5 ms·

Unfortunately, there isn’t a vibrant free web. Wikipedia is about the only major non-ad supported website that normal people visit. Most user content is probabl

Unfortunately, there isn’t a vibrant free web. Wikipedia is about the only major non-ad supported website that normal people visit. Most user content is probably on Facebook or Medium. Most breaking news is first available on twitter. Even independent websites, most likely have Google analytics and Google ads. From a European point of view, the current copyright situation is just a wealth transfer from European companies who have the copyrights, to American advertising companies.

HippoBaro 8y ago
My thought exactly. If there is a `vibrant free web`, I can't see it.
- nine_k 8y ago
  Look at this very site. People link here a lot, quote here a lot, and sometimes say controversial things here. If every submission had to be pre-moderated, and royalty paid for every substantial quotation, this site would be very different, and definitely less vibrant and free.
  - jandrese 8y ago
    If every submission had to be checked by a copyright cop first this site wouldn't exist. Message boards in general wouldn't exist. It would take way too much manpower to run, especially if you have to worry about things like song lyrics in the post and handling multiple languages.
    - nine_k 8y ago
      Quoting TFA: «Article 13; which seeks to shift liability for platform users’ copyright infringements onto the platforms themselves — and which critics contend will therefore push them towards creating upload filters to monitor all content before it’s posted» Emphasis mine.
mlinksva 8y ago
Taxing ads seems like a better intervention than what is proposed.
- petre 8y ago
  But ads are taxed since ad based revenue is subject to tax.
  - davemp 8y ago
    OP is clearly talking about a targeted tax to lower profit margins on ads in order to incentivize developing other monetization schemes.
adventured 8y ago
> Wikipedia is about the only major non-ad supported website that normal people visit. Which costs $69 million per year to operate, has 300+ employees and requires six million donations. Your example also isn't free. > Most user content is probably on Facebook or Medium Medium is less than 1% the size of Wordpress, both in terms of traffic and amount of content. The majority of all content on Wordpress sites is ad free. The consumer is paying for all of it in one manner or another. If it's a donation, it's coming out of your pocket. If it's an ad, it's data about you being monetized. There is no such thing as free if you're talking about something the size of Wikipedia or similar services.
- falcor84 8y ago
  I'm not sure what you're implying, but I would say that $69 million per year is incredibly small compared to the amazing benefit that Wikipedia provides the world. Also, this money comes out of the pockets of people like myself who are happy to sponsor it for everyone else. I personally love this patronage model and would be happy to sponsor an ad-free open-access newspaper in a similar way, if I found one that I had confidence in.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    That's a silly way to value Wikipedia IMO. Fire is useful, so everyone who uses fire should pay a company some money? No, that's clearly mad. No matter how useful it is if it's poorly optimised or over costly then we should do better, not settle because it's already a great RoI.
    - craftyguy 8y ago
      Your analogy is silly. Fire is free to make (discounting the extremely little time/effort to make it). Hosting an online encyclopedia with low latency, moderation, etc is not.
      - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
        Fire costs resources and produces costly environmental impacts, in many of the ways we make it it's an engineering marvel (ICE for example), but yeah it's not the greatest analogy.
kodablah 8y ago
Where you think most content is, or where most content actually is, should have nothing to do with laws targeting all content. To say that there isn't a vibrant free web and counter with what is the majority makes me think you meant to say that a vibrant free web isn't the majority instead of completely, 100% non-existent. Lots of us have sites and stuff out here, and once again the EU is only looking at one big goose to make laws, albeit well intentioned, that will affect the rest of us here in the gander. Always more laws, always more rules, always unintended consequences and lax enforcement; the wise just ignore these governments crying wolf again.
raverbashing 8y ago
Funny how the "big bad American companies" will be the only ones capable of following the draconian laws on filtering and blocking content. If anything they will make more money, not less. Not to mention the absurdity of the link tax, I'm thinking that could be the last nail on the coffin of traditional media.

HippoBaro 8y ago

My thought exactly. If there is a `vibrant free web`, I can't see it.

nine_k 8y ago
Look at this very site. People link here a lot, quote here a lot, and sometimes say controversial things here. If every submission had to be pre-moderated, and royalty paid for every substantial quotation, this site would be very different, and definitely less vibrant and free.
- jandrese 8y ago
  If every submission had to be checked by a copyright cop first this site wouldn't exist. Message boards in general wouldn't exist. It would take way too much manpower to run, especially if you have to worry about things like song lyrics in the post and handling multiple languages.
  - nine_k 8y ago
    Quoting TFA: «Article 13; which seeks to shift liability for platform users’ copyright infringements onto the platforms themselves — and which critics contend will therefore push them towards creating upload filters to monitor all content before it’s posted» Emphasis mine.

mlinksva 8y ago

Taxing ads seems like a better intervention than what is proposed.

petre 8y ago
But ads are taxed since ad based revenue is subject to tax.
- davemp 8y ago
  OP is clearly talking about a targeted tax to lower profit margins on ads in order to incentivize developing other monetization schemes.

adventured 8y ago

> Wikipedia is about the only major non-ad supported website that normal people visit. Which costs $69 million per year to operate, has 300+ employees and requires six million donations. Your example also isn't free. > Most user content is probably on Facebook or Medium Medium is less than 1% the size of Wordpress, both in terms of traffic and amount of content. The majority of all content on Wordpress sites is ad free. The consumer is paying for all of it in one manner or another. If it's a donation, it's coming out of your pocket. If it's an ad, it's data about you being monetized. There is no such thing as free if you're talking about something the size of Wikipedia or similar services.

falcor84 8y ago
I'm not sure what you're implying, but I would say that $69 million per year is incredibly small compared to the amazing benefit that Wikipedia provides the world. Also, this money comes out of the pockets of people like myself who are happy to sponsor it for everyone else. I personally love this patronage model and would be happy to sponsor an ad-free open-access newspaper in a similar way, if I found one that I had confidence in.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  That's a silly way to value Wikipedia IMO. Fire is useful, so everyone who uses fire should pay a company some money? No, that's clearly mad. No matter how useful it is if it's poorly optimised or over costly then we should do better, not settle because it's already a great RoI.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    Your analogy is silly. Fire is free to make (discounting the extremely little time/effort to make it). Hosting an online encyclopedia with low latency, moderation, etc is not.
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      Fire costs resources and produces costly environmental impacts, in many of the ways we make it it's an engineering marvel (ICE for example), but yeah it's not the greatest analogy.

kodablah 8y ago

Where you think most content is, or where most content actually is, should have nothing to do with laws targeting all content. To say that there isn't a vibrant free web and counter with what is the majority makes me think you meant to say that a vibrant free web isn't the majority instead of completely, 100% non-existent. Lots of us have sites and stuff out here, and once again the EU is only looking at one big goose to make laws, albeit well intentioned, that will affect the rest of us here in the gander. Always more laws, always more rules, always unintended consequences and lax enforcement; the wise just ignore these governments crying wolf again.

raverbashing 8y ago

Funny how the "big bad American companies" will be the only ones capable of following the draconian laws on filtering and blocking content. If anything they will make more money, not less. Not to mention the absurdity of the link tax, I'm thinking that could be the last nail on the coffin of traditional media.