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

Google threatens to cut off news after California proposes paying media outlets

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 448 posts

Re: Google threatens to cut off news after California proposes paying media outlets

#301

Post by roenxi »

wrsh07 wrote: post #292
psychlops wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and therefore directly tax the platforms and then redistribute the revenue to a fund created by government for news journalism themselves Having any government fund news journalism is a bad idea. In any event, you can be certain the revenue will be redistributed to fund the war machine in another country.

The BBC...?

The standout institution of British propaganda and intelligence gathering?

I can see why the British might be very happy with them and they're often intelligent and classy about the whole thing. But they aren't a counterexample of public money being used to grease wheels in the war machine.

Re: Google threatens to cut off news after California proposes paying media outlets

#302

Post by grecy »

AnotherGoodName wrote: post #108
tomComb wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dunno about Australia but Google ‘won’ in Canada, where the government agreed to accept what Google had originally offered, and make it up to their corporate media buddies in the following budget.

In Australia there were concessions where the Australian gov of the time thought that having Google negotiate an agreement only with the major outlets (Rupert Murdoch) was acceptable so they don't pay every paper, just the ones that agree with the Liberal party (a right wing party) viewpoints. The liberal party is now out of power but the labor party has no courage to stand up to Murdoch to repeal this. It was all ve…

It still boggles my mind the Government of Australia passed laws to collect money from tech giants to give 100% of it specifically to Rupert Murdoch.

Impressive it was done, and absolutely insane.

Re: Google threatens to cut off news after California proposes paying media outlets

#304

Post by DerekL »

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS wrote: post #295
g8oz wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you call that NPR story proof of a bias worse than what happens at other institutions? Or because it's biased in the direction that doesn't align with your views?

I think the biggest complaint about NPR having a bias - any bias - is that it's publicly funded.

Mostly, NPR isn't publicly funded. It gets about 1% of its funding from the federal government. Public radio stations that carry NPR shows get more, but it's only about 17% from federal, state, and local governments. Some of them are also funded by universities, some of which are public.

Re: Google threatens to cut off news after California proposes paying media outlets

#305

Post by paulcole »

dylan604 wrote: post #171
reissbaker wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Journalism quality has tanked, and social media acts as some degree of (free+fast) competition, furthering the death spiral.

To expand, journalists used to actually investigate which took time which means it took money so that the story released had lots of corroborating sources, scrutinized by editors, and then released as a complete story. That might have meant things like actually interviewing people, requesting documents from places, or visiting the places in question. Today, it is just a bunch of people collecting tweets of random peo…

> To expand, journalists used to actually investigate which took time which means it took money so that the story released had lots of corroborating sources, scrutinized by editors, and then released as a complete story. That might have meant things like actually interviewing people, requesting documents from places, or visiting the places in question.

This was only desired and seen as useful and interesting when people had nothing else to do.

Re: Google threatens to cut off news after California proposes paying media outlets

#306

Post by pompino »

kemayo wrote: post #23
pompino wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no difference between content/link farms and what Google is doing - its copy/pasting someone else's words on a website and surrounding them with ads. _Neither_ are deserving of fair-use protections.

I don't think we're going to agree on this one.

Sure, I can respect that.

Re: Google threatens to cut off news after California proposes paying media outlets

#308

Post by pompino »

Solvency wrote: post #267
cush wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> news publishers have spent the last couple decades making their websites absolutely unusable To appease Google… Conversely, NYTs site is stellar. It’s fast and gorgeous and the articles are well-written and not full of clickbait and SEO spam. The games have no ads and there’s nothing pushing you to read more. No feed. No algorithm. NYT got the hell away from SEO and focus on the customers, who decide with their wal…

uh what? the average news site is hacked together by a motley crew of non-programmer marketing interns who apply every possible bloated inefficient awful ad/tracking/targeting/react/javascript spawn of satan into their site as possible, all written by the worst programmers in the world none of this is to "appease google". it's malicious incompetence, malaise, and cynical stupidity.

>who apply every possible bloated inefficient awful ad/tracking/targeting/react/javascript spawn of satan into their site as possible, all written by the worst programmers in the world

They do this because Google wants them to, so that their ranking goes up.

Re: Google threatens to cut off news after California proposes paying media outlets

#309

Post by freejazz »

zmmmmm wrote: post #170

I have sympathy for news publishers but I worry a lot about the principle of asserting that linking to something is an act that the link target has proprietary rights to over. At some level, it is almost a free speech issue. If I can't refer to what you are saying, without owing you something, you have power over not just my speech, but a power to limit how your work is subjected to criticism and debate. It's effecti…

Copyright is the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, this law has nothing to do with copyright law.
Post reply on HN