Live data from Hacker News

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

theverge.com

321–330 of 448 posts

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

#321
post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I have sympathy for news publishers i have very little sympathy for news publishers. I have sympathy for the journalists actually doing journalism, but news publishers have spent the last couple decades making their websites absolutely unusable, so that unless somebody links to an article externally there's almost no point in going to their site directly. And even after you've followed that link it's almost impossib…

> 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…

Maybe if Google ignored news sites, things would improve.

Look at the Washington Post site. One good article above the fold, a right column of clickbait, and more clickbait when you scroll. Then crap "lifestyle" articles. Pathetic.

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

#322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What are you even talking about? That's not how SEO works in the slightest....?

Lol am I still reading HN or is this Reddit?

You can see the Core Web Vitals. What modern day news organizations are doing is nowhere close to that.

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

#323
post #248

Good. Hopefully other states follow. The headline might as well be, “After Decades of Freebooting Their Content, Google Threatens to Kill News Rather Than Pay Journalists for Their Work” Google is now the modern, lazy business equivalent of a bum asking for free stuff in exchange for “exposure”

If they genuinely had a problem with it, they can block google via robots.txt

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

#324
post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I have sympathy for news publishers i have very little sympathy for news publishers. I have sympathy for the journalists actually doing journalism, but news publishers have spent the last couple decades making their websites absolutely unusable, so that unless somebody links to an article externally there's almost no point in going to their site directly. And even after you've followed that link it's almost impossib…

> 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…

> NYTs site is stellar. It’s fast and gorgeous and the articles are well-written and not full of clickbait and SEO spam

You may be operating on a model of the New York Times from ten or more years ago. I know I often find myself resorting to this model, at least until I remind myself that it no longer reflects reality.

Here are some of the headlines on the New York Times front page right now:

The Troubling Trend in Teenage Sex

Ocasio-Cortez Never Steered Money to a Key Arm of Her Party. Until Now.

New Zealanders Are Crazy for This Fruit. It’s Not the Kiwi.

Salt Is Hiding Everywhere. Can You Spot It?

What’s the Best Way to Get Rid of a Hangnail?

Where to Buy Plants Online

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

#325
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…

> 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.

Surely you're speaking about your own country of residence here?

In Estonia for example (which tangentially has one of the highest press freedom rankings in the world), ERR ("Estonian Public Broadcasting") is widely considered to be one of the most trustworthy news platforms in the country. The reason for this is simple: there is no incentive to pump out journalistic sludge for clicks, or to prey on the public's collective anxieties for larger quarterly profits.

I suppose you could argue that it indirectly supports the "war machine" in Ukraine, but I don't really consider it unethical to fund wars of self-defense, especially given the national security implications at home.

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

#326
post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I have sympathy for news publishers i have very little sympathy for news publishers. I have sympathy for the journalists actually doing journalism, but news publishers have spent the last couple decades making their websites absolutely unusable, so that unless somebody links to an article externally there's almost no point in going to their site directly. And even after you've followed that link it's almost impossib…

> 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…

A matter of opinion. Sure, maybe NY Times ain’t NY Post yet, but it doesn’t take that long for a frog to come to full boil, even on slow simmer.

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

#327
post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If AMP had stuck around, we wouldn't have the quagmire of terrible UX on news sites today. The hostility towards AMP was wholly undeserved.

It was absolutely, 100% deserved.

It was definitely not. AMP was mostly a standard for how you should build performant websites. Then you could opt into what was effectively google caching and serving your AMP-enabled webpages for you. This is good actually.

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

#328
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…

> NYTs site is stellar. It’s fast and gorgeous and the articles are well-written and not full of clickbait and SEO spam You may be operating on a model of the New York Times from ten or more years ago. I know I often find myself resorting to this model, at least until I remind myself that it no longer reflects reality. Here are some of the headlines on the New York Times front page right now : The Troubling Trend in…

Unfortunately the more news-worthy stories also suffer from a severe lack of viewpoint diversity.

Audiences are already very familiar with the ideological narratives emanating from the NYT newsroom. It’s fine as flavour, but the NYT are so heavy handed with it that often the substance of the articles are distorted to fit the narrative.

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

#329
post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the problem with news? Why aren't people willing to pay for it?

Because people don't value it. I mean, seriously, that's the reason. Back when newspapers were healthy, basically there was all this stuff that was bundled with the actual news that was of more immediate utility to people: classifieds, movie reviews, comics, coupons. And there was less competition for people's leisure time. News is now in a very competitive leisure time landscape and is debundled from stuff that's of…

I’m not sure I agree that news is more competitive now within its own business? (I’m not sure what the Danish branche is in English), but rather that there are just so many things competing for people’s attention in general. With SoMe being actively designed to be addictive through various algorithms I think it’s only natural that people spend more of their time on Instagram, TikTok, Reddit or even HackerNews. I think that is time that a lot of people would’ve otherwise spend on news.

Add to this the introduction of terrible news media. The spam and click bait media, where you get the articles for free but the articles you get are basically worse than what you’d find anywhere else because they are most there to generate revenue from advertising. Stuff that gives “traditional” news media a very bad image. Further add the media platforms which are now straight up political propaganda, which some always where, but now they are owned by very few people and push very divisive agendas which is a little different from the past where they were more inline with each other and the “general” aristocracy rather than a few billionaires/oligarchs and you gain the general media perception even more. Both are rightfully so.

In a sense you get what you pay for though. If you’re not paying you’re not getting quality news. You can see this in Danish news very clearly, where only a handful of news papers still do actual critical journalism and the rest mainly do opinions or click-bait articles on current events that you might as well read on Facebook. Not because Facebook does anything particularly in that department but because the contractors who sell stories and pictures to the “free” news media typically also post their content elsewhere for increased revenue on their part.

As far as going to the “biggest” most “cultural” news media I totally agree with you. In my country people read Weekend Avisen, and then add one of the more politically inclined subscription papers based on their views. But basically it boils down to thee papers, one that is slightly more conservative (which in Scandinavian/American optics would make it almost socialist), one that is left-leaning (again, very socialist in American optics) and one that is based on Christianity (but extremely moderate, as in pro abortion and gay marriage).

Aside from that there are two “localised” papers which either focus heavily on Copenhagen or the part of our country which is called Jylland.

Almost none of these papers would be alive without government subsidies. Because the only two papers which actually makes money are Weekendavisen (our NYT) and the Christian paper which doesn’t actually make money but is subsidised by various Christian groups.

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

#330
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for news outlets methods (at least in my country) but each time I read "$megacorp threatens to cut $service" it infuriates me.

Do it, close your service and ftsu, I don’t care if you can’t agree with your partners, that just means your product is not viable. It makes those companies looks like they are so important that the world can’t work without them.

Chances are no other company than Google could make a Google news competitor because they would have serious issues with media companies, only Google can do this because they feel like they are invincible.

Sorry for the rant I’m really fed up with GAFAMs acting like they are essential public services.

Post reply on HN