3 ms·
I'd hope (?) that one outcome is 3rd party sass companies which are willing to do this screening (ala Sift Science) and potentially even insure to handle the ri
by milesskorpen 8y ago
I'd hope (?) that one outcome is 3rd party sass companies which are willing to do this screening (ala Sift Science) and potentially even insure to handle the risk (ala Climate Corp, which offers farmers insurance based on the outcomes of its models). If the EU has these laws, this could be a solid business model.
- drb91 8y agoYes, this can make jobs, and also some individuals very wealthy, but this is a net loss for the users of the internet: just another channel controlled by profit-seeking corporate motives.
- bduerst 8y agoYou'd probably see search engines & other traffic generators (e.g. reddit) simply vertically integrating into news itself, which nobody wants. For example, Microsoft already owns CBS interactive and would push more news traffic there with Bing results, rather than pay a link tax to third parties.
- izacus 8y agoThose companies already exist (they're intermediaries between large publishers and YT) and all they bring to the table is yet another layer of "it's not my fault, the computer says no" indirection and blame shifting. They add another huge source of false positives which will delete what you create with no accountability.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago> 3rd party sass companies which are willing to do this screening That’s not a technology business. It’s more like insurance. The principal balance sheet item would be legal liability. As a result, legal costs would be high. You’d need to capture most of publishers’ revenues, I think, to make the books balance.