Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Over 200 newspapers now involved in lawsuits vs. Google, Facebook

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 193 posts

Re: Over 200 newspapers now involved in lawsuits vs. Google, Facebook

#81

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

bduerst wrote: post #79
wodenokoto wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this even allowed by google? It’s a bait and switch similar to serving visitors and search engines different content.

Many news websites won't paywall the first article from a Google Search (WSJ is one though). I'd be willing to bet in these instances you're using a traffic blocker or privacy extension that's clearing HTTP referer or some other means by which the website detects you're from Google instead of being direct (paywall) traffic.

Google has an official policy against this sort of behavior.

Re: Over 200 newspapers now involved in lawsuits vs. Google, Facebook

#82

Post by zajio1am »

joegahona wrote: post #45
wodenokoto wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this even allowed by google? It’s a bait and switch similar to serving visitors and search engines different content.

How is it a bait and switch? If the content is relevant, it's relevant. If you clicked through to something that said it was about NBA basketball and it was instead about knitting, _that_ would be a bait and switch.

First, if i get paywall page instead of the article then it is not relevant, because it is about paying and not about the original query.

Second, it does not make sense - if i use a public search engine, i expect publicly available information. If i have subscription to specific newspaper i would use search dialog in that newspaper. If a public search engine returns me paywall for a specific newspaper, it is minimal chance that it is the same newspaper i am already subscribed to.

Re: Over 200 newspapers now involved in lawsuits vs. Google, Facebook

#83

Post by _aavaa_ »

colinmhayes wrote: post #54
cblconfederate wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sad thing is that newspapers allow that themselves. They can block out google and FB but they don't want to. It's a similar tragic fate to that of a drug addict. However if content-makers want to overcome this they need to cut off big tech access to their content, at least temporarily. The frontpage of HN is mostly news articles and some blogs. They get a lot of exposure, a lot of readership. Yet somehow google +…

Facebook and Google control demand. If a newspaper doesn't let them post their content the aggregators will just grab an article that is nominally the same from a different publisher that does provide them access.

If their content is so interchangeable, why should they all stay in business?

Re: Over 200 newspapers now involved in lawsuits vs. Google, Facebook

#85

Post by freediver »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #71
freediver wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just defined a news company.

Yet that thing is not a publicly traded multi-billion dollar media corporation.

Hm I think we have a misunderstanding. Who said that a news company has to be publicly traded multi-billion dollar media corporation? My local newspaper is a news company. It can not effectively be replaced by someone on substack, let alone a news company with aspirations of more than local news coverage. Substack is OK for opinion, not news. That was my whole argument.

Re: Over 200 newspapers now involved in lawsuits vs. Google, Facebook

#86

Post by bduerst »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #81
bduerst wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many news websites won't paywall the first article from a Google Search (WSJ is one though). I'd be willing to bet in these instances you're using a traffic blocker or privacy extension that's clearing HTTP referer or some other means by which the website detects you're from Google instead of being direct (paywall) traffic.

Google has an official policy against this sort of behavior.

Which behavior? First Click Free was ditched years ago, but websites will still allow x number of free articles. Some don't, and still get indexed.

Re: Over 200 newspapers now involved in lawsuits vs. Google, Facebook

#87

Post by reaperducer »

athenot wrote: post #61
giarc wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hasn't that always been the case? Even before the internet, I remember seeing copies of the NYT or WSJ on newsstands everywhere. I believe you could subscribe and it would get delivered to your door.

I receive the NYT on my doorstep on weekends and my copies say "Printed in Georgia". The content does not vary, though.

It does vary, depending on your region. My observation is that not all regions get extra content.

NYT papers in New Jersey used to have different content. I'm not sure if that's still the case.

West coast editions printed in Los Angeles used to have an entire extra section. The last time I checked, that section is no longer there, but there are other subtle changes. Like the weather forecast in the upper right corner of the front page.

Re: Over 200 newspapers now involved in lawsuits vs. Google, Facebook

#88

Post by alex_young »

gerash wrote: post #47

The most important factor is that on the internet local news media lose their geographical monopoly. So everyone can subscribe to NYT or WSJ no matter where they live. This effectively creates a winner takes all situation like in many other industries which get closer to a free market. Add to that the fact that classified ads have been taken over by likes of ebay, LinkedIn, craigslist, etc. Basically the business mod…

> ...local news media lose their geographical monopoly

I realize what you're saying, but really, local news will always have a geographical monopoly.

Can the NYTimes or WSJ even think about covering local issues? How will investigative reporting function for say a local office holder or a local environmental problem?

To my knowledge the real problem is that the traditional business model supporting reporting has dried up. Running classified ads or selling marketing inserts is an obsolete practice. This doesn't really change the need for local reporting though.

Re: Over 200 newspapers now involved in lawsuits vs. Google, Facebook

#89

Post by reaperducer »

gerash wrote: post #47

The most important factor is that on the internet local news media lose their geographical monopoly. So everyone can subscribe to NYT or WSJ no matter where they live. This effectively creates a winner takes all situation like in many other industries which get closer to a free market. Add to that the fact that classified ads have been taken over by likes of ebay, LinkedIn, craigslist, etc. Basically the business mod…

The most important factor is that on the internet local news media lose their geographical monopoly.

The other side of that coin, however, is that everybody knows the national news, but the vast majority of people know nothing about what's happening in their own backyard.

I'd estimate that at least 80% of Americans don't even know what days their city council meets.

Re: Over 200 newspapers now involved in lawsuits vs. Google, Facebook

#90

Post by bduerst »

ipaddr wrote: post #75
bduerst wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also Yellow Press , which was the big fake news of the late 1800/early 1900s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism For a while during the last half of the 20th century, this type of sensationalism was staved off though, as the FCC had determined anyone with a news broadcast license had the public responsibility to present different sides to controversial issues. And for a while, it worked pretty well. This…

Thank you for your research and insight. I was trying to figure out why both sides stopped being presented. In the 90s, 2000s both sides were still presented until Omaba, got really bad under Trump. Now a cnn panel of 6 people all have to agree with each other or they won't be back next week.

Yeah despite being abolished in 1987, the lack of fairness doctrine took about a decade or two for the market to adjust (as conglomerates like Sinclair grew). We're only recently getting back to early 20th century sensationalism levels it seems.
Post reply on HN