11–20 of 448 posts
Google penalizes link-farms, and websites who copy content from others, but adopts a holier-than-thou attitude for itself. Not very surprising. There is no inherent "legitimacy" when Google (as the worlds largest spyware vendor) does it.
I'm actually ok with this given that google is the source of the internet's dependency on advertisements as its sole method of reliable income for non-subscribers. They are more than welcome to reintroduce less destructive methods of transacting over content.
I remember the internet before Google. There were lots of ads. It was great watching animated GIF ads load at 56 Kbps. There were pop-up adds and crazy obnoxious flashing ads and NSFW ads. Google didn't create all of that: the ad-sphere was alive and kicking long before anyone heard of Google.
Google penalizes link-farms, and websites who copy content from others, but adopts a holier-than-thou attitude for itself. Not very surprising. There is no inherent "legitimacy" when Google (as the worlds largest spyware vendor) does it.
That seems unrelated to the issue? I don't think those link-farms should have to pay to link to things either...
But publishers’ collective frustration with Google is quite high. Given the implications that “it would be a shame if something happened to your nice journalism website” coupled with the appeal against the big bad hedge funds and ghost papers, it’s sort of a clever position but I’m not sure it will work.
There is no love lost between me and Google, but then I have zero regard for "news" organizations that are attempting to strong-arm funds from Google for their failing business model.
A tax on linking is absurd and would be deeply harmful.
The whole thing smells like wealth distribution ("hmm, the journalism industry is struggling, but the tech industry is booming. The tech industry interacts with the journalism industry, maybe we can help the journalism industry by mandating a new wealth gradient flowing from one to support the other?")
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems unrelated to the issue? I don't think those link-farms should have to pay to link to things either...
Yes, but those link-farms get de-ranked by Google (which is a good thing IMO). Google is pretending that their particular case of linking is legitimate and deserves fair-use protection.
News is a strange product, and one that I think a lot of people in tech get wrong. The atomic unit of journalism is not an article....it's the reporting. Even deciding to write an article is an act based on the analysis of the reporting.
Further, a good headline often tells the story itself -- and that is implicitly included when we talk about links. How often have you read a headline, and then not clicked on the link? Probably a bunch. But you still know OJ died, or the bridge in Baltimore collapsed, etc, etc. That level of reporting, the confirmation that it happened, all that stuff -- all was expensive, all required labor and other resources.
So -- from the consumer perspective, what happens? You get clickbait. The publishers have to recoup the expenses somehow, and they need you to click through to show you ads, or a paywall. "This item in your cabinet could kill you!" Or, they cover the site with ads, hoping to get as much out of the few clicks they get.
I am not saying this in support of the CJPA, nor in support of Google. Just saying this is an existential crisis that came from the simple act of aggregation.
(Disclaimer/shameless plug: I'm a former journalist building https://www.forth.news, a social-media like news feed for reading news. While we are not there yet, our goal is to be able to revshare with the reporters/newsrooms who write the stories to be able to monetize those headlines.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but those link-farms get de-ranked by Google (which is a good thing IMO). Google is pretending that their particular case of linking is legitimate and deserves fair-use protection.
I don't think Google is pretending. Its linking is legitimate. Also, it feels strange to draw an equivalence between Google downranking a spam website and the government charging to link to things.
_Neither_ are deserving of fair-use protections.