5 ms·

We can certainly argue if the "link tax" is a good idea. Google, however, playing the hurt and wounded entity because they're no more able to leech "free" cont

We can certainly argue if the "link tax" is a good idea. Google, however, playing the hurt and wounded entity because they're no more able to leech "free" content to make a killing is, well, not very plausible. Don't want to provide EU users with Google News? Well, good bye and good riddance.

vetinari 8y ago
As a fellow European I think that Google shutting down it's news service for EU is a good thing, but for entirely different reason that yours. Many of these news services do not have the audience, they are getting it from Google. It is nonsensical, that you would bring the eyeballs, and have to pay for the privilege. Google should them deny any promotion or traffic, let them stand on their own feet.
- dbmyh 8y ago
  >Many of these news services do not have the audience, they are getting it from Google I don't understand. Where are they supposed to be getting the audience from? Do you consider clicks from Google to be worthless? Are clicks from Facebook any better?
  - Brotkrumen 8y ago
    He means that smaller publishers don't have a brand yet where people just browse directly to their site. Those smaller publishers get a disproportionate share of views when one of their article trends on google news.
    - mcv 8y ago
      I guess the only solution for news sites now is massive mergers into a handful of news giants that do have the brand name to stand on their own without needing links from aggregators. Of course it would help a lot if they also dramatically revised the way they offer their content on the internet. Many news sites are rather awful.
    - candiodari 8y ago
      Look at their financial reports. Unless by "smaller" you mean 99.5% or more of them, you're inaccurate. The only news services that would survive this regulation are the public/subsidized ones, pretty much. Maybe that's exactly the goal: eliminate independent press.
  - vetinari 8y ago
    Exactly opposite. They are getting their traffic from aggregators (does not matter whether Google, Facebook or anyone else), they do not have brands with big enough recognition to stand on their own. In the eshop part of the web, there are price aggregators and the eshops pay them for the traffic they are getting, i.e. exactly opposite as the news publishers demand. It would be nonsense, if the eshops demanded that the aggregators pay them, because they make use of data of their sortiment or whatever. Even Amazon pays for the referrals, it is not being paid by the referrals for the privilege of being one. It was always that he, who brings the customers, is getting paid for that. Not vice-versa.
calgoo 8y ago
As someone living in Spain i have been without the Google News service for several years now and personally i don't mind at all. I just consume less news, and when there is something important its just one search away (or just going directly to one of the local papers website).
- sharpneli 8y ago
  Doesn’t this validate Googles point. You are visiting less thus bringing the news sites less page views and thus less ad income.
  - mike22223333 8y ago
    No. This means less click bait. Ad revenue is a zero sum game mostly. The shit news site are no longer able to clickbait in Google news. More share of money goes to publishers despite less traffic. Clicbaiters lose.
    - dmortin 8y ago
      People keep searching for news with Google, the clickbait is still there for google searches.
endymi0n 8y ago
Google won't lose much from this, the reaction was entirely forseeable. I'm much more worried about aggregators acting in the EU and having no eternal fountain of revenue like Adsense to withdraw back to. Now that the regulation would finally be there, a giant swarm of rent seeking publishers will move on to these local players in order to extract at least some revenue from someone, potentially killing a whole industry. I'm running an aggregator and just the administration effort and legal exposure of being forced to make a deal with every single "content owner" out there (for giving them free traffic in the first place) would make me consider to shut down completely in the EU.
mcv 8y ago
What is Google leeching here exactly? They're providing a free service: driving traffic to news sites. If they have to pay for providing that free service, of course they're going to stop doing it. Apparently the EU thinks news sites are sufficiently well known to not need Google for traffic. Keep in mind that Google News doesn't show ads.
emayljames 8y ago
And is hopefully a death knell to their awful amp standard. I see amp as Google's play (pun) to shape how the WWW works, in a lop-sided, selfish manner.
comboy 8y ago
I really dislike many things about Google lately. But I still would rather have their services instead of EU regulation. We had quite a few experiments through out the history where central entity could decide what's best for citizens. Those did not end well. So how about, if you don't like Google News, just don't use it. You don't need any EU regulation for that.
- CaptainZapp 8y ago
  I rather have democratically elected entites decide how to regulate than tech giants deciding what not to regulate. The "just don't use it" doesn't cut it. I don't use Facebook (or any of their products). It still very much affects - and has a direct impact on my life. Edit : Added paragraph 2
  - comboy 8y ago
    Can you elaborate on FB having direct impact on your life? I mean BMW has some impact on your life even if you don't drive them, but I'm guessing you have something more specific in mind.
    - CaptainZapp 8y ago
      There are so many examples: Let's begin with shadow profiles of non users. Despite the fact that I didn't sign up they still store my data and track me. Facebook being abused as a conduit to manipulate elections and as means for nefarious propaganda concerns all of us. You don't need to be a Facebook user to be directly impacted by the toxic effects of populism on society fostered by them Further, it's a poison to society by allowing hate speech (but not pictures of breast feeding mothers) to be disseminated on a massive scale As a human being it concerns me when Facebook is used to support genocide and to aid an abet the silencing of critics in countries like Cambodia or The Philippines As a Jew I feel personally attacked when the highest echelons of the company blow the most vile, antisemtic dog whistles currently available I believe that all those things (and much more) affects my life a lot more than people driving BMWs.
tomp 8y ago
Each individual publisher can choose to not have Google "leech" their content [1]. The EU government forcing this on the market/population isn't very good governance. [1] https://support.google.com/news/publisher-center/answer/93977?hl=en&vid=0-1480790971667-1542797696930 https://support.google.com/news/publisher-center/answer/9397...
- emayljames 8y ago
  Then again, it is a bad thing that a megacorp can run a news service that has no creation itself (leeching) and decides who is shown and forcing websites to use their awful amp websites.
knorker 8y ago
> leech "free" content Google News doesn't (in itself) have revenue. No ads. If you'd said Google Search or Youtube, then that's a completely different thing. Those are multi-billion dollar products, and I suppose your argument is that Google doesn't add any value between site/youtuber and customer? But Google News? It's one thing to have a service for free. It's another to force someone to pay to run a free service. "Playing the hurt"? I have seen zero indication of that. All I've seen is "Shrug, if that's the rules you make then a product like this cannot exist. We'll shut it, then". I don't use Google News, myself. > Well, good bye and good riddance. People who like this kind of product (that now cannot exist) and news sites, would disagree. E.g. see what happened in Germany when the link tax was introduced. You may not like it, but users (clearly… I mean they used it) and news sites do. And now it's a thing that can't exist in the EU.
- efdee 8y ago
  News sites complain about Google stealing their content, which is why the law came into existance in the first place. Which is, of course, ridiculous, because they profit a lot from the eyeballs sent their way by Google. It's just plain greed, and I'd rather have Google shut down their news service instead of getting some unholy exemption which would stiffle innovation in the news gathering area.
  - simias 8y ago
    Even though I'm not in favor of this law I understand the point of view of the news outlets. Basically it's a team effort: Google aggregates the news which gives users a convenient entry point to access articles that interests them from a variety of websites but of course that wouldn't be possible if journalists didn't write the articles in the first place. Google wins by having more people use their services and log into their Google account, news outlets wins by reaching a larger audience through Google. But then, from the point of view of the news outlets, the benefits from this arrangement are not split fairly because they're the ones who do the hard and expensive part (writing the articles, investigating etc...) while Google merely links to them while making money from ads and collecting user data. If they're lucky the user may end up clicking on the headline to actually access the website, and then if they don't have an ad blocker they may generate a couple of ad impressions. Basically they're left with the scraps even though they're the one who actually did most of the actual work. Now I think the link tax is a bad solution to this issue but I also think it's not completely fair to call news agencies "greedy" in a blanket statement. The business model of journalism in the internet era is still very much an open question.
dingaling 8y ago
There is no 'link tax'. You can paste a target URL anywhere you like along with descriptive words. What there is: a restriction on quoting from the article.
dingaling 8y ago
There is no 'link tax'. You can paste a target URL anywhere you like along with descriptive words. What there is: a restriction on quoting from the article. That will hurt automated aggregators, certainly. But not hand-curated sites or blogs.
- dghf 8y ago
  > There is no 'link tax'. You can paste a target URL anywhere you like along with descriptive words. What there is: a restriction on quoting from the article. Well, that depends on what is meant by "quoting from the article". The EFF believes that the proposed wording is so vague that some bare URLs might be covered: > The Directive is extremely vague on what defines a "link" or a "news story" and implies that an "excerpt" consists of more than one single word from a news-story (many URLs contain more than a single word from the headline). Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/10/eus-link-tax-will-kill-open-access-and-creative-commons-news https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/10/eus-link-tax-will-kill...
tim333 8y ago
>good bye and good riddance. I use it all the time and would miss it. I have no desire for the EU to regulate useful, free, non profit services out of my life.
- llampx 8y ago
  This is not a scrappy startup though, this is Google. They are anything but non profit.
Kiro 8y ago
Speak for yourself. For me, Google News shutting down in Europe would be a disaster.

vetinari 8y ago

As a fellow European I think that Google shutting down it's news service for EU is a good thing, but for entirely different reason that yours. Many of these news services do not have the audience, they are getting it from Google. It is nonsensical, that you would bring the eyeballs, and have to pay for the privilege. Google should them deny any promotion or traffic, let them stand on their own feet.

dbmyh 8y ago
>Many of these news services do not have the audience, they are getting it from Google I don't understand. Where are they supposed to be getting the audience from? Do you consider clicks from Google to be worthless? Are clicks from Facebook any better?
- Brotkrumen 8y ago
  He means that smaller publishers don't have a brand yet where people just browse directly to their site. Those smaller publishers get a disproportionate share of views when one of their article trends on google news.
  - mcv 8y ago
    I guess the only solution for news sites now is massive mergers into a handful of news giants that do have the brand name to stand on their own without needing links from aggregators. Of course it would help a lot if they also dramatically revised the way they offer their content on the internet. Many news sites are rather awful.
  - candiodari 8y ago
    Look at their financial reports. Unless by "smaller" you mean 99.5% or more of them, you're inaccurate. The only news services that would survive this regulation are the public/subsidized ones, pretty much. Maybe that's exactly the goal: eliminate independent press.
- vetinari 8y ago
  Exactly opposite. They are getting their traffic from aggregators (does not matter whether Google, Facebook or anyone else), they do not have brands with big enough recognition to stand on their own. In the eshop part of the web, there are price aggregators and the eshops pay them for the traffic they are getting, i.e. exactly opposite as the news publishers demand. It would be nonsense, if the eshops demanded that the aggregators pay them, because they make use of data of their sortiment or whatever. Even Amazon pays for the referrals, it is not being paid by the referrals for the privilege of being one. It was always that he, who brings the customers, is getting paid for that. Not vice-versa.

calgoo 8y ago

As someone living in Spain i have been without the Google News service for several years now and personally i don't mind at all. I just consume less news, and when there is something important its just one search away (or just going directly to one of the local papers website).

sharpneli 8y ago
Doesn’t this validate Googles point. You are visiting less thus bringing the news sites less page views and thus less ad income.
- mike22223333 8y ago
  No. This means less click bait. Ad revenue is a zero sum game mostly. The shit news site are no longer able to clickbait in Google news. More share of money goes to publishers despite less traffic. Clicbaiters lose.
  - dmortin 8y ago
    People keep searching for news with Google, the clickbait is still there for google searches.

endymi0n 8y ago

Google won't lose much from this, the reaction was entirely forseeable. I'm much more worried about aggregators acting in the EU and having no eternal fountain of revenue like Adsense to withdraw back to. Now that the regulation would finally be there, a giant swarm of rent seeking publishers will move on to these local players in order to extract at least some revenue from someone, potentially killing a whole industry. I'm running an aggregator and just the administration effort and legal exposure of being forced to make a deal with every single "content owner" out there (for giving them free traffic in the first place) would make me consider to shut down completely in the EU.

mcv 8y ago

What is Google leeching here exactly? They're providing a free service: driving traffic to news sites. If they have to pay for providing that free service, of course they're going to stop doing it. Apparently the EU thinks news sites are sufficiently well known to not need Google for traffic. Keep in mind that Google News doesn't show ads.

emayljames 8y ago

And is hopefully a death knell to their awful amp standard. I see amp as Google's play (pun) to shape how the WWW works, in a lop-sided, selfish manner.

comboy 8y ago

I really dislike many things about Google lately. But I still would rather have their services instead of EU regulation. We had quite a few experiments through out the history where central entity could decide what's best for citizens. Those did not end well. So how about, if you don't like Google News, just don't use it. You don't need any EU regulation for that.

CaptainZapp 8y ago
I rather have democratically elected entites decide how to regulate than tech giants deciding what not to regulate. The "just don't use it" doesn't cut it. I don't use Facebook (or any of their products). It still very much affects - and has a direct impact on my life. Edit : Added paragraph 2
- comboy 8y ago
  Can you elaborate on FB having direct impact on your life? I mean BMW has some impact on your life even if you don't drive them, but I'm guessing you have something more specific in mind.
  - CaptainZapp 8y ago
    There are so many examples: Let's begin with shadow profiles of non users. Despite the fact that I didn't sign up they still store my data and track me. Facebook being abused as a conduit to manipulate elections and as means for nefarious propaganda concerns all of us. You don't need to be a Facebook user to be directly impacted by the toxic effects of populism on society fostered by them Further, it's a poison to society by allowing hate speech (but not pictures of breast feeding mothers) to be disseminated on a massive scale As a human being it concerns me when Facebook is used to support genocide and to aid an abet the silencing of critics in countries like Cambodia or The Philippines As a Jew I feel personally attacked when the highest echelons of the company blow the most vile, antisemtic dog whistles currently available I believe that all those things (and much more) affects my life a lot more than people driving BMWs.

tomp 8y ago

Each individual publisher can choose to not have Google "leech" their content [1]. The EU government forcing this on the market/population isn't very good governance. [1] https://support.google.com/news/publisher-center/answer/93977?hl=en&vid=0-1480790971667-1542797696930 https://support.google.com/news/publisher-center/answer/9397...

emayljames 8y ago
Then again, it is a bad thing that a megacorp can run a news service that has no creation itself (leeching) and decides who is shown and forcing websites to use their awful amp websites.

knorker 8y ago

> leech "free" content Google News doesn't (in itself) have revenue. No ads. If you'd said Google Search or Youtube, then that's a completely different thing. Those are multi-billion dollar products, and I suppose your argument is that Google doesn't add any value between site/youtuber and customer? But Google News? It's one thing to have a service for free. It's another to force someone to pay to run a free service. "Playing the hurt"? I have seen zero indication of that. All I've seen is "Shrug, if that's the rules you make then a product like this cannot exist. We'll shut it, then". I don't use Google News, myself. > Well, good bye and good riddance. People who like this kind of product (that now cannot exist) and news sites, would disagree. E.g. see what happened in Germany when the link tax was introduced. You may not like it, but users (clearly… I mean they used it) and news sites do. And now it's a thing that can't exist in the EU.

efdee 8y ago
News sites complain about Google stealing their content, which is why the law came into existance in the first place. Which is, of course, ridiculous, because they profit a lot from the eyeballs sent their way by Google. It's just plain greed, and I'd rather have Google shut down their news service instead of getting some unholy exemption which would stiffle innovation in the news gathering area.
- simias 8y ago
  Even though I'm not in favor of this law I understand the point of view of the news outlets. Basically it's a team effort: Google aggregates the news which gives users a convenient entry point to access articles that interests them from a variety of websites but of course that wouldn't be possible if journalists didn't write the articles in the first place. Google wins by having more people use their services and log into their Google account, news outlets wins by reaching a larger audience through Google. But then, from the point of view of the news outlets, the benefits from this arrangement are not split fairly because they're the ones who do the hard and expensive part (writing the articles, investigating etc...) while Google merely links to them while making money from ads and collecting user data. If they're lucky the user may end up clicking on the headline to actually access the website, and then if they don't have an ad blocker they may generate a couple of ad impressions. Basically they're left with the scraps even though they're the one who actually did most of the actual work. Now I think the link tax is a bad solution to this issue but I also think it's not completely fair to call news agencies "greedy" in a blanket statement. The business model of journalism in the internet era is still very much an open question.

dingaling 8y ago

There is no 'link tax'. You can paste a target URL anywhere you like along with descriptive words. What there is: a restriction on quoting from the article.

dingaling 8y ago

There is no 'link tax'. You can paste a target URL anywhere you like along with descriptive words. What there is: a restriction on quoting from the article. That will hurt automated aggregators, certainly. But not hand-curated sites or blogs.

dghf 8y ago
> There is no 'link tax'. You can paste a target URL anywhere you like along with descriptive words. What there is: a restriction on quoting from the article. Well, that depends on what is meant by "quoting from the article". The EFF believes that the proposed wording is so vague that some bare URLs might be covered: > The Directive is extremely vague on what defines a "link" or a "news story" and implies that an "excerpt" consists of more than one single word from a news-story (many URLs contain more than a single word from the headline). Source: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/10/eus-link-tax-will-kill-open-access-and-creative-commons-news https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/10/eus-link-tax-will-kill...

tim333 8y ago

>good bye and good riddance. I use it all the time and would miss it. I have no desire for the EU to regulate useful, free, non profit services out of my life.

llampx 8y ago
This is not a scrappy startup though, this is Google. They are anything but non profit.

Kiro 8y ago

Speak for yourself. For me, Google News shutting down in Europe would be a disaster.