Google is the only search engine that works on Reddit now, thanks to AI deal

Post by account42 » Thu, Jul 25, 2024, 11:54 AM UTC

GuB-42 wrote: post #267

not_wyoming wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is nothing preventing search companies paying the same $60 Million to license content. Yes, actually, there is - having $60m to throw around. "Barriers to entry often cause or aid the existence of monopolies and oligopolies" [0]. Monopolies and oligopolies are definitionally the opposite of free market forces. This is quite literally Econ 101. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry

Microsoft can throw around $60M, and Bing is used by most of the "alternative" search engines. It doesn't solve the problem, but if money is the only thing preventing search engines from accessing Reddit, then what goes for Google also goes for Microsoft.

Post by account42 » Thu, Jul 25, 2024, 12:42 PM UTC

animal_spirits wrote: post #301

Newlaptop wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Monopolies are entirely consistent with free market economics Not in the least. Literally in the first semester, Economics 101 type class that any business/economics/etc student would take, it would be covered clearly that monopolies are violations of free markets. A free market isn't a euphemism for anarchy or "no rules", it's a specific economic term. The things it is free of include artificial price floors or ce…

And many times the sources of these monopolies come from special privileges given out by governmental authorities, such as the U.S. FDA

Post by account42 » Thu, Jul 25, 2024, 1:22 PM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #152

Ajedi32 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you see it as 'their' data (legally true) Is that actually true? Reddit may indeed have a license to use that data (derived from their ToS), but I very much doubt they actually own the copyright to it. If I write a comment on Reddit, then copy-paste it somewhere else, can Reddit sue me for copyright infringement?

They own a non-exclusive worldwide right to it. You own the copyright, they have a license to use it however they see fit.

Post by account42 » Thu, Jul 25, 2024, 1:28 PM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #35

JohnMakin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One (in this case, 2) company's incentive for profit should not take priority over the usability/well being of the internet as a whole, ever, and is exactly why we are where we are now. This is an absolutely terrible precedent.

I agree with you in theory, but in practice someone has to pay for all this magic.

Post by account42 » Thu, Jul 25, 2024, 1:36 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #191

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We did. As in we, the Internet, existed for a long time without anyone making money and we paid for the privilege. Websites were built and hosted at owner's expense, for years, with no expectation that they be financially rewarded. Sure some would run donation drives, or work with sponsors relevant to the community in question, but a whole ton, mine included, just cost me a lot of money over many years. Those website…

>Websites don't cost that much to run. Popular websites that allow user content to be uploaded or linked do cost that much to run, due to content moderation. There might be a small (relatively) forum here and there that a few good moderators are willing to slave away at keeping clean, but you will never see a website that allows user content with as many users as Reddit/Youtube/Instagram/etc be cheap. Although, due t…