still very much affects - and has a direct impact on my life.
Edit : Added paragraph 2
Can you elaborate on FB having direct impact on your life? I mean BMW has some impact on your life even if you don't drive them, but I'm guessing you have something more specific in mind.
There are so many examples:
Let's begin with shadow profiles of non users. Despite the fact that I didn't sign up they still store my data and track me.
Facebook being abused as a conduit to manipulate elections and as means for nefarious propaganda concerns all of us. You don't need to be a Facebook user to be directly impacted by the toxic effects of populism on society fostered by them
Further, it's a poison to society by allowing hate speech (but not pictures of breast feeding mothers) to be disseminated on a massive scale
As a human being it concerns me when Facebook is used to support genocide and to aid an abet the silencing of critics in countries like Cambodia or The Philippines
As a Jew I feel personally attacked when the highest echelons of the company blow the most vile, antisemtic dog whistles currently available
I believe that all those things (and much more) affects my life a lot more than people driving BMWs.
Let's begin with shadow profiles of non users. Despite the fact that I didn't sign up they still store my data and track me.
Facebook being abused as a conduit to manipulate elections and as means for nefarious propaganda concerns all of us. You don't need to be a Facebook user to be directly impacted by the toxic effects of populism on society fostered by them
Further, it's a poison to society by allowing hate speech (but not pictures of breast feeding mothers) to be disseminated on a massive scale
As a human being it concerns me when Facebook is used to support genocide and to aid an abet the silencing of critics in countries like Cambodia or The Philippines
As a Jew I feel personally attacked when the highest echelons of the company blow the most vile, antisemtic dog whistles currently available
I believe that all those things (and much more) affects my life a lot more than people driving BMWs.
First one is interesting to me. Because if I ask you if you know X, do you think you are breaching his privacy if you told me that you do know X? What if I have a lot of time and ask that a lot of people? It seems to me that in many cases we are punishing entities that operate on publicly available data.
I like security mindset where if something is possible to know about you, you assume that somebody knows it. E.g. you can tell a lot by exact times of HN comments. Or by collecting and analysing data from multiple sources.
I don't like that thanks to street cameras or GPS your car can be very accurately tracked, but in my mind we kind of allowed that the moment we put visible unique registration numbers of cars (I know I'm pretty much alone on this one).
I have no idea where you got antisemitism from, but described problems seem to be mostly problems with society and not really specific to this medium. Some problems are difficult. What one considers a hate speech, somebody else can consider a freedom of speech. And vice versa.
Does it matter if it's Facebook or Orkut or VKontakte? Remember that just as you have some opinion about what policies should given company apply there are other people who have some strong opinion about completely different policies that should have been in place.
Personally, I don't care much whether FB allows pictures of breastfeeding mothers or not since I'm not a user. I also wouldn't even know whether it does - I don't like FB, so I ignore it and most news related to it.
I like security mindset where if something is possible to know about you, you assume that somebody knows it. E.g. you can tell a lot by exact times of HN comments. Or by collecting and analysing data from multiple sources.
I don't like that thanks to street cameras or GPS your car can be very accurately tracked, but in my mind we kind of allowed that the moment we put visible unique registration numbers of cars (I know I'm pretty much alone on this one).
I have no idea where you got antisemitism from, but described problems seem to be mostly problems with society and not really specific to this medium. Some problems are difficult. What one considers a hate speech, somebody else can consider a freedom of speech. And vice versa.
Does it matter if it's Facebook or Orkut or VKontakte? Remember that just as you have some opinion about what policies should given company apply there are other people who have some strong opinion about completely different policies that should have been in place.
Personally, I don't care much whether FB allows pictures of breastfeeding mothers or not since I'm not a user. I also wouldn't even know whether it does - I don't like FB, so I ignore it and most news related to it.
You are being downvoted but I don't see any arguments against your points. I agree with the first point. With Instagram and WhatsApp, they have a reach much bigger than people who only have Facebook, and it is common knowledge that they build shadow profiles, in addition to other shady tactics such as using phone microphones to listen to conversations while the app is in the background, and keeping the app in the background by force by abusing audio APIs on iPhones.
Yeah, I noted that too. I learned that being downvoted based on good faith arguments (aka for an opinion) is actually a badge of honor.
Seems I hit home and somebody really, really doesn't like my reasoning and at least I hope to have made them uncomfortable with my arguments (best case I would have made them think, but I doubt it).
In the end: It's shame on them. In an apparently smart community clearly stated and honest opinions should never be downvoted, but I don't really see how it can be avoided. But in the end it's auto corrective anyway.
Thanks for the heads-up and the encouragement.
Seems I hit home and somebody really, really doesn't like my reasoning and at least I hope to have made them uncomfortable with my arguments (best case I would have made them think, but I doubt it).
In the end: It's shame on them. In an apparently smart community clearly stated and honest opinions should never be downvoted, but I don't really see how it can be avoided. But in the end it's auto corrective anyway.
Thanks for the heads-up and the encouragement.
As someone living in Spain i have been without the Google News service for several years now and personally i don't mind at all. I just consume less news, and when there is something important its just one search away (or just going directly to one of the local papers website).
Doesn’t this validate Googles point. You are visiting less thus bringing the news sites less page views and thus less ad income.
No. This means less click bait. Ad revenue is a zero sum game mostly. The shit news site are no longer able to clickbait in Google news. More share of money goes to publishers despite less traffic. Clicbaiters lose.
People keep searching for news with Google, the clickbait is still there for google searches.
Each individual publisher can choose to not have Google "leech" their content [1]. The EU government forcing this on the market/population isn't very good governance.
[1] https://support.google.com/news/publisher-center/answer/9397...
[1] https://support.google.com/news/publisher-center/answer/9397...
Then again, it is a bad thing that a megacorp can run a news service that has no creation itself (leeching) and decides who is shown and forcing websites to use their awful amp websites.
As a fellow European I think that Google shutting down it's news service for EU is a good thing, but for entirely different reason that yours.
Many of these news services do not have the audience, they are getting it from Google. It is nonsensical, that you would bring the eyeballs, and have to pay for the privilege. Google should them deny any promotion or traffic, let them stand on their own feet.
Many of these news services do not have the audience, they are getting it from Google. It is nonsensical, that you would bring the eyeballs, and have to pay for the privilege. Google should them deny any promotion or traffic, let them stand on their own feet.
>Many of these news services do not have the audience, they are getting it from Google
I don't understand. Where are they supposed to be getting the audience from? Do you consider clicks from Google to be worthless? Are clicks from Facebook any better?
I don't understand. Where are they supposed to be getting the audience from? Do you consider clicks from Google to be worthless? Are clicks from Facebook any better?
Exactly opposite. They are getting their traffic from aggregators (does not matter whether Google, Facebook or anyone else), they do not have brands with big enough recognition to stand on their own.
In the eshop part of the web, there are price aggregators and the eshops pay them for the traffic they are getting, i.e. exactly opposite as the news publishers demand. It would be nonsense, if the eshops demanded that the aggregators pay them, because they make use of data of their sortiment or whatever. Even Amazon pays for the referrals, it is not being paid by the referrals for the privilege of being one.
It was always that he, who brings the customers, is getting paid for that. Not vice-versa.
In the eshop part of the web, there are price aggregators and the eshops pay them for the traffic they are getting, i.e. exactly opposite as the news publishers demand. It would be nonsense, if the eshops demanded that the aggregators pay them, because they make use of data of their sortiment or whatever. Even Amazon pays for the referrals, it is not being paid by the referrals for the privilege of being one.
It was always that he, who brings the customers, is getting paid for that. Not vice-versa.
He means that smaller publishers don't have a brand yet where people just browse directly to their site. Those smaller publishers get a disproportionate share of views when one of their article trends on google news.
Look at their financial reports. Unless by "smaller" you mean 99.5% or more of them, you're inaccurate.
The only news services that would survive this regulation are the public/subsidized ones, pretty much. Maybe that's exactly the goal: eliminate independent press.
The only news services that would survive this regulation are the public/subsidized ones, pretty much. Maybe that's exactly the goal: eliminate independent press.
I guess the only solution for news sites now is massive mergers into a handful of news giants that do have the brand name to stand on their own without needing links from aggregators.
Of course it would help a lot if they also dramatically revised the way they offer their content on the internet. Many news sites are rather awful.
Of course it would help a lot if they also dramatically revised the way they offer their content on the internet. Many news sites are rather awful.
There is no 'link tax'. You can paste a target URL anywhere you like along with descriptive words.
What there is: a restriction on quoting from the article.
That will hurt automated aggregators, certainly. But not hand-curated sites or blogs.
What there is: a restriction on quoting from the article.
That will hurt automated aggregators, certainly. But not hand-curated sites or blogs.
> There is no 'link tax'. You can paste a target URL anywhere you like along with descriptive words.
What there is: a restriction on quoting from the article.
Well, that depends on what is meant by "quoting from the article". The EFF believes that the proposed wording is so vague that some bare URLs might be covered:
> The Directive is extremely vague on what defines a "link" or a "news story" and implies that an "excerpt" consists of more than one single word from a news-story (many URLs contain more than a single word from the headline).
Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/10/eus-link-tax-will-kill...
Well, that depends on what is meant by "quoting from the article". The EFF believes that the proposed wording is so vague that some bare URLs might be covered:
> The Directive is extremely vague on what defines a "link" or a "news story" and implies that an "excerpt" consists of more than one single word from a news-story (many URLs contain more than a single word from the headline).
Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/10/eus-link-tax-will-kill...
Speak for yourself. For me, Google News shutting down in Europe would be a disaster.
There is no 'link tax'. You can paste a target URL anywhere you like along with descriptive words.
What there is: a restriction on quoting from the article.
What there is: a restriction on quoting from the article.
I've got to say - I found it REALLY difficult to find an authoritative or trustworthy source on what the link tax is.
From my understanding here's the rub: there are two definitions. One definition is you'd have to pay a publisher if you link to their article whilst quoting it. That's what the opponents are saying. This seems disingenuous, since it's the quoting the article that triggers the tax - no the link.
The supporters characterize it as: If you rip off a significant part of a copyright work the publisher can charge you since you're taking their copyrighted work (whether you link to them or not).
Now people are saying sites link Google News would be affected because they list lots of news sites quotes with links to the source. I would've thought it was pretty obvious however, if the aggregater quotes enough then there's no point to click through and therefore the revenue accrues to Google rather than the publisher. This seems fine to me -- there should be a charge for that behaviour. What's more it actually seems self-levelling. If Google doesn't quote too much and people click through then there's no incentive for the publisher to charge Google for the content since they're generating demand and charging Google would cause them to be de-listed.
So let's move on, why is Google complaining? Well it seems to me that it's actually in Google's interests to be able to leech off these publishers by stealing their content wholesale and this would prevent that, and apparently they think whining publicly is a reasonable strategy. It's not.
From my understanding here's the rub: there are two definitions. One definition is you'd have to pay a publisher if you link to their article whilst quoting it. That's what the opponents are saying. This seems disingenuous, since it's the quoting the article that triggers the tax - no the link.
The supporters characterize it as: If you rip off a significant part of a copyright work the publisher can charge you since you're taking their copyrighted work (whether you link to them or not).
Now people are saying sites link Google News would be affected because they list lots of news sites quotes with links to the source. I would've thought it was pretty obvious however, if the aggregater quotes enough then there's no point to click through and therefore the revenue accrues to Google rather than the publisher. This seems fine to me -- there should be a charge for that behaviour. What's more it actually seems self-levelling. If Google doesn't quote too much and people click through then there's no incentive for the publisher to charge Google for the content since they're generating demand and charging Google would cause them to be de-listed.
So let's move on, why is Google complaining? Well it seems to me that it's actually in Google's interests to be able to leech off these publishers by stealing their content wholesale and this would prevent that, and apparently they think whining publicly is a reasonable strategy. It's not.
I believe the root complaint is the link shows the "Title", a small snippet, and/or a thumbnailed image.
The concern is that it's a law essentially designed to punish large companies for essentially doing what the internet is built to do: link to other sites.
To not have any snippets and just display raw URL links would be to essentially go back to the early 90's in terms of user experience.
Edit: Also, arguably, the headline itself is a quote. How can you charge someone for quoting something newsworthy? That seems to be the very definition of fair use.
The concern is that it's a law essentially designed to punish large companies for essentially doing what the internet is built to do: link to other sites.
To not have any snippets and just display raw URL links would be to essentially go back to the early 90's in terms of user experience.
Edit: Also, arguably, the headline itself is a quote. How can you charge someone for quoting something newsworthy? That seems to be the very definition of fair use.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hacker News would technically be affected by the same Link tax. It would probably not be enforced but still.
It's such a stupid idea and I really lose hope about the future of a free internet when I see stuff like this. Hopefully saner minds will prevail
It's such a stupid idea and I really lose hope about the future of a free internet when I see stuff like this. Hopefully saner minds will prevail
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but Hacker News would technically be affected by the same Link tax. It would probably not be enforced but still.
The "link tax" isn't a tax on actual links. That name is a misnomer, it applies to links that reproduce key parts of the linked content inline.
So, for example, Google News links duplicating the headline and providing a summary. Because, in essence, Google News is copying content from news organisations/sites reducing their traffic (usually skimming headlines is enough to cherry-pick the few things you care about) while themselves profiting (keeping people on Google sites and around Google ads longer).
Whether this "link tax" is the right solution is debatable, but I hope we can agree that Google and Facebook abusing their dominant position this way isn't health for the world.
This does not apply to HN, because HN isn't reproducing any of the linked content inline.
The "link tax" isn't a tax on actual links. That name is a misnomer, it applies to links that reproduce key parts of the linked content inline.
So, for example, Google News links duplicating the headline and providing a summary. Because, in essence, Google News is copying content from news organisations/sites reducing their traffic (usually skimming headlines is enough to cherry-pick the few things you care about) while themselves profiting (keeping people on Google sites and around Google ads longer).
Whether this "link tax" is the right solution is debatable, but I hope we can agree that Google and Facebook abusing their dominant position this way isn't health for the world.
This does not apply to HN, because HN isn't reproducing any of the linked content inline.
> Google News links duplicating the headline and providing a summary.
What summary? I only see headlines on Google news. Where is the summary?
Often there's long headlines, but that's just writers trying to get good at SEO. Not that I mind long-ish descriptive headlines, but it's not content, it's still just link text, and an editorial choice to cram it with an entire paragraph.
What summary? I only see headlines on Google news. Where is the summary?
Often there's long headlines, but that's just writers trying to get good at SEO. Not that I mind long-ish descriptive headlines, but it's not content, it's still just link text, and an editorial choice to cram it with an entire paragraph.
What about RSS ?
Many news sites have a RSS feed :
* http://www.spiegel.de/schlagzeilen/tops/index.rss
* https://www.lemonde.fr/rss/une.xml
So as an individual I can use them, but the dead Google Reader would have meet the same issue than Google News ?
So as an individual I can use them, but the dead Google Reader would have meet the same issue than Google News ?
The publisher can control how much content is exposed via RSS (typically just the lede), whereas with presenting scraped content by third party news aggregators, the user will never need to visit the origin site.
The publisher can also control how much is shared with third party aggregators, either through robots.txt or a paywall method.
Which has been the case since search engines became a thing.
Which has been the case since search engines became a thing.
That isn't the same at all. A publisher cannot use robots.txt, and much less paywalls, to indicate a part of text that can be shared in syndication.
A paywall can. The page displays the snippet the publication is allowing to be shared, while the paywall hides the rest. I believe this is what a few of the bigger US newspapers are doing right now.
Ok, but that would require regular readers to have credentials for the paywall. I understood the discussion to be about scraping publicly accessible sites.
I think the issue depends on whether a service is acting as a principal or an agent. If a user signs up for your service and says "I would like to subscribe to Mox News" and you pull data on behalf of your user then I see no issue.
But in the same way you as an individual couldn't republish those copyrighted works, your aggregation service where you choose from sources and publish your links and summaries wouldn't be okay.
But in the same way you as an individual couldn't republish those copyrighted works, your aggregation service where you choose from sources and publish your links and summaries wouldn't be okay.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/10/eus-link-tax-will-kill...
> The Directive is extremely vague on what defines a "link" or a "news story" and implies that an "excerpt" consists of more than one single word from a news-story (many URLs contain more than a single word from the headline).
> The Directive is extremely vague on what defines a "link" or a "news story" and implies that an "excerpt" consists of more than one single word from a news-story (many URLs contain more than a single word from the headline).
So it is a quote tax. That's really not any less stupid.
Almost every thread on HN has somebody quote part of the article inline.
Almost every thread on HN has somebody quote part of the article inline.
The rules for when you are and aren't allowed to quote copyrighted material are long, boring, but fairly well established.
> Almost every thread on HN has somebody quote part of the article inline.
Which is very much a violation of copyright if it's pasted verbatim. However, those comments which quote line-by-line with responses and commentary is covered under fair use.
> Almost every thread on HN has somebody quote part of the article inline.
Which is very much a violation of copyright if it's pasted verbatim. However, those comments which quote line-by-line with responses and commentary is covered under fair use.
What about Graph tags, or the tags that do the Twitter cards? I'm guessing that an aggregation site that just uses those, would be fine?
This can all be easily fixed with a robots.txt entry and specific bot name for the Google News bot, or a special noindex meta-tag just for news aggregators.
This can all be easily fixed with a robots.txt entry and specific bot name for the Google News bot, or a special noindex meta-tag just for news aggregators.
Are you sure? I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure they won't argue that applies links without summaries as well. And what about thumbnails?
I mean the "fair use" laws weren't exactly clear cut either but seemed generally sane
I mean the "fair use" laws weren't exactly clear cut either but seemed generally sane
Headlines are exempted from link tax. Any part of body text is not.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/10/eus-link-tax-will-kill...
Do you have any source for that? According to the EFF even the pretty URL itself is enough:
> The Directive is extremely vague on what defines a "link" or a "news story" and implies that an "excerpt" consists of more than one single word from a news-story (many URLs contain more than a single word from the headline).
Do you have any source for that? According to the EFF even the pretty URL itself is enough:
> The Directive is extremely vague on what defines a "link" or a "news story" and implies that an "excerpt" consists of more than one single word from a news-story (many URLs contain more than a single word from the headline).
For my own edification, can you point me to where it exempts headlines?
[deleted]
Correct me as well; but if memory serves right the issue was that google news did not display just a link, but also a two liner bit or so, giving a glimpse of the article and driving away people who were content just with reading that couple of lines.
HN just gives you a link, it does not disclose any article content before you click the link.
People pay to promote their links on google search. Why can't it be the other way around?
How can search engines exist in a capitalist system, then?
Because you don't propose a world without search engines, right?
Google tried for a long time to not have ads, but could not come up with an alternative revenue model and eventually had to.
Because you don't propose a world without search engines, right?
Google tried for a long time to not have ads, but could not come up with an alternative revenue model and eventually had to.
You missunderstood. They charge money to promote, but they don't pay for content. If I open a decent magazine or newspaper, there are ads and there is content which paid for in some way. How is google so different? Googles payment is that they give you traffic for "free" if you play by their rules. I.e. in case of wikipedia I am sure they would have hefty debt if it was fair for both sides.
I see. Well, the problem with analogies is that they don't always fit. Another analogy is that Google is a magazine store, and present front pages to customers on the shelves. The store probably doesn't pay random magazines for showing up so much as they are a middleman in the sale between magazine and customer.
(disclaimer: I've never owned a store, but while yes the store may take risks on unsold inventory, unless their deal with the magazine is "we send back unsold inventory")
Both Google and such a magazine store are middlemen do work to add value and take compensation for it.
In neither case is there any theft going on, nor is anyone getting a free ride.
I guess I also question the very premise of "free under condition X" is "free". Condition X is simply the payment. So you are getting Y for the price of X.
If you demand that Google charge for content then I do question how the very business model of search engine could work. Pretty much by definition if Google (or anyone else) has to pay to direct traffic to you then they are disincentivised to direct traffic to you. It's as if a store lost money on every sale, but made money if customers were present in the store.
If you think people are cynical now about Google wishing people clicking on promoted content (ads) then watch them race to the bottom where they (and Bing and everyone else) will only show promoted content.
Because here's really where your analogy breaks down: E.g. clicks on organic search results on Google brings money to the newspaper (via ads), but a news paper article author does not get paid per person reading their article. In other words: It may superficially be similar in actors and content creation, but all that matters in economics is incentives, and the incentives are completely different. And nobody will pay for a disincentive.
Both Google and such a magazine store are middlemen do work to add value and take compensation for it.
In neither case is there any theft going on, nor is anyone getting a free ride.
I guess I also question the very premise of "free under condition X" is "free". Condition X is simply the payment. So you are getting Y for the price of X.
If you demand that Google charge for content then I do question how the very business model of search engine could work. Pretty much by definition if Google (or anyone else) has to pay to direct traffic to you then they are disincentivised to direct traffic to you. It's as if a store lost money on every sale, but made money if customers were present in the store.
If you think people are cynical now about Google wishing people clicking on promoted content (ads) then watch them race to the bottom where they (and Bing and everyone else) will only show promoted content.
Because here's really where your analogy breaks down: E.g. clicks on organic search results on Google brings money to the newspaper (via ads), but a news paper article author does not get paid per person reading their article. In other words: It may superficially be similar in actors and content creation, but all that matters in economics is incentives, and the incentives are completely different. And nobody will pay for a disincentive.
Hacker News doesn't leech the content of the linked site. At most some posts take the title 1:1.
There is no lower limit on what constitutes copyrighted material and what isnt in article 11. A headline would also be copyrighted material, so subject to a license fee. HN would have to pay for a license if it wanted to operate in EU.
Taking the title 1:1 is the policy, unless the title is bad. Also, what about those tl;dr comments people often post? Would that mean HN should pay?
> It's such a stupid idea and I really lose hope about the future of a free internet
I really lose hope for the EU, not a free internet.
I really lose hope for the EU, not a free internet.
There EU is generally a force for good. Please don't let a couple of bad policies cloud your judgement against all of the good work that the wider organisation does.
[deleted]
> There EU is generally a force for good
It might have been, I don't think it is anymore. I think they're passed that, and their focus in now on moving power from sovereign nations into the EU.
In addition to that, they've become corrupt enough to favor record companies instead of the citizens of the countries that are part of the EU (another example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18501825).
It might have been, I don't think it is anymore. I think they're passed that, and their focus in now on moving power from sovereign nations into the EU.
In addition to that, they've become corrupt enough to favor record companies instead of the citizens of the countries that are part of the EU (another example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18501825).
Here in the UK, a great many deprived areas were completely ignored by our own government whereas the EU helped fund regeneration on those areas.
The EU has also funded flood prevention programs in the UK while our own government has done naff all aside appearing for rhetoric soundbites.
Much of what the EU does goes unsung. And a lot of stuff gets completely misreported too (eg the whole bent bananas meme). In fact this has become so common that there's a coined term for it: euromyth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromyth)
The EU has also funded flood prevention programs in the UK while our own government has done naff all aside appearing for rhetoric soundbites.
Much of what the EU does goes unsung. And a lot of stuff gets completely misreported too (eg the whole bent bananas meme). In fact this has become so common that there's a coined term for it: euromyth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromyth)
I'm well aware of what the EU does. I live in Poland and I see the signs.
However, all they're good at is redistributing funds. It's not the EU that does it, it's the local governments that do it.
Next!
However, all they're good at is redistributing funds. It's not the EU that does it, it's the local governments that do it.
Next!
Do you honestly think our respective governments would make that same investment if it were not for the EU? I honestly don't. You only have to look how the Tories (UK elected party) have put ever greater squeezes on the National Health Service, schools (even starting a program on privatising them because they're too self-absorbed rich kids who went to private school to even understand the problems normal working class families have - and trust me I have first hand experience that the Tories "academy" program (outsourcing schools to businesses) are failing kids!)
Since Poland is also shifting ever more right-wing (as seems the global trend these days) you're only going to see less and less money invested in deprived areas and services by your own government as well. Because for some reason some people see that investment as the work of left-wing socialists.
My closing point would also be that this is a small planet - do we really want to waste our limited resources and short life spans arguing over arbitrary lines on a map? It makes so much more sense to work together. We even teach our kids that cooperation is better - yet we cannot follow our own advice as adults? It's madness.
edit: actually it's worse than madness; it's just people with egos and silos of power.
Since Poland is also shifting ever more right-wing (as seems the global trend these days) you're only going to see less and less money invested in deprived areas and services by your own government as well. Because for some reason some people see that investment as the work of left-wing socialists.
My closing point would also be that this is a small planet - do we really want to waste our limited resources and short life spans arguing over arbitrary lines on a map? It makes so much more sense to work together. We even teach our kids that cooperation is better - yet we cannot follow our own advice as adults? It's madness.
edit: actually it's worse than madness; it's just people with egos and silos of power.
The EU used to be a major champion for internet freedom, though.
True, but not anymore I guess. It's not uncommon for governments to start out well and be clouded by power grabs later on, which is I think what's happening (unless it was the plan since the beginning, which we'll never know).
I don't think this is a power grab by the EU. I think many people who voted for this meant well, but were deluded into thinking this would accomplish what they want. They have sympathy for newspapers, and I do too; quality journalism is very important. I'm just baffled that they actually think this will mean Google will give money to newspapers. That's probably what some old people with a sore lack of understanding of how the internet works, came up with, and then relentlessly lobbied the EU Parliament to push it through.
The EU or its parliament do not benefit from this at all. Except that when this is over, hopefully they've finally learned not to let lobbyists set policy.
The EU or its parliament do not benefit from this at all. Except that when this is over, hopefully they've finally learned not to let lobbyists set policy.
> I don't think this is a power grab by the EU.
Sorry, I meant in general and not this specific instance.
> That's probably what some old people with a sore lack of understanding of how the internet works, came up with, and then relentlessly lobbied the EU Parliament to push it through.
I hold the believe that people in the EU commission are smart. That's why whenever stuff like this happens I assume they did it because of greed, not because they're so dumb and inefficient to not have consulted a few experts before drafting a law.
I'm not entirely sure, though.
Sorry, I meant in general and not this specific instance.
> That's probably what some old people with a sore lack of understanding of how the internet works, came up with, and then relentlessly lobbied the EU Parliament to push it through.
I hold the believe that people in the EU commission are smart. That's why whenever stuff like this happens I assume they did it because of greed, not because they're so dumb and inefficient to not have consulted a few experts before drafting a law.
I'm not entirely sure, though.
Some random site says that another site reported and doesn't link it to the original article?
Is this them getting ready for the link tax? So now we will see these "news" sites that regurgitate other peoples news omit links to the original articles as to not pay this "tax"?
Will this actually be beneficial in the long run? Omitting core internet functionality, linking, because it costs extra. Only help to spread fake news as links to sources and references will be omitted. Or is there some clause that only tech giants will be taxed? How do you define a giant then. Certainly google but what about Reddit? Or Hacker News?
Don't have answers to any of these questions but until we know more I'll be very skeptical of this "link tax"
Is this them getting ready for the link tax? So now we will see these "news" sites that regurgitate other peoples news omit links to the original articles as to not pay this "tax"?
Will this actually be beneficial in the long run? Omitting core internet functionality, linking, because it costs extra. Only help to spread fake news as links to sources and references will be omitted. Or is there some clause that only tech giants will be taxed? How do you define a giant then. Certainly google but what about Reddit? Or Hacker News?
Don't have answers to any of these questions but until we know more I'll be very skeptical of this "link tax"
It has been gone from Spain for some time now.
I thought I was going to miss it, but honestly, I don't.
I also thought that the news services would crumble and die. They didn't, but their news quality took a dive. I can't say whether this is causality or just correlation.
I thought I was going to miss it, but honestly, I don't.
I also thought that the news services would crumble and die. They didn't, but their news quality took a dive. I can't say whether this is causality or just correlation.
> I also thought that the news services would crumble and die. They didn't
“The [Spanish] law...cost publishers €10 million, or about $10.9 million, which would fall disproportionately on smaller publishers” and led to “smaller Spanish aggregators, such as Planeta Ludico, NiagaRank, InfoAliment, and Multifriki shut[ting] down” [1].
[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201...
“The [Spanish] law...cost publishers €10 million, or about $10.9 million, which would fall disproportionately on smaller publishers” and led to “smaller Spanish aggregators, such as Planeta Ludico, NiagaRank, InfoAliment, and Multifriki shut[ting] down” [1].
[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/arstechnica.com/tech-policy/201...
When I said "news services" I meant publishers, not aggregators. I didn't know or use any of those aggregators you mentioned.
I do miss it when there is a specific news story (usually fairly niche or local) that i am looking for. Duckduck go has a similar service that does work in Spain, but the search isn't as good.
I wonder who those same publishers are going to blame when their visitors drop by 13% as they did in spain.
But maybe that's intended, as smaller publishers would suffer the most the large publishers would finally be able to decide what is news and how it's to be distributed.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150725/14510131761/study...
But maybe that's intended, as smaller publishers would suffer the most the large publishers would finally be able to decide what is news and how it's to be distributed.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150725/14510131761/study...
Too many small publishers are not good. The small publishers which gain revenue because of Google are too dependent on it. Hence they cannot criticize Google else indirectly their SEO is affected. Larger independent publishers have to compete with smaller clickbaity non professional publishers and also have to serve clickbait. Because Ad revenue is mostly a zero sum game. The smaller publishers who do not have many journalists just make clickbait titles eat into professionals who are also dependent on Ads.
It is in Google's interest to have multiple small publishers instead of few large publishers, because Google can blackmail the smaller ones more easily and multiple publisher speaking against something is more difficult then few grouped publishers.
If the publishers and Google's interest clash, it is a good thing for the readers. If they align, it is a very good thing for Google, a little good for publishers and bad for readers.
It is in Google's interest to have multiple small publishers instead of few large publishers, because Google can blackmail the smaller ones more easily and multiple publisher speaking against something is more difficult then few grouped publishers.
If the publishers and Google's interest clash, it is a good thing for the readers. If they align, it is a very good thing for Google, a little good for publishers and bad for readers.
every publisher is "small" at first. This is about not rocking the boat for larger publishers by better, maybe more professional, upstarts.
The argument about click-baity titles is relevant to whether a publisher is small or large. Every large publisher now has a yellow press sub-brand that just pushes out trash with click-baits.
The argument about click-baity titles is relevant to whether a publisher is small or large. Every large publisher now has a yellow press sub-brand that just pushes out trash with click-baits.
Larger ad dependent publishers have to push out click bait because smaller publishers push it out. If larger publishers would not do clickbait if smaller publishers do, they go out of business, because smaller ones steal the share of money.
Ad revenue is a zero sum game.
Ad revenue is a zero sum game.
People are pointing out that Google doesn't serve ads on Google news, and that they drive clicks to news sites, like this is some kind of huge favor. Its not, its strategy. Google wants to be the choke-point for every page lookup on the web. They have the stats on what people search and news is obviously a big one, so they provide services like this to put a moat around that sweet sweet ad revenue that might leak away if users were to ever use anything other than Google as the first thing they open in a browser.
The phone book is listing my business number, and they're not paying me?!?
Outrage!
The phone book should have to pay me to list my number!
<completely silent phone>
Oh, wait...
Outrage!
The phone book should have to pay me to list my number!
<completely silent phone>
Oh, wait...
So, HN should pay "techgraph" for linking this article?
HN is not a megacorp that forces websites to use an awful amp version of their own websites. HN only provide a simple link and heading.
The law even mentioned "amp"? How specific!
I have very much hope that Google shutdowns really big things in Europe eventually, things like YouTube, maybe some parts of Android and stuff.
I'm very curious if it'll cause governments or business to crawl and ask for mercy or if it'll lead to Google replacements emerging in Europe.
In China, Google's exodus provided a way to emerge multitude of local services which make me think that what Google does is not a rocket science and other can do it as well, there is just no incentive. Anyway, that's just random thoughts, it would be really interesting to see what would happen if Google left Europe in a big way.
I'm very curious if it'll cause governments or business to crawl and ask for mercy or if it'll lead to Google replacements emerging in Europe.
In China, Google's exodus provided a way to emerge multitude of local services which make me think that what Google does is not a rocket science and other can do it as well, there is just no incentive. Anyway, that's just random thoughts, it would be really interesting to see what would happen if Google left Europe in a big way.
There is already a youtube "replacement" from Europe: Dailymotion, and it's absolutely terrible.
They are only surviving by hosting copyrighted content and bombarding it with Unskippable ads.
They are only surviving by hosting copyrighted content and bombarding it with Unskippable ads.
Is it the content-preview (however small), the content-gathering or the linking that will cost money?
Google could (re-)write the headlines and micro-summaries themselves (using machine-learning technologies) and just provide links, without copying anything from elsewhere for previewing purposes. Embedding no snippets and thumbnails at all from the media-/publisher websites would turn Google News into a text-only site, making it a lot less appealing to the audience.
Google could (re-)write the headlines and micro-summaries themselves (using machine-learning technologies) and just provide links, without copying anything from elsewhere for previewing purposes. Embedding no snippets and thumbnails at all from the media-/publisher websites would turn Google News into a text-only site, making it a lot less appealing to the audience.
For anybody, (like myself), who cannot stand Google's amp version of popular website's, try this: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/amp2html/
It may actually help the large subscription news sites. If all the news aggregators went away, I'd be more likely to pay for news from a reputable publisher to curate my news for me.
The link tax is an end to organic search results. You want to be found on google, then you’ll need to buy clicks using adwords. Google wins
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust
Would the Apple News widget shown on iOS also be affected by this?
Don't know as it is still unclear, how much "link tax" is going to affect the newsstand, but there is a less chance of Apple news to get banned as apple is paying to the publisher for publishing their content on Apple news.
don't they mean not providing European sourced news globally, for example if they provide something from Der Spiegel to US users wouldn't that be hit with the link tax?
[deleted]
goodbye and farewell
I hate both Google and the media, so this is great news.
And nothing of value would be lost.
This seems more like an empty threat and a bargaining position. If they wanted to shut down they would, not leak to the media incessantly about their intentions.
Why are they pushing amp on publishers if this content doesn't matter to Google? This is extremely self serving and then trying to play innocent is disingenuous and predatory.
There are no principles at stake here, only the exploitative business interests of a monopolistic business. The standard PR playbook of misinformation, lobbying, 'think tanks' and and 'helpful' opinion pieces is being rolled out, which is the predictable reaction of any well resourced interest hellbent on getting their their way.
Why are they pushing amp on publishers if this content doesn't matter to Google? This is extremely self serving and then trying to play innocent is disingenuous and predatory.
There are no principles at stake here, only the exploitative business interests of a monopolistic business. The standard PR playbook of misinformation, lobbying, 'think tanks' and and 'helpful' opinion pieces is being rolled out, which is the predictable reaction of any well resourced interest hellbent on getting their their way.
The idea that google has made "a killing" of news.google.com is just silly. There are, I'm sure, related benefits, but they don't serve ads on those pages, they simply aggregate and sort various news services.
As someone who appreciates getting different viewpoints, having the articles sorted like this was a great value.
This is a classic case of the news media shooting itself in the foot.
To me, this akin to restaurants saying that concierge desks need to pay them to refer customers to them. Just ridiculous.