> Just because another customer (google) was given access, does that mean everyone should have it?
They didn't provide access to just another customer or Google -- they send the article text to EVERYONE in the HTML response. They are thus making that text publicly available. If they want to make content only available to certain individuals, that is literally what paywalls and authentication/authorization are for.
Instead, they want Google to index the site AS IF the content is publicly available but then use javascript to restrict that content from users client-side on a case by case basis. The golden rule of authorization is never rely on client-side authorization as by then you've already willingly given the data/information to the client.
And the client has no obligation to not look at that information/data. They didn't do anything nefarious to get it -- you literally gave it to them.
> Would you rather publishers give google private direct feeds to index?
Absolutely I would. If we could enhance the indexing and search engine system so that (a) I could tell google which services I subscribe to and (b) google knows which articles are behind paywalls, then we could have a world in which we could intentionally filter To or Away from paywall content.
I know that I would often filter TO paywall content, especially if:
- I could also tell google to avoid content farm content via a filter or content full of ads (not in their interests currently but it might become so as more of us get frustrated with shittier and shittier search results)
- If google could surface the price to access each article on the search results (wherein articles on sites I already pay/subscribe to would be free and articles on sites with individual pay per access would be transparent and upfront).