12 ms·

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 t

by 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.
- efdee 8y ago
  But that logic also applies to search in general (in fact, it applies even more there, because Google actually makes money off ads on search but not off news). I call it greed because news websites have always had the option to exclude themselves from Google if they want to. But they don't, because it's actually a net positive for them. They just want Google's money on top of that.
  - simias 8y ago
    I think there are notable differences between search and news. News is more like HN or Reddit. That's a subtle difference though and I can see why you could say that it's effectively equivalent. >I call it greed because news websites have always had the option to exclude themselves from Google if they want to. But they don't, because it's actually a net positive for them. They just want Google's money on top of that. I think that the main reason I object to the word "greed" is because it's no secret that most news organizations are struggling to stay afloat these days, so can you really call somebody "greedy" when it's potentially a matter of life or death? Saying that they're doing it in bad faith or that they're barking at the wrong tree would sit better with me I think.
- knorker 8y ago
  I agree with all that except it should be clearer that Google doesn't gain anything (except PR?) from actually running Google News. There are no ads on it. Google probably does gain from people logging in (though you can use Google News without logging in, it probably does cause people to log in, even if just a little more). If the newspaper has ads from Google, then Google does take a cut (that's the business logic), and arguably Google News is similar to the newspaper buying ads on Google Search, except they don't have to pay. People do pay for Google Search ads to drive traffic to their site, and for newspapers that probably gives them ad revenue and signups. Newspapers get a similar service from Google News for free. "Should Google (or anyone else) pay newspapers in order to run a news aggregation service" really boils down to "how much $ is a login worth to Google"? It becomes a formula: Google News value to google = google_news_users_per_month * fraction_not_logged_in * fraction_who log_in_because_of_google_news * value_of_a_login_to_google Let's guess some numbers: 1M * 0.7 * 0.2 * $0.01 = $1400 per month If Google has to pay developers, server infrastructure, AND newspapers more than $1400 then Google loses money on this and SHOULD turn down the product. I say this as a shareholder of GOOG: If it doesn't make financial sense then stop wasting my money. (but yes, there's also brand value) PS: Yes, there's one more value to Google, and that's the general: "More Internet use is a benefit to Google because any increase of Internet use will have a fraction on it go to sites that have Google ads on them". But saying that's bad is as if Google were to give free Internet, and people would demand that Google pay to give free Internet to people, because users would browse to sites where many of them would have Google ads on them.
  - CaptainZapp 8y ago
    I agree with all that except it should be clearer that Google doesn't gain anything (except PR?) from actually running Google News. I'm pretty sure they use News as part of their tracking efforts. Being an extremely tight lipped and secretive company this point would be extremely hard to prove. But given their history of shutting down unprofitable properties I would be surprised if they just provide this service for altruistic reasons.
    - knorker 8y ago
      > But given their history of shutting down unprofitable properties I would be surprised if they just provide this service for altruistic reasons. Google News was ostensibly started for altruistic reasons, because on 2001-09-11 ALL news websites went down under the load. In 2018 news websites maybe are more behind cloudflare/akamai and would be able to handle load, so less relevant technically. But to say that altruistic reason would surprise you because of this history is extremely cynical. Even by my standards.
np_tedious 8y ago
For plain old linking, I think you're right. But for AMP and the search algo boost that comes with it, this complaint is kind of justified isn't it?

by efdee 8y ago

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.

efdee 8y ago
But that logic also applies to search in general (in fact, it applies even more there, because Google actually makes money off ads on search but not off news). I call it greed because news websites have always had the option to exclude themselves from Google if they want to. But they don't, because it's actually a net positive for them. They just want Google's money on top of that.
- simias 8y ago
  I think there are notable differences between search and news. News is more like HN or Reddit. That's a subtle difference though and I can see why you could say that it's effectively equivalent. >I call it greed because news websites have always had the option to exclude themselves from Google if they want to. But they don't, because it's actually a net positive for them. They just want Google's money on top of that. I think that the main reason I object to the word "greed" is because it's no secret that most news organizations are struggling to stay afloat these days, so can you really call somebody "greedy" when it's potentially a matter of life or death? Saying that they're doing it in bad faith or that they're barking at the wrong tree would sit better with me I think.
knorker 8y ago
I agree with all that except it should be clearer that Google doesn't gain anything (except PR?) from actually running Google News. There are no ads on it. Google probably does gain from people logging in (though you can use Google News without logging in, it probably does cause people to log in, even if just a little more). If the newspaper has ads from Google, then Google does take a cut (that's the business logic), and arguably Google News is similar to the newspaper buying ads on Google Search, except they don't have to pay. People do pay for Google Search ads to drive traffic to their site, and for newspapers that probably gives them ad revenue and signups. Newspapers get a similar service from Google News for free. "Should Google (or anyone else) pay newspapers in order to run a news aggregation service" really boils down to "how much $ is a login worth to Google"? It becomes a formula: Google News value to google = google_news_users_per_month * fraction_not_logged_in * fraction_who log_in_because_of_google_news * value_of_a_login_to_google Let's guess some numbers: 1M * 0.7 * 0.2 * $0.01 = $1400 per month If Google has to pay developers, server infrastructure, AND newspapers more than $1400 then Google loses money on this and SHOULD turn down the product. I say this as a shareholder of GOOG: If it doesn't make financial sense then stop wasting my money. (but yes, there's also brand value) PS: Yes, there's one more value to Google, and that's the general: "More Internet use is a benefit to Google because any increase of Internet use will have a fraction on it go to sites that have Google ads on them". But saying that's bad is as if Google were to give free Internet, and people would demand that Google pay to give free Internet to people, because users would browse to sites where many of them would have Google ads on them.
- CaptainZapp 8y ago
  I agree with all that except it should be clearer that Google doesn't gain anything (except PR?) from actually running Google News. I'm pretty sure they use News as part of their tracking efforts. Being an extremely tight lipped and secretive company this point would be extremely hard to prove. But given their history of shutting down unprofitable properties I would be surprised if they just provide this service for altruistic reasons.
  - knorker 8y ago
    > But given their history of shutting down unprofitable properties I would be surprised if they just provide this service for altruistic reasons. Google News was ostensibly started for altruistic reasons, because on 2001-09-11 ALL news websites went down under the load. In 2018 news websites maybe are more behind cloudflare/akamai and would be able to handle load, so less relevant technically. But to say that altruistic reason would surprise you because of this history is extremely cynical. Even by my standards.

np_tedious 8y ago

For plain old linking, I think you're right. But for AMP and the search algo boost that comes with it, this complaint is kind of justified isn't it?