Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In 2020, two thirds of Google searches ended without a click

sparktoro.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–412 of 412 posts

Re: In 2020, two thirds of Google searches ended without a click

#411

Post by thephyber »

neolog wrote: post #284
thephyber wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has always respected robots.txt and has well documented how to restrict crawling. I don’t see it as anticompetitive so much as copyright violations. The fact that Google makes advert revenue using this strategy just contributes to damages. Anticompetitive would likely require Alphabet (and potentially other companies) from preventing users from accessing the original web page (which might be possible but more…

IIRC you can't copyright facts

IANAL, but my understanding is that an individual fact can’t be copyrighted, but an organized collection absolutely can be.

The example I remember is that A baseball game score can’t be copyrighted, but if you run a website that lists all of the baseball games throughout history and you gathered that data and did work to organize it (other than to scrape it from another collection), you have a claim to a copyright.

Re: In 2020, two thirds of Google searches ended without a click

#412

Post by joshspankit »

thephyber wrote: post #410
joshspankit wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now I’m curious: what would happen if someone had no idea that Google existed (insert wild reason here. I’m leaning towards lived in the woods for 40 years and self-hosts content without reading anything, like a hermited author)? Does Google still get to say “everyone knows we scrape your content” and “We have instructions about opting out”?

My take is that if you serve web content to unauthenticated clients, you must expect humans and robot users will look at, remember, and catalogue your content. To the extent that you want to control your content, you need to take measures to do so. Reject unauthenticated, assert copyright/trademark controls, or do some basic searching to implement open standards which most/all legal agents adhere to. The thought exer…

I feel like it might be dangerous to equate Google with societal laws, but you have some compelling arguments.

If I may counter to flesh this out:

Take books. Authors have copyright laws to protect the content but they also have to accept that humans will look at, remember, and catalog the content of their books.

And we ended up with libraries which catalog on a large scale, as well as laws that dictate how people can use the content of those books (especially when they do borrow them).

But Google could be considered as a company that borrows all the books, has people transcribe and file them, returns the books, and then advertises that they are “better than the library” because they have hired the best and fastest librarians in the world. However, they charge a cover fee. (In reality this fee is paid by advertisers, but it’s still there and Google is still a for-profit company)

I think that it would be hard to argue that that type of business is reasonable or expected, and to bring it back to the example of a content creator: I think many of us would push back if a reclusive author brought a manuscript back to the city after 20 years of being a hermit, had it turned in to a book, and then found out that every single person who read it did so without paying him, without him being able to connect with those readers, and without him even being able to know how many people because this for-profit library chose not to tell him.

Post reply on HN