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

331–340 of 448 posts

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

#331

Post by jjackson5324 »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #185
olyjohn wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's stop trying to pick a side here... Maybe it's more of a symbiotic relationship. Google gets a useful news page, the news media get links to their articles. I honestly could care less about either of them. I think they should just fight it out on their own and keep our legal system and tax payers time and money out of it.

> Let's stop trying to pick a side here... Maybe it's more of a symbiotic relationship. There's definitely some symbiosis here, but it's ultimately Google that's dependent on the news (and other) sites' content, which it gets for free. That is, the news sites (and other content providers) could exist without Google. But, Google could not exist without their content. At least that's my observation. So, I wasn't pickin…

> At least that's my observation

30 seconds of serious thought would tell you that your observation is wrong.

Again, a news organization can just change their robots.txt to block google from indexing their site.

They don't do that because that would instantly kill all their search traffic... and most likely kill their business.

If CNN changed their robots.txt to stop being indexed by Google, Google would literally lose 0 users.

> I wasn't picking a side as much as earnestly asking how OP concluded that its the news sites wanting something free from Google versus the other way around.

It's been explained to you several times. Instead you're more interested in acting self-righteous (it's honestly pretty cringeworthy).

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

#333

Post by visarga »

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…

I see a parallel between the news linking case and AI training on copyrighted content (without regurgitating it back later). If AI can't use ideas from copyrighted works, then nobody can. Because anyone could be secretly using AI we have to apply the same strict standards of attribution to all human works. And that would lead to a chilling effect, any creative act takes the risk of incidental infringement.

Should copyright owners control the external discourse about their work, or own the ideas in their works? Should we upgrade AI from protected expression to protected ideas?

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

#334

Post by sethammons »

shepherdjerred wrote: post #204
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…

Maybe this isn't quite the same thing, but I had been threatened with legal action in the past for linking to a site's public assets: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26550846

How did that story play out?

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

#335

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

jjackson5324 wrote: post #322
pompino wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

It's the advertising arm of Google rather than the search part that incrntivises this stuff.

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

#336

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #297
asow92 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a developer who works for one of these news publishers you have little sympathy for, what I can tell you is that: 1) Most people don't want to pay for news. Even $1/year is too high. 2) Ad CPMs are low—especially on iOS thanks to Apple's ATT—so we need more ads to make the same amount of revenue. 3) "SEO clickbait" (especially Taboola) helps keep the lights on. Click at your own peril. 4) If governments pay news o…

I'll pay $50 a year, but I better be able to cancel with a single click and no criminal shenanigans with fraudulent charges thereafter.

I pay 60 a month for the FT and I'm pretty sure that money isn't the full cost.

Good journalism is really expensive and the internet had destroyed their business model.

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

#337

Post by Kwpolska »

matrix87 wrote: post #315
paxys wrote: post #34

People were predicting this would happen when Google caved and started paying "link tax" to Australia and Canada and other jurisdictions with similar laws. Now – to no surprise – every government (really every media conglomerate lobbying arm) around the world wants the free money and so more such laws are popping up.

It may be different in the USA though because of the first amendment? If google decides to delist, forcing them to list news sites would constitute compelled speech, would it not?

The US is not unique in having free speech laws. And those laws aren't a complete free for all.

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

#338

Post by spondylosaurus »

scarab92 wrote: post #328
valleyer wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Which "ideological narratives"? This is such a vague description that you could interpret it to mean anything, especially since the NYT has been getting blasted from all directions lately. Conservatives think it's left-leaning drivel, and progressives think it capitulates too much to viewpoints on the right.

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

#339

Post by visarga »

cush wrote: post #252
notatoad wrote: post #178

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…

Since they sued OpenAI for copyright infringement I actively avoid them. I don't find them reasonable anymore.

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

#340

Post by visarga »

pompino wrote: post #308
Solvency wrote: post #267

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.

I opened the Google app on my phone to read the news feed, 9 out of 10 articles were unreadable under the cookie popups, floating videos I didn't even click to start playing, and other helpful offers getting in the way. It's shit, utter shit. Why don't they have "reading mode" to show only the text, I bet they are afraid of getting sued if they supported clean text like the HN app I have installed. On the laptop I always use ad blockers and don't see the whole scale of the disaster.
Post reply on HN