Seems weird that if someone links to a news site, that the news site gets to double-dip advertising revenue, since it gets to advertise on its own site, and also get a cut of the advertising revenue of someone that linked to them. It will either mean everyone will want to classify themselves as news sites, or, people that link to them will no longer want to drive revenue via ads.
Google threatens to cut off news after California proposes paying media outlets
91–100 of 448 posts
Re: Google threatens to cut off news after California proposes paying media outlets
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
No idea why this is getting downvoted, but would love to hear what people think is wrong.
It's true, journalism is a tough business, but that doesn't justify bending the rules in their favor. Just like Open Source is though: you do all the work, companies make money off of your work without paying a dime 95% of the time, etc. Would that justify a law forcing companies to pay for the open source software they use? No. In the end, people choose to do open source knowing that they're not going to get much mo…
You can make the likely accurate claim that democracy can't function without functional, effective independent journalism. So how much is it worth requiring so that democracy is upheld?
Re: Google threatens to cut off news after California proposes paying media outlets
#93Just do it!
Re: Google threatens to cut off news after California proposes paying media outlets
#94There 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.
[deleted]
Re: Google threatens to cut off news after California proposes paying media outlets
#95why can't the news outlets just charge people when they arrive on the site? just paywall it and let people read the article for like 5 cents or something?
i know this has been tried and supossedly didn't work. but why not? I would gladly be willing to pay 5 cents to read an article I like but I sure as hell am not going to shell out 250$+ yearly subscription for it (just to read one article), like most news sites do these days.
Re: Google threatens to cut off news after California proposes paying media outlets
#96Catch 22? Let the robots scrape cause you want to be indexed, but at the same time, you don’t want to give the data scraped away for free. I mean realistically, shouldn’t the news outlets just not let those articles be scraped and be done with this debate?
What search has done to news has for decades been the canary in the coalmine for what AI is doing to art now.
Because news has weaker copyright protections than original artwork ("can't copyright facts"), Google et. al. have been free this whole time to use news as a data input and pull traffic away from the original sources.
The end result is what has happened to the news industry, and we can extrapolate what will happen to commercial art if copyright protections on artworks are discovered to be similarly weak.
Re: Google threatens to cut off news after California proposes paying media outlets
#97Catch 22? Let the robots scrape cause you want to be indexed, but at the same time, you don’t want to give the data scraped away for free. I mean realistically, shouldn’t the news outlets just not let those articles be scraped and be done with this debate?
Well it's more like, we want free traffic and also pay us for the privilege of sending it to us. That isn't happening and it isn't the way traffic works. Pay news organizations for the rights to republish the articles on Google (e.g. Reuters or AP feeds)? That's a business model. It also means the small one off news sites are dead. Once all of the third party cookie stuff dies, meaningful display ad revenue for non-m…
>"These news organizations are dead men walking already"
It means we are burdening zombies to create the real news. Who is going to do it after they are gone? Only paid for state propaganda and politico. That Doesn't sound too good.
I am all for the unified newspaper membership, where you pay for a membership that pays newspapers for their articles. The problem is how much would that cost to really fund the journalists. They would obviously still need to run ads.
But at least that might be a good start.
Re: Google threatens to cut off news after California proposes paying media outlets
#98There 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.
is it news orgs or governments? News orgs can't enact taxes without co-opting governments to pass laws. But I agree these link taxes are a fundamentally broken concept where legacy media looks to strongarm funds out of others for sharing their publicly shared news.
It’s news orgs through lobbying
Re: Google threatens to cut off news after California proposes paying media outlets
#99There 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.
[dead]
Re: Google threatens to cut off news after California proposes paying media outlets
#100Catch 22? Let the robots scrape cause you want to be indexed, but at the same time, you don’t want to give the data scraped away for free. I mean realistically, shouldn’t the news outlets just not let those articles be scraped and be done with this debate?
What search has done to news has for decades been the canary in the coalmine for what AI is doing to art now. Because news has weaker copyright protections than original artwork ("can't copyright facts"), Google et. al. have been free this whole time to use news as a data input and pull traffic away from the original sources. The end result is what has happened to the news industry, and we can extrapolate what will h…
That's the thing though. Google doesn't cough up the article content. It just shows headlines with links to the article for people to read. It's nothing like the AIs which are actually generating the entire content from questionable source rights.
Is the real story that nobody wants to admit the majority of people don't read past the headline? Because that's a pretty stark reflection on how journalism as a field should maybe not exist then. Hah.