341–350 of 448 posts
“The testing process involves removing links to California news websites, potentially covered by CJPA, to measure the impact of the legislation on our product experience.”
If that’s not a veiled threat, I don’t know what is. I read that as, “The testing will demonstrate how screwed your media outlets will be when we delink them.”
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
Johnson, With His Job Under Threat, Gets a Lifeline From Trump
Biden Wipes Out Another $7.4 Billion in Student Loan Debt
5 People Killed in Stabbing at Busy Mall in Sydney, Australia
Campaign Puts Trump and the Spy Agencies on Collision Course
Republican Women Are Divided on Abortion as Bans Spread
Ocasio-Cortez Never Steered Money to a Key Arm of Her Party. Until Now.
You also list one of these (the last), but the others seem fairly standard things that a newspaper would report, and not clickbait rubbish at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is the problem with news? Why aren't people willing to pay for it?
I'm not willing to pay for someone else's slanted takes. There are websites that provide that for free (e.g. Reddit).
I'd be in favour of charging google, MS etc. enough for news that they stop doing this. If I want to read the news, I can open a tab myself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 lo…
Or, maybe I just have a different opinion.
>news organization can just change their robots.txt to block google from indexing their site
You don't seem to have thought beyond this superficial robots.txt "solution". Yes, we all know that option is available. But, as I've self-righteously offered for consideration, Google is one of a few sites that essentially monopolizes traffic generation, so they've positioned themselves to make it untenable for sites to block Google's crawling (and free monetization) of their content.
Cory Doctorow has (another) recent Twitter thread on how tech monopolies have grown virtually unchecked and now abuse the ecosystems in which they operate, increasingly clawing back more value for themselves at the expense of others. IMO this fits the pattern. Look it up. You might find it interesting. Or not.
>They don't do that because that would instantly kill all their search traffic...and most likely kill their business.
And there you've just stated exactly the problem I'm referencing, with apparently zero awareness of how someone could find it problematic. I mean, you just said "they could solve the problem by blocking Google via robots.txt, but that would kill their business".
So, not exactly a solution then, right?
It's baffling that you can say this but still angrily scream that "It's robots.txt! Case closed!"
>It's been explained to you several times. Instead you're more interested in acting self-righteous (it's honestly pretty cringeworthy).
You clearly don't hear yourself. Calm down.
EDIT: out of curiosity, I just took a quick look at your recent comments to others. One of the first to pop up was this:
>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?
Yeah, no self-righteous cringe there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1) Most people don't want to pay for news. Even $1/year is too high. So much of news today is not even worthy of my attention, let alone my money.
What about news specific to your locale?