8 ms·

...what Article 11 is really about is that the European contentmafia wants to collect taxes from Google. We've already seen how that played out when Spain intr

...what Article 11 is really about is that the European contentmafia wants to collect taxes from Google. We've already seen how that played out when Spain introduced something like this on the level of national law. IIRC, Google retaliated by taking Spanish media companies' content out of the index which is something that advertising clients of those media companies were less than pleased about, and a deal was quickly reached between Google and them, saying that Google didn't have to pay. So, what it will really do will be to create a monopoly enshrined in law, that news aggregation and search is a business you can only be in, if you already wield Google-esque influence over the world of media. Which is wrong. It's just wrong, on so many levels.

Angostura 8y ago
To raise a counterpoint, the point where I though Google as a Search engine started being "a bit evil" was the point where it stopped redirecting users to search result websites, and instead started displaying content on its own pages, in the form of snippets, thus reducing traffic to those cites. I don't deny the util of being able to see movie times without having to click through, or a businesses contact details, but the effective redirection of traffic with reduction in site's ad revenue of whatever feels 'wrong'.
- jbob2000 8y ago
  What’s wrong is that entire kingdoms were built around “snippets”; low value content that is simple and short and doesn’t really need anything more than a table (movie times) or a few short sentences (recap of events aka “news”).
  - jonathanstrange 8y ago
    Somebody still has to write them. (Although AI is catching up.)
- greggman 8y ago
  from a user perspective that seems like a complete win. I'm not quite convinced the marginal value of offering that data is worth any kind of compensation. Movie times seems like something movie theaters would want to give out for free and that ideally there would be a standard feed format for that data. News blurb also seems rational to me. If I only need the headline I shouldn't have a go to the site. The headlines will be all over twitter and Facebook as people share with their friends so it's hard to see how Google is doing any harm here. If I want to read the details then I'd click through to the site. Heck i come to HN and scan the headlines and only occasionally click through to the actual article. This topic for example I have not clicked through. Does that make HN evil?
  - Fnoord 8y ago
    > Heck i come to HN and scan the headlines and only occasionally click through to the actual article. This topic for example I have not clicked through. Does that make HN evil? No, because copying titles is a very normal way to refer to something. Heck, even quoting is, as long as its done in proportion. But caching entire websites (such as Google Cache)? Copyright infringement. If it weren't for the fact that it is caching and therefore OK. Usenet providers attempted to argue usenet servers are also just caches, but I'm not sure if/how far that one has flied.
    - fjsolwmv 8y ago
      Google cache is not infringement, because Google respects robots.txt and because it only caches content made freely available by the publisher. Advertising is a business model, not part of the license agreement of a non-consentwalled website.
  - Angostura 8y ago
    Don't get me wrong, from a user point of view it is. Nonetheless, it impacts the business, no-doubt. A movie theatre may want to embed adverts for other films down the side of its listings, it may have other reasons for wanting people to actually visit its site. Google isn't doing harm from a user perspective, but it palpably is doing harm from a content provider's point of view by screen-scraping the content and repackaging it as its own.

Angostura 8y ago

To raise a counterpoint, the point where I though Google as a Search engine started being "a bit evil" was the point where it stopped redirecting users to search result websites, and instead started displaying content on its own pages, in the form of snippets, thus reducing traffic to those cites. I don't deny the util of being able to see movie times without having to click through, or a businesses contact details, but the effective redirection of traffic with reduction in site's ad revenue of whatever feels 'wrong'.

jbob2000 8y ago
What’s wrong is that entire kingdoms were built around “snippets”; low value content that is simple and short and doesn’t really need anything more than a table (movie times) or a few short sentences (recap of events aka “news”).
- jonathanstrange 8y ago
  Somebody still has to write them. (Although AI is catching up.)
greggman 8y ago
from a user perspective that seems like a complete win. I'm not quite convinced the marginal value of offering that data is worth any kind of compensation. Movie times seems like something movie theaters would want to give out for free and that ideally there would be a standard feed format for that data. News blurb also seems rational to me. If I only need the headline I shouldn't have a go to the site. The headlines will be all over twitter and Facebook as people share with their friends so it's hard to see how Google is doing any harm here. If I want to read the details then I'd click through to the site. Heck i come to HN and scan the headlines and only occasionally click through to the actual article. This topic for example I have not clicked through. Does that make HN evil?
- Fnoord 8y ago
  > Heck i come to HN and scan the headlines and only occasionally click through to the actual article. This topic for example I have not clicked through. Does that make HN evil? No, because copying titles is a very normal way to refer to something. Heck, even quoting is, as long as its done in proportion. But caching entire websites (such as Google Cache)? Copyright infringement. If it weren't for the fact that it is caching and therefore OK. Usenet providers attempted to argue usenet servers are also just caches, but I'm not sure if/how far that one has flied.
  - fjsolwmv 8y ago
    Google cache is not infringement, because Google respects robots.txt and because it only caches content made freely available by the publisher. Advertising is a business model, not part of the license agreement of a non-consentwalled website.
- Angostura 8y ago
  Don't get me wrong, from a user point of view it is. Nonetheless, it impacts the business, no-doubt. A movie theatre may want to embed adverts for other films down the side of its listings, it may have other reasons for wanting people to actually visit its site. Google isn't doing harm from a user perspective, but it palpably is doing harm from a content provider's point of view by screen-scraping the content and repackaging it as its own.