Google threatens to cut off news after California proposes paying media outlets • Hacker News Board

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

#361

Post by lupire » Sat, Apr 13, 2024, 11:43 AM UTC

freejazz wrote: post #309

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.

That's an extremely narrow view. Federal copyright law is Federal jurisdiction. States have the power to make their own non-conflicting copyright laws.

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

#362

Post by lupire » Sat, Apr 13, 2024, 11:46 AM UTC

devjab wrote: post #329

aetherson wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thin…

It's a collective action problem. To get good news you need a pay a lot, or have a lot of people pay.

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

#363

Post by lupire » Sat, Apr 13, 2024, 11:51 AM UTC

bawolff wrote: post #214

alistairSH wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$40/year for the WaPo and you can pay with PayPal or Apple. You don’t give them any more money than any other online vendor.

That price point seems high. For example, Netflix is $84/year. Netflix content seems a lot more valuable then simply twice what WaPo provides.

It is high because most people don't want to pay for a share of news.

They'd rather watch TV, and not even the best TV. If you want the best, you need to pay for Max and Disney and Apple and Amazon and the rest.

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

#364

Post by notjulianjaynes » Sat, Apr 13, 2024, 11:53 AM UTC

notatoad wrote: post #178

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 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…

>yes. and specifically, make sure the fund is actually funding journalism

The problem with this is the problem with every scheme I have seen so far alongb these lines.It gives the government more control over what is and isn't "journalism." Either you give money to spam farms and watch dogs equally, or you wind up with cronyism.

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

#365

Post by idle_zealot » Sat, Apr 13, 2024, 11:55 AM UTC

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…

> the problem they are trying to solve is actually a "social good" outcome, and therefore directly tax the platforms and then redistribute the revenue to a fund created by government for news journalism themselves

This generalizes to copyright and patent IP in general; we want to encourage the creation of valuable art, inventions, and other cultural artifacts, but instead of rewarding their production in a more direct manner we instead imposed a huge restriction on the behavior of all people when interacting with media or technology in order to carve out a reward for the creator. And now this law once again restricts the freedom of others to use or share information in order to carve out a reward by way of exception to those restrictions. Creating rewards by removing freedoms from the majority of people is extremely backwards.

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

#366

Post by lupire » Sat, Apr 13, 2024, 11:56 AM UTC

bevekspldnw wrote: post #125

cherioo wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genuine question, why don’t publishers stop using doubleclick and build their own?

Google has thoroughly rigged the space, including manipulating bid stream data to underpay publishers while overcharging the advertiser. It’s called Project Bernake which is public now. I have it on reliable sources there is a lot more beyond that. The search antitrust suit was garbage, but the coming trials in the ad auction suit is going to hurt a lot more. They total lost their way, it’s actually insane when you’l…

This reads like a young adult discovering the world has become corrupt and wondering why it changed so much since their childhood when everyone's good.

It's not the world/Google that changed.

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

#367

Post by jamincan » Sat, Apr 13, 2024, 11:57 AM UTC

valleyer wrote: post #324

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…

> 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…

I too have a very different New York Times:

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

#368

Post by vinay427 » Sat, Apr 13, 2024, 11:57 AM UTC

Kwpolska wrote: post #337

matrix87 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’m not sure this addresses the parent comment specifically mentioning the first amendment. I don’t think anyone was saying that the US is unique in having free speech laws or that those laws are a free-for-all.

However, it seems to at least be a common belief that US free speech laws are often interpreted more broadly than free speech laws in several other countries. Moreover, compelled speech (as noted by the commenter) seems not unrelated here. For instance, see the somewhat recent Colorado web designer case [1].

[1] https://www.cpr.org/2023/06/30/supreme-court-303-creative-ca...

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

#369

Post by lupire » Sat, Apr 13, 2024, 11:58 AM UTC

olyjohn wrote: post #157

unclebucknasty wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> free teat to latch on to isn't the answer It's the news sites' content that Google is scraping and monetizing. How is it not Google that's latched on to a "free teat"? Serious question. What am I missing? EDIT: Thanks for the downvotes everyone. I need 'em from time-to-time to ensure I've not succumbed to The Matrix. Of course, you're all wrong. But, keep 'em coming!

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.

Do you feel the same way about keeping the legal system out of it when someone defrauds or steals from you?

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

#370

Post by lupire » Sat, Apr 13, 2024, 12:03 PM UTC

AlbertCory wrote: post #207

dweymouth wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're a news site and you want Google to have a link like "News on Inflation", then just give your article the title "Unpacking the latest inflation data" and save the actual info for the article itself. A lot of internet publishers have already figured this out and it's why you see titles like "These 3 states have the most affordable homes" that just entice you to click on the link.

the problem is, they also want the headline to entice people to buy the paper. Contradictory desires.

It's the exact same desire - to get people to request the whole article.