3 ms·
I must be misunderstanding this. People are supposed to pay for the privilege of potentially driving traffic to a site that features ads? Is the reasoning that
by Thriptic 8y ago
I must be misunderstanding this. People are supposed to pay for the privilege of potentially driving traffic to a site that features ads? Is the reasoning that aggregators could just summarize the content and negate the need to go to the original provider?
- Thorrez 8y agoAIUI, the phrase "link tax" isn't really correct, because it doesn't apply if you just link. It applies if you copy the headline or a snippet.
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoExactly. They're going after companies which scrape all of the value out of a website to move revenue to their own websites: https://theoutline.com/post/1399/how-google-ate-celebritynetworth-com?zd=1&zi=3bsyuo4t https://theoutline.com/post/1399/how-google-ate-celebritynet... Knowledge Graph is the target here, not sites which actually drive revenue to the actual site owners. The EU is looking to protect the Internet by ensuring independent websites have protection and legal recourse from abuse by big tech.
- luma 8y agoThey're going after the companies that actually drive the traffic. If Google News, Hacker News, Reddit, etc isn't linking me to your site... I'm never ever ever going to see your site. You still get the page views, ad revenue, etc when someone else sends me to your site, so what's the beef?