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

441–448 of 448 posts

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

#441

Post by valleyer »

bradrn wrote: post #345
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…

The New York Times is not a news site I regularly read, but I see quite a different set of headlines highlighted on the front page: 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…

I agree that they write a lot of normal headlines, like most of the ones you list.

I take issue with the last one (and others like it) because of its intentional coyness in an attempt to get you to click through. I've been seeing this more and more from them lately, and the kindest thing I can say about it is that it does not befit a newspaper like theirs.

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

#442

Post by account42 »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #217
kemayo wrote: post #6

I agree with Google on this one. Charging a fee just for linking to something is a bad idea. It does get fuzzier if you're also summarizing, and there's clearly some sort of spectrum from "just the URL" to "AI synopsis of the entire article". But at the level we see on Google News (headline + maybe a picture), I don't feel there's any good justification for charging.

> It does get fuzzier if you're also summarizing Does it? If I summarize a book, do I need to pay a fee? News (much like recipes) is not directly covered by copyright (facts cannot be copyrighted). Only the expression (exact wording) is (which is one reason why recipes are usually accompanied by a personal story).

> which is one reason why recipes are usually accompanied by a personal story

I see this claimed often but it doesn't make any sense - anyone can still copy the recipe without the story and then the copy would even provide more value than the original.

Seems to me padding recipes with fluff is mostly about SEO and maximizing ad impressions.

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

#443

Post by account42 »

cush wrote: post #249
kemayo wrote: post #6

I agree with Google on this one. Charging a fee just for linking to something is a bad idea. It does get fuzzier if you're also summarizing, and there's clearly some sort of spectrum from "just the URL" to "AI synopsis of the entire article". But at the level we see on Google News (headline + maybe a picture), I don't feel there's any good justification for charging.

Google has single-handely ruined the internet, and absolutely warped our expectations around what the economics of content creation looks like online. Google earns money from that content. Why wouldn’t the content creators be entitled to a cut?

Oh please, most content online was shared freely long before google came along.

On the contrary, it's the for-profit content creators and to a much bigger extend the monetizing platforms that have latched on to the open web and are now trying to redefine it. Meanwhile, most content is still created by users like you and me who are not going to get any of the ad profits these platforms are crying about.

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

#444

Post by account42 »

teeray wrote: post #313
candiddevmike wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RE: 4, NPR seems to do OK, same with the BBC. You're choosing to implement all of these terrible things by continuing your employment, so you "not wanting them" is kind of moot. Find a different job if you genuinely don't agree with what you're building. I'm a firm believer that companies would stop doing this kind of crap if we, collectively as tech workers (even better as a union!), stopped implementing it .

If it’s lucrative enough for the company, they will find an apathetic contractor who will put $LOVECRAFTIAN_HORROR_JS on the site, cash their check, and move on to the next thing.

So if a company hands you a gun and tells you to shoot someone you would pull the trigger because even if you refuse someone else would do it? Nothing but excuses for profiting off morally bankrupt behavior.

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

#445

Post by asow92 »

account42 wrote: post #444
teeray wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it’s lucrative enough for the company, they will find an apathetic contractor who will put $LOVECRAFTIAN_HORROR_JS on the site, cash their check, and move on to the next thing.

So if a company hands you a gun and tells you to shoot someone you would pull the trigger because even if you refuse someone else would do it? Nothing but excuses for profiting off morally bankrupt behavior.

We're targeting ads here, not heads.

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

#446

Post by cush »

account42 wrote: post #443
cush wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has single-handely ruined the internet, and absolutely warped our expectations around what the economics of content creation looks like online. Google earns money from that content. Why wouldn’t the content creators be entitled to a cut?

Oh please, most content online was shared freely long before google came along. On the contrary, it's the for-profit content creators and to a much bigger extend the monetizing platforms that have latched on to the open web and are now trying to redefine it. Meanwhile, most content is still created by users like you and me who are not going to get any of the ad profits these platforms are crying about.

Oh please, what? There’s nothing wrong or malicious or un-open with running a business by selling content online. You’re deeply confusing open and free. A marketplace built on open standards is still open.

Google has been at the helm of the web for at least 15 years. “Before Google came along” was before the consolidation of the internet. Google consolidated the internet behind Search, their browser, SEO, even Amp pages (remember that dumpster fire? So open, right?), as they slowly tolled more and more of the internet, while keeping traffic flowing to their advertisers.

Content creators are entitled to a cut of the profits that Google makes from selling ads while presenting their content. I hope this law passes and every other state follows suit.

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

#447

Post by cush »

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…

Nobody would be complaining if google was just linking…

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

#448

Post by mbrumlow »

asow92 wrote: post #405
mbrumlow wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I checked if you went in front of investors and said “hey, I want to make a business where nobody wants to pay, not even a dollar a year” you would be laughed out of the room. So. I think that is your problem. Maybe make a business where people are wanting to pay for the content? Think about how much more money you would make!!!

I agree with you completely, and there are voices within the organization advocating for that as well. Big legacy mainstream media companies move at a glacial pace and making that kind of change takes a lot of time and buy-in throughout the whole org chart. And, somewhat counterintuitively, I think it's also important to note that sometimes what the journalists want to cover and content that people want and are willi…

What is weird is people use to pay for news papers and magazines. Yes there were some ads, but people still had a leg in the game by way of paying, it kept it balanced.

The internet grew up so fast and easy payment methods lagged, and still so mostly.

I figure out for my self if I can use Apple Pay, then I buy stuff, but if I need to do more than double tap on the power button I am out.

Post reply on HN