10 ms·

>> Article 11, requiring online platforms to pay publishers a fee if they link to their news content, was also approved. >What the fucking FUCK? This does not

>> Article 11, requiring online platforms to pay publishers a fee if they link to their news content, was also approved. >What the fucking FUCK? This does not surprise me! If your site has for example 5 article titles from CNN, linking all of them to original CNN articles, probably you have more benefit from that than CNN. People this days like to skim through titles and not even bothering to read full articles, to click link.

vorpalhex 8y ago
So then obviously CNN should never write an article again and isn't a profitable business... That is complete and utter nonsense. Linking itself adds value - see the uproar with Facebook getting rid of news in the feed. If the publishers genuinely felt as you do, they would simply prevent content being linked to by Google News/etc. Instead they want to demand payment for it, and force the behavior instead of letting Google choose cheaper news sources to link to.
- hoppelhase 8y ago
  That's why we have so much clickbait.
  - c12 8y ago
    Hmm... so maybe it's not all bad? If it gets rid of clickbait ;)
- Scarblac 8y ago
  If a single publisher chooses to do that, they only hurt themselves, Google is far too big. If it's forced for all publishers, it might actually have an effect.
  - stvswn 8y ago
    Then why pass a law? If what you say is true, the publishers could enter alliances with each other and block Google with robots.txt until Google agrees to pay. I believe the answer is that some MEPs don't really care if it "works" or not, because they can blame Google when Google blocks traffic. They want to be seen as standing up to American tech companies.
timrichard 8y ago
So here the BBC derives benefit, but doesn't fall under the regulations if there aren't clickable links? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers
tyfon 8y ago
That's one of the reasons I frequent this site, so I don't have to wade through dozen bad homepages laden with adds to find interesting articles. And it is also why I used RSS in the past but I wonder how that will be handled.

vorpalhex 8y ago

So then obviously CNN should never write an article again and isn't a profitable business... That is complete and utter nonsense. Linking itself adds value - see the uproar with Facebook getting rid of news in the feed. If the publishers genuinely felt as you do, they would simply prevent content being linked to by Google News/etc. Instead they want to demand payment for it, and force the behavior instead of letting Google choose cheaper news sources to link to.

hoppelhase 8y ago
That's why we have so much clickbait.
- c12 8y ago
  Hmm... so maybe it's not all bad? If it gets rid of clickbait ;)
Scarblac 8y ago
If a single publisher chooses to do that, they only hurt themselves, Google is far too big. If it's forced for all publishers, it might actually have an effect.
- stvswn 8y ago
  Then why pass a law? If what you say is true, the publishers could enter alliances with each other and block Google with robots.txt until Google agrees to pay. I believe the answer is that some MEPs don't really care if it "works" or not, because they can blame Google when Google blocks traffic. They want to be seen as standing up to American tech companies.

timrichard 8y ago

So here the BBC derives benefit, but doesn't fall under the regulations if there aren't clickable links? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers

tyfon 8y ago

That's one of the reasons I frequent this site, so I don't have to wade through dozen bad homepages laden with adds to find interesting articles. And it is also why I used RSS in the past but I wonder how that will be handled.